Joseph Black: It's nice to know some companies choose deliberate development rather than the rapid release of poorly conceived gimmicks. Not to say Apple doesn't have a gimmick here and there, but when they do something they do it right.
That's your perspective. My perspective is that if you choose your OS based on your desires, Apple is your only choice for iOS and within that OS, choice again is very limited with less than a handful of models. Hence why their sales for single models are so high too, especially with a lock in and little exploration from owners outside their brand of previous choice.On the other hand, for example Samsung has competition within Android from more than a hundred (!) makers. Of which more than a dozen quite serious with worldwide sales networks. Yet Samsung still outsells Apple with about 1 out of 4 smartphones worldwide being Samsung. "Freaking amazing"?
Those internet statistics are usually flawed for browser registration being inaccurate, incomplete, locally lopsided etc. I've never put any value in them, but you obviously do. And FYI, Google doesn't force its customers to "point to their servers". In fact, most Android phones sold in Asia do no point to their servers to begin with.
@ SDPharm:Hmm, I'll repeat my exact words one more time:"Fine products but mostly hype as a result of marketing. "
So no, I didn't say that all these people bought into hype. I said they are mostly hype.
I have a private Galaxy phone and a year old iPhone from work. I know the differences, weaknesses and strengths. I also know that I didn't get the iPhone because of hype, but my workplace did. Others didn't. But marketing played a large role for many people's buying decisions, regardless of brand or OS. Hence the huge differences between market shares in different countries (even with similar levels for wealth).
As for your numbers:No idea why you're limiting things to the US, where statistics are not representative for worldwide use. At all. As of now, for every iPhone, there are about 7 Android phones being sold. Even in the higher end segment (>$400), they are now outsold by Android devices (with a 3 to 5 ratio).
falconeyes: Does the DPR article contain an error?
All iPhone 5-s and 6-s have 1.5 um pixels, 8 million of them. Their sensor sizes should be identical. BTW, this explains why the camera module has the exact same depth for all models and why it protudes with the thinner 6 models ...
Which would be physically impossible, knowing how close current senors are to the theoretical maximum for a single exposure.And in that last part, lies the key to Sony's claim. That sensor (for surveillance purposes, not consumer cameras), combines multiple exposures to begin with.
Easy words, until it impacts people financially and even in terms of technical infrastructure to quite some extend. Lack of choice is fine for as long as the products meet your needs. Beyond that, not so much. Which explains a lot of the disappointment from many dedicated customers right now.
" but making an operating system is a serious undertaking that Google has so kindly saved them from."
Not that simple. Many of the features added to Android over the past years, were actually developed by phone maker first and then in collaboration with Google implemented by default.
And as for accountants running companies, think of profit margins too.
Finally, it's not just good products that sells products, it's hype (branding, see huge differences between different countries, even in the developed West) and it's lock in too. I know many people who wanted to buy a large Android phone, but couldn't because they were heavily invested in the Apple eco system to: - make their TV work with their phone- make their audio system work with their phone- make their computer communicate with their phone betteretc.
"And of course, most people are stupid, as you implied."
Uh no. Most people don't use an iPhone to begin with, so how could I even imply that?
Fine products but mostly hype as a result of marketing. See Coca Cola as another example.
Peiasdf: A bit disappointed that it isn't all crazy with the specs but after using a LG G2 for a month in January and a Note 3 for 2 months just now, there is still no other choice but Apple. Raw specs sound sexy but if raw spec is all there is everyone here would be shooting D810 + Nokia 1020.
That said, if I am designing these two phones, I would make both 1mm thicker, add in a huge battery and put OIS on both. It would make them slightly more expensive to make but it would also convince some spec-whore to switch.
BTW, there is a photo comparison out for iPhone 4.7 prototype vs iPhone 5S. Night scene is a lot better. Looking forward to the full review.
Not really. Back in 2008, 2 years before the first "retina" display, Sony already had a smartphone with 311ppi screen.
The cool aid. Especially those waiting days.
Jurka: Still without exposure compensation?????? Crap!!!!
No, you don't already have it. Those are surrogate functions that simply adjust brightness after the fact without changing physical exposure (thus no change in light). Reason being that the API's do not allow true exposure control yet. After all these years....
Ben O Connor: Nokia holds its place for camera; The Top.
But real screen revolution was the Samsung edge from ifa. Such a great idea.
IPhone created a monster,which has eaten its creator in the end. Bye bye Apple ;)
I've run into more software problems (read:limitations) with my year old iPhone than my now >3 year old Galaxy S2. The latter is far easier when it comes to sharing content, streaming 1080p to several different types of TV's, using my personal choice if keyboard (SwiftKey), a camera with true exposure compensation and ISO control, etc. No software issues yet.
Paulyd0021: On one hand I like how Apple is focusing on improving the sensor and image quality rather than just bumping up the megapixels. However on the other hand I don't think 8 mp is the sweet spot for a fixed lens. If you can't crop in much without distorting the image, which means you'll need to get a lot closer to whatever it is you're taking a picture of to keep the quality high. I think 12-13mp would have been a better choice and make the phone slightly thicker for increased sensor size. Phone thinness is as thin as it ever needs to be IMO. I'm all for weight reduction, but ergonomically I'd rather have something to grip on to that fits the form of my hand. A wafer thin phone isn't that. I'm still excited to see what the image quality will be for the 6+ with OIS. I hope it helps with low light shots. Still, I don't think I'll be switching any time soon from my Samsung K Zoom. With manual controls, 10x optical zoom, and xenon flash, its the best P&S replacement out there right now.
mpgxsvcd: The Note Edge has peeked my interest. I am going to wait for that one.
Hmm, plastic body: check.Lasted longer than 3 years without a scratch or worse: check.
SergioMO: I´m a Note 3 user and this is the best smartphone out there for me, but I was expecting a better low light perform and IP57 ... waiting Note 5. In camera nobody beats Nokia ! http://www.phonearena.com/news/Check-out-the-first-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-4-and-Note-Edge-camera-samples-compared-with-the-competition_id60180
Yeah, waiting anxiously for Android "L" and fingers crossed they will enable RAW support. 4.4 already showed hints for future RAW support in Android.That should really help a lot for low light pictures and take most of the manufacturer's "auto" choices and processing out of the equation.
In low light, probably true, altough like for like, even those pre production samples from the Note 4 are pretty similar to the Nokia 1520's, once you even the output size, brightness and whitebalance. It's those auto algorithms that seem better in the Nokia cameras. Let's see if the final production version of the Note 4 can improve on those algorithms.
But in good light, even some of the existing Samsung cameras can already outresolve the Nokia 1520 outside the center where the Nokia lens (altough it could be the Sony lens that comes with the 20MP BSI sensor, since the Xperia's have the same issue) suffers a lot. If they ever fix that issue, then their cameras can perform about as good as you can get for the sensor size and FL, aslo thanks to RAW support.
lacikuss: The perfect marriage Chevrolet & Sony...both outstanding brands known for their high quality
Dumping costs a lot of money once, which in theory could save longer term, but it would also mean a loss of exposure (name related to photography) and an entry to Sony cameras (many have moved up from these cheaper compacts).
The RX100 had a $150 lower MSRP, but was also much cheaper to build as it lacked the relatively expensive OLED EVF for example. Less glass, no tilting LCD mechanism and no BSI, lack of Wifi, NFC and built in ND filter helped save on the cost of construction and assembly too.
Minus shadow noise (specifically patterns): D7100 vs D7000:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iuSoH2xRB54/UWVRWkBEdRI/AAAAAAAAgBk/h2PLmU0_S38/s1600/d7100vsd7000banding.png
@ lacikuss:Canon hasn't been leading photography sales for 60 years. There has been a few changes along the way and Kodak was the leader for quite some time. See where they are now. ;)In fact, according to IDC, even Sony had a larger share than Canon of the photography market back in 2005, before Sony bought Minolta (2006).
@ pkosewski:Nikon has losses in the compact camera business and makes up for that with its large DSLR business.Sony is also a strong player in the film camera market and both the compact and film camera market are collapsing. Hence why their smaller ILC business is struggling to shine through those 2 dragging the imaging branch as a whole down.
As for the RX series not being profitable, it's actually one of the brighter lights in the Imaging business and especially cutting some of the losses in the compact camera sales (which as a whole are hurting for everyone) according to Sony.
They lost most of those transitions because of what I already mentioned before, new competition that had the advantage of lowered production costs (first Koreans, then Chinese) swarming the market.
It's the same problem that the Koreans and specifically Samsung are starting to feel right now, with the Chinese taking them head on. First diminishing their profits, then likely forcing them into losses in the race to the bottom. Especially in the TV and Mobile sector.
NCB: Sensor size isn't quite as important as many believe. 12MP on a 2/3" sensor is roughly the same pixel density as 21MP on a 1" sensor as in the Sony RX100 III. I would expect similar image quality. And 12MP is easily enough for many people.
The EVF is enough to make me seriously consider it. I like optical viewfinders, but framing difficulties with those found in compacts combined with the improved quality of some recent EVFs make me think it's time to move on. The "advances" found on other recent cameras aren't necessarily what people want. So, for those looking for a top quality compact picture-taking machine, I think the X30 will prove attractive.
They are very different, just like the A7S design is very different from the A7 and A7R design (the D4S and A7S have a typical A/D design that focuses more on lower noise in the analogue amplification stage, where as the A7R and A7 focus on the digital stage with a much flatter read noise curve, which favors so called "ISO-less" shooting and high DR at low ISO more but trades some high ISO performance).
As for Renesas and Nikon knowing something Sony doesn't, not so sure about that, seeing as Sony currently delivers both the best FF low ISO (high DR, high resolution) sensor and the best low light FF sensor.
As for the low light scene from Dpreview, about 27% of all the pixels sits in the bottom luminance values between 0-25 with plenty of deep shadows to judge (it already peaks before 18), even below a value of 5. There's more shadows and more deeper shadows in that scene than for example the night city scene that Dpreview used to compare some cameras (A7S, GH4 etc.) in the field.