Camp Freddy: A pretty ugly concoction, but somehow Olympus ( and Sony therefore as major share holder) are committed to a superzoom and retro PEN / OM styling.|Better off doing an mFT 16mpx chip with a non interchangeable 24-120 collapsing zoom for around the 700 USD mark IMHO. Let Fuji amd Panny fight it out with Nikon following soon after in the superzoom sector.
"When it was $500-NO. This camera is overpriced."
I have an XZ-1. Low light performance is worse, controls are worse, no EVF, almost 3 times less reach, and lens slower on the long end. How is this camera not worth the price of admission when compared to that?
"XZ-1 is now $245. Reasonable acquisition."
Sure, but if you only buy 3 year old cameras at that price, the company goes broke and doesn't make any more.
IchiroCameraGuy: I looked at this Note 3 when picking new phone a few weeks back...didn't seem enough of a difference between this and LG Optimus G Pro for the Sammy to be 3x the price.
If camera quality is at the top of the list then Nokia's best seems the choice.
Hmm, isn't it 3 times as hot?
RStyga: It cannot compete IQ-wise with the other DSLM manufacturers so is this what the marketing dept has come up with to save the day? Oh, well, some people will even call it "pioneering"...
Please show me the other rugged camera with this level of IQ at this price point.
Avid70: ... and all I dreamed of was bracketing and CLS compability. By the way Nikonos you could actually dive with. This is for shallow bathtubs...
You have a 20m deep bathtub? How long does it take to fill?
Wonderful. Something small, decent quality photos, and rugged. Festivals, concerts, parties, hiking, camping, beach, kids, etc, etc, etc. This is a good development.
Kim Letkeman: I would truly worry if a phone of any sort appealed to "photography enthusiasts" because -- although it can take an image -- it is not much of a photographic learning tool otherwise. On the other hand, I can see the appeal for "social networking enthusiasts" and press hounds ...
Composition and timing need work, thought, and practice, and are at least as important as any other elements of photography. I think you can learn a lot from images you take on a phone.
M DeNero: A constant f/4 with longer range would be better for this type of camera. Now you have two choices for a walk-around lens: a pathetically sluggish f/3.5-6.3; or a chunky, truncated f/2.8.
24-80mm is a pretty decent range for a walkaround, no?
cjhacker23: Sony always go 90 percent of the way to a great product and then stumble badly on that last 10 percent. Why, oh why, would you not allow for RAW recording or any manual control? This is an enthusiast device, for cripes sake! I had the thing on pre-order the moment it was available this morning and as soon as I read this, I cancelled it. And Sony's poor track record with firmware updates does not give me confidence that this oversight will be reconciled.
"For RAW they'd have to use the phone's processing power and storage system"
Not necessarily. They could shoot JPEG+RAW and store the RAWs on the card.
meanwhile: It's weird isn't it. Just when you think they get it, when you think that they are on the right path, and that the next thing that comes out will manage to tick all the boxes ... Samsung comes out with a $1600 beginners camera, and Sony with these.
Once the price comes down a bit I think they will upsell quite well to phone/tablet buyers (not that I think they will use them much after trying it for a while, but it may sell), but by then there might actually be products will folding optics that bring optical zoom to this market integrated in the product, and for far less.
That said ... why aren't there any products that have folding optics? You look at the rugged cameras, and the larger phones coming out ... why isn't anyone melding the two?
But I do agree with others that it's great to see innovation!
Dazed and Confused: How does it differ from using a GoPro Hero 3 and the free app for remote viewing, release, etc on any Amdroid or iOS device?
Surely the Sonys can't be that different, apart from the fact they come with a little clip to attach to your phone.
It's weird isn't it. Just when you think they get it, when you think that they are on the right path, and that the next thing that comes out will manage to tick all the boxes ... Samsung comes out with a $1600 beginners camera, and Sony with these.
And now we see why this is running Windows. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23940171
fuego6: Get rid of that hand in the photo... any amateur would have cropped/healed it out... geesh.. really?
"any amateur would have cropped/healed it out"
These guys aren't amateurs, that's why it's still there.
Gotta be a typo.
Nemesis2001: With all respect ... I find mine better :D
Only one of yours has a focused background and blurred foreground, how are they similar?
whyamihere: As an artist of different mediums:
If you see no artistic value in these images, then you are not truly an artist.
If you consider yourself an artist but still feel they have no value, then I suggest broadening your narrow-minded definition of art to include just about anything and everything, including these photos.
If you have taken photos like these and deleted them, then they were simply not appealing to you. Artistic expression is an extension of emotion. Always has been, always will be. You can't hate on someone for finding an emotional quality that resonates with them in these photos.
If you see these photos and don't like them but are still willing to call them pieces of art, that is understandable. I see art all the time that I don't like or don't understand, but I never tell someone that it's not art.
Grumble all you like about how how someone may have achieved popularity with these photos. Popularity is usually not the goal of most artists. Expression is.
"but as it is now these look exactly like hundreds of bad vacation pictures that I have piled away in boxes or on my computer"
Can you please put together a set so we can see them?
Cal22: Nowadays nearly anything can be put into the 'Art'-Department, turning it into a subject of belief. And there's always a lot of believers out there who don't know that good art is really rare.
"And there's always a lot of believers out there who don't know that good art is really rare"
I see a lot of people saying these can be seen as art, I don't see as many saying they are necessarily good art.
icexe: I'm sorry, but this looks just like the stuff my daughter took while playing with my camera on our road trip when she was 8 years old.
Watching my daughter play with the camera was the interesting part, not the images themselves, which have no artistic or technical merit whatsoever, just like these images. I deleted most of them.
Let's just stop fooling ourselves and just call this what it is: A collection of blurry, boring images that anyone could take. There's no new artistic or technical ground being broken here.
My point is - even though you don't see any merit in these images, you don't like them, and you don't value them, they managed to be evocative, to create connections to things in your life, to relive fond memories of trips with your family, to evaluate the worth of the images created, to make you think about things you otherwise wouldn't have. This is one of the jobs of art, so even though you disagree that it is art on grounds of merit, your reaction to it betrays you.
And you likely wouldn't have thought of that today without seeing these images. Isn't reliving that memory of some worth?