arhmatic: The iPhone is probably the most used camera mainly because it's in your pocket. I've been using one daily since 2007.
Otherwise, is below average, I have to sadly admit... No exposure compensation, no ISO, interface nowhere near Nokia's....
Sounds like iOS8 will add some features, but have you tried Camera+?
Jogger: "There is also a new M8 co-processor which is coupled with a barometer and allows for accurate tracking of changes in elevation. "
And this is critical for phones because???
"And this is critical for phones because???"
Makes fitness apps much more reliable for one. Being able to map a walk/run/bike run that includes elevation information is much more useful than just kms.
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 sure I can remember anyone for the longest time talking about Apple for pure specs. Even going back to my 6100/60 in the early 90's there were always faster machines out there - didn't make them better for my uses.
rogerstpierre: ped·ant noun \ˈpe-dənt\
: a person who annoys other people by correcting small errors and giving too much attention to minor details
I guess someone in DPR doesn't appreciate being corrected!
Wouldn't that be "at DPR"?
SKPhoto12: This has to be the most ridiculous contraption that I have ever seen. Do you see yourself walking around with this stuff in your pocket? Sony needs to get its head around a cohesive product strategy, starting with developing good glass for its slr's and mirrorless products, which have good potential, but all suffer from lacking lens offerings.
How about this. Back of concert, tall monopod - light and unobtrusive. Small enough to mount to drone. Safer warzone photography.
Yes, I think it's likely just a public experiment in making things as small as possible, but I can definitely see advances made in these products being useful in other areas and future "regular" products.
I created my own full-frame version of this camera by gaff taping an LED torch to my K1000. Future retro!
fuego6: Film!?! and how the hell does he just "throw" the hoop that high in the air? Terrible "inteview"...
Guessing the size change is from throwing it towards the direction of the camera from a distance.
deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.
There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!
I'm not critiquing your character, I believe you have much to offer the world, you just haven't put any of it into a single one of your comments for 2+ years. It's not the content, it's the container you send it in. Apologies though, it was obviously taken harder than it was supposed to have been.
Probably just should have said "Jeez, lighten up, the world here is not so bad." Carry on. *shrug*
No, afraid you've missed the point. Or just not admitting you've gotten it. Have a good day either way.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the character and class that comes through in your photos (France especially) is missing from your comments. :-)
We get it Mark Alan. You don't like new Apple stuff (presumably you thought OS7 was the bees knees) . Fair enough. You don't like Adobe CC. Fine. You don't like people who use smart phones. All good. Why not post comments about something you DO like?
It might even make you, I don't know, happy?
"Well, except for those stubborn few who won't take the hint."
Or who don't find the current alternatives do the job as well.
Yosemite 10.10 also runs fine on my iMac 2009. Supporting 5 year old hardware doesn't seem that nasty. Especially when you consider that a lot of the hardware older than that is multiple generations of CPU/GPU back, and not 64-bit architecture.
If Slater is correct, does that mean I can loan my camera to another photographer, have him take some award-winning shots, and then rightfully claim them as my own because I own the camera?
Stop it, quiquae and noirdesir. This comment was fact-free until you brought in this "logic" stuff.
Yes, there are things that require the latest OS to run, but this isn't one of them.
I also used my 6100/60 on many "unsupported" OS upgrades for years, so understand both sides of this.
Philip Young: Put the motorized gimbals on the CMOS sensor itself and then you might have something. Better yet, make a ball-shaped CMOS sensor, then create matching algorithmic pattern software that will compensate for all gathered data and you'll have perfect stabilization. Wait... God already invented that, it's called your eyes and its even in stereo and 3-D.
Where's the clean HDMI out?
Eleson: One thing that become apparent is that the jpeg engine in A7s i really, really good. Take a look at ISO 102400 and compare to Df (or anything).
I can clearly see why some say "you need to shoot RAW".But then again, show a RAW picture that beats the out-of-camera jpeg from a7s @ redicilously high ISO's....
Agreed, although I'm not sure I'd say more than double is "somewhat" more expensive.
Dianoda: Judging from these samples, it's really quite impressive how far we've come in the past 10-20 years of digital cameras. This level of imaging fits in your pocket, with a lens that covers a very useful range, and has a viewfinder.
I had an RX100 Mrk I, loved the pocketability and just about everything else, only complaints were the somewhat detached shooting experience and the corners at wide angle - but this new lens is noticeably better at wide angle, and I think the EVF will go a long way when it comes to an improved shooting experience. Wish the battery life was projected to be a bit better, but I might just pick one up anyways.
If you travelled back 40 years though they'd be saying how much better their optical viewfinder is, how much more DR they were getting from their film, and talking about how their batteries lasted years!
photo perzon: Brianj they look good to me. Does the rx100 seem better to you?
The default settings of any camera are just that - the default. Any camera I have ever had, I've needed to spend a few minutes when I first got it to adjust it's JPEG settings to how I like them - or at least I did when I shot JPEG. Now I just make an import setting or preset for Aperture/Optics Pro, and that gets automatically applied on import.
The majority of people who say RAW is too much work or takes longer than JPEG usually either haven't had the right tools, haven't adjusted their workflow, or have such a huge volume of images that any number of extra seconds per image (whether automated or not) is unacceptable.
For me, RAW is easier, and quicker, than JPEG - with better results. The latitude for extra processing is also there, but it's not *necessary*.
Boky: It is puzzling, really. I get more pleasing photos with my S90. The RX100 series is way too big to compete in size. I tried RX100 I and returned it immediately due to cold cast over all the photos it produced + not to mention the brick-like feel and size. If I go to an important event or holiday (or want to pixel peep) I take dslr and L glass with me in addition to S90. For P&S needs -> I have a camera that gives beautiful photo’s and I hardly know (or feel) it is with me. RX100 will have to shrink substantially to be able to compete with P&S cameras size-wise.I did want to like RX100 III very much. But Sony needs to get the processing sorted and give us pleasing results that do not require couple off minutes processing per each photo to make them look nice. At the moment, to me at least, the RX100 is lost in space: way too big to compete with P&S segment, and with picture quality that is nowhere near dslr quality – yet it cost more than basic dslr and kit combos.
I understand, I really liked my S90 too. It grows on you, cute little thing with decent image quality. But at some point you will move on. It's OK to see other cameras.