Pricing for the desktop receiver? They really think they can charge for this?
How long does it take for them to be taken down because they were shopped? Seems all too common these days.
2.3x faster AF refers to the original or latest firmware of EOS-M?
Very impressive. I like to see people hack up old gears to make something fantastic.
24mm with a camera as big as NX20? It must be a very noisy place to not getting noticed.
EX-10:Weight (inc. batteries) 384 g (0.85 lb / 13.55 oz)Dimensions 120 x 68 x 49 mm (4.72 x 2.67 x 1.91?)
XZ-2:Weight (inc. batteries) 346 g (0.76 lb / 12.20 oz)Dimensions 113 x 65 x 48 mm (4.45 x 2.56 x 1.89?)
XZ-1:Weight (inc batt) • 275g / 9.2oz. (incl. Battery and card)Dimensions 111 x 65 x 42 mm (4.4 x 2.6 x 1.7")
Some how CASIO managed to make the camera even heavier and bigger!
tkbslc: Casio needs to get back in the game, but releasing an XZ-1 clone 3 years late doesn't impress anyone.
They should have gone with a big sensor or crazy fast prime or something unique.
It is more of an XZ-2 clone. 12MP BSI CMOS sensor and flip screen.
It is priced too expensively for open source community to pick it up.
If it is $500, this will sell like hot cakes. Developers will put every feature you can imagine on this camera.
If you position the camera horizontally, wouldn't the tripod tip off? Is the tiny tripod capable of countering the center of gravy shift?
oduis: As a 925 owner, I must say that the DXO Mark Mobile score does not reflect reality at all. The problem is probably that the DXO Mark take way too few camera attributes into account.
The 1020 has a much bigger sensor, so it allows a narrower depth of field. This makes a big difference in composing images (and that’s why people buy full and mid format cameras). DXO does not measure that.
The 1020 uses its much higher resolution to have digital 3x zoom, versus no zoom on my 925. Not taken into account at all by DXO Mark Mobile.
The 1020 will get DNG raw support, which opens a whole world of highlight recovery, noise reduction fine tuning, precision in shadows etc. in Lightroom. The DXO Mark Mobile does not measure that.
So to sum up, DXO Mark Mobile looks scientific but is pretty useless to determine real world camera capabilities.
With a short focal length, you can't do much background blur except for subjects within 1 ft or so. I don't see much of an advantage here.
I would even argue that most people using smartphone camera want deep DOF with everything in focus. So what you claim advantage may actually be a disadvantage.
Help us out here. Show us a JPG and RAW (w/ Adobe noise reduction and resampled to 5MP) side by side.
ianimal: Cool, and alot of work I guess.The thing got a baby:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkBDRUO8hAo
Amazing for light painting using a flashlight. This guy must be getting very good at drawing in thin air...
The video quality is awful especially when you compare with the video shot from by the cameraman. The frame rate is so low that it looks like stop motion. As if half of their camera phones are broken.
"lossless zoom" is anything but.
Maverick_: Amazing that this new GM1 is even smaller than their point and shoot LX7.
The LX7 is still smaller. You have to include the lens. It would still be difficult to fit the GM1 in pant pocket.
Looks like this is the M43's answer to SELP1650
I have no ideas there is amusement park in NK.
I heard a lot of good things about 5-axis image stabilization. But aren't you pushing the envelope with an exposure of "160sec"? :)
Give me a break! If you have to resort to skipping frames to report a news, you might as well not report at all.