Previous news story    Next news story

Mobile madness? Our opinion on Sony's QX clip-on cameras

By dpreview staff on Sep 4, 2013 at 15:00 GMT

The Sony QX cameras are mobile-photography-targeted modules that allow you to clip a larger sensor, zoom lens and additional battery to your smartphone to extend its capabilities. The modules use a Wi-Fi connection to allow their control from a camera app - making them some of the most connected cameras yet. So just what to we make of the compact 10x QX10 and the larger-sensor QX100? 

Follow these links for our take on the QX10 and QX100, and scroll down for more details.


Here at Dpreview.com we've taken a close look at the high-end QX100. Built around the same core components as the Cyber-shot RX100 II, the QX100 promises a huge step up in image quality, compared to a standard smartphone camera. But at what price? Are you really getting an RX100 II substitute for 1/3rd off? Click through to find out.

We've also published a deeper look at both systems and how they relate to one another over at connect.dpreview.com. Follow this link to see what we thought.

And finally, connect.dpreview.com has also published an overview of the QXs and what they mean for connected mobile photography. Click here to read more.

23
I own it
15
I want it
6
I had it
Discuss in the forums
21
I own it
22
I want it
3
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-QX100

Comments

Total comments: 233
123
SWSF14
By SWSF14 (7 months ago)

Any stabs at street price?

I think these units still cost too much to sell. A camera that must be used "tethered" to a phone is an accessory, a $250/$500 accessory.

1 upvote
JordanAT
By JordanAT (7 months ago)

So, when can I connect this to Google Glass and control it with eye motions?

3 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (7 months ago)

"If you want, you can take photos without a smartphone (as the cameras have physical controls) and transfer the photos later." How do you compose/view images without smartphone?
Thank you.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jeff Keller
By Jeff Keller (7 months ago)

Aim it at something and hope you're accurate.

2 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (7 months ago)

Make a few wire frames for aiming and glue them to the lens :-)

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (7 months ago)

Attach a laser pointer on it. Wow, if I own a hardware making machine, I'll start making it right now.

0 upvotes
starwolfy
By starwolfy (7 months ago)

A HotShoe where you can put an EVF. THen you basically have a standard camera. xD

1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

I don't understand all the complaints, and still I do.
Sure, for most here, it is of no or little use. More than a cool toy.
But for all the smartphones that have users who occasionaly feel the need for a zoom this may well fit the bill.
Going to the Zoo? ok, throw it in the bag. Football game?
And these users will only bring it when its warranted, and they would never bring the camera INSTEAD of a phone.

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (7 months ago)

just saw video functions hahahahaha

nope

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

Yup, no manual video... for that matter, not ANY kind of decent video recording. The only supported 1440*1080 at 30 fps and 12 Mbps is plain ridiculous, particularly hen taking into account Sony's almost all cameras have been able to recording at least 60i (in the non-entry price category, 60p) for over a year.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (7 months ago)

What mbps? I don't think the target audience even knows that. But yeah,they are pi$sing high-end buyers off.

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (7 months ago)

to be honest, iam in drone heaven!

i was thinking about buying an rx100 for usingit with a brushless gimbal, but the formfactor of the qx100 is WAAAAY better.

balancing the roll axis will be a dream hehe

also i generally like the super16 sensorsize

i wonder if they have some sort of manual video though ^^

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (7 months ago)

Not to mention that it's cheaper.

0 upvotes
Yavor
By Yavor (7 months ago)

Non-sense product for me. They will sell a lot of these toys - good idea for them, but not automatically good idea for users. If teens feels themselves more PRO with this joke - OK :).

Next time I need umbrella add-on for my smartphone - attachment that works just like umbrella, but twice bigger and I can control it with my app that will share when I open it in FB

0 upvotes
jjl
By jjl (7 months ago)

I've been asking for just this kind of thing for a while now... If they market it well, and the app/software is good, this could be wonderful.

Though, you could get similar results with a more traditional point-n-shoot camera that had good wifi connectivity to phones.

Personally, I love my DSLR, but actually use my iPhone more often, simply because I have it with me all the time. My DSLR is bulky, but the camera on my iPhone is limited.

1 upvote
SWSF14
By SWSF14 (7 months ago)

Problem with Sony is that software/UI is not traditionally one of their strengths. Fingers will need to be crossed on this one.

0 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (7 months ago)

Cool!
Must pick one to try.

0 upvotes
Ilya the Great
By Ilya the Great (7 months ago)

The more I think about it, the more I like it. It can be perfect street photography camera. I can take pictures behind me. Leave it in a room and see what's happening in that room. Put it on a long pol and take interesting pictures. Take a picture around a corner.

10 upvotes
minoltak
By minoltak (7 months ago)

You hit the point. If it’s successful than in a not traditional way. Kids and teenagers will teach us how to use it. But I wouldn’t like to be a teacher at a high school.

2 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (7 months ago)

It looks like everybody interested in this camera-lens want to use it for some spying on others.

2 upvotes
Krocket
By Krocket (7 months ago)

Like I said, Sony will probably sell bucketfulls of these to teenagers, an innovative idea, Sony realizes that the phone market is hot right now, smart move for Sony, with regular camera sales plummeting-

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (7 months ago)

I'm strangely optimistic about these things.

Pretty sure it's not for me tho.

0 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (7 months ago)

You still need 2 devices, so how does this solve anything? You still need to carry your smart phone AND this 'camera' without a screen or controls.

You save a bit of money (on rapidly outdated technology) and in exchange you are very limited to who, how, and when you can use it.

What is the point? What was the problem they are trying to solve?

4 upvotes
jjl
By jjl (7 months ago)

Because most people already have their smart phone with them... regardless if they have another camera or not. This essentially gives you the option of a much better lens on your smart phone.

The smart phone also gives you much better/easier options for sharing your images... this setup makes it easier to share better photos.

9 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

This solved problems of size weight and cost.
You are still carrying 2 devices, but the premium camera got smaller, lighter, cheaper and is more flexible now.
is just another option or tool for those who need it.
It can be improved but the basic idea is great.

7 upvotes
Vitruvius
By Vitruvius (7 months ago)

Solved problem of size??? The RX100 II is 225 cubic cm and relatively slim and pocketable. The QX100 is 222 cubic cm, shaped like a cinimon bun, and only 102 grams less.

So save the $250 and only ever be able to use it with your smart phone? Doesn't make sense to me. But if you really need to stand out to be cool, knock yourself out.

4 upvotes
Serenity Now
By Serenity Now (7 months ago)

Mmmmmm.....cinnamon bun

1 upvote
jhinkey
By jhinkey (7 months ago)

Hmm . . . don't know about the price, but many times I'm out with just my cell running, hiking, etc. and I don't want to bring along a camera. This MIGHT be an attractive thing to have.

But really, I look forward to the creative things that people will do with such a system. Can you connect more than one camera module to your mobile device so that you can take multiple simultaneous images from different locations?

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (7 months ago)

Utterly stupid. Just get an Eye-Fi card and send your pics to your phone if you MUST share them right now.

2 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

Sony got the Walkman right and then has just produced 1 epic fail after another. This is a great idea that no one will ever use. Kind of like Lytro.

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Floppy disk, CD player, 8mm camcorder, Handycam, Trinitron, and the Playstation were all epic fails, huh?

8 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

Not to mention all of Sony's music labels, Sony Pictures, audio components, cinema equipment, and industrial electronics and automation. Yeah, Sony is dumb. All they make is the Walkman and cameras. They're probably going out of business in the next day or two. Losers.

6 upvotes
justmeMN
By justmeMN (7 months ago)

Sony had the Walkman, but lost that market to Apple. "Sony's TV division has lost money for nine straight years", due to competitors such as Samsung. And so on...

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (7 months ago)

Yes the lithium-ion battery and Blu-ray was a bad idea for Sony and epic fail, people are so dump

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (7 months ago)

Just one thing missing -- they need to add a swiveling LCD screen and more convenient buttons. Basically if they take a typical compact camcorder and use the lens, the sensor, and other guts from QX and they will have a winner.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

Someone missed the whole point of this product. I'm not naming names.

7 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (7 months ago)

@howardroark -- somebody, let's keep him anonymous, doesn't know what sarcasm means. <sarcasm "off">As many people already mentioned, there is no point in this product.</sarcasm>

0 upvotes
Stephan K
By Stephan K (7 months ago)

@howardroark: I live in daily hope that some time in the next few years I will spot a positive, constructive and non-sarcastic comment from you.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

They're all over the place. The comment implied the product was useless. Okay, I think that misses the point. The OP replied back saying explicitly the product had no point. He may not have a use for it personally, but does the lack of his interest mean it therefore has no point? I keep hoping I'll spot fewer and fewer posts like the one above.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

The QX10 won't take much better pictures than the phone it is attached to and the QX100 is simply WAY over priced.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

1/2.3" BSi-CMOS kicks the pants of any phones but the large sensor Nokias. Not to mention that you have a 10x zoom instead of fixed wideangle. Lots of people digital zoom like mad on their iphones and its not pretty.

4 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

Didn't Sony miss a big opportunity here of creating a direct connector to their Xperia smartphones eliminating the lag problem with wifi?.
I like this idea but it needs further refinement.
i hope Samsung, Canon and Apple come with their version but with wired connection besides wireless for faster performance.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Not to mention if Sony made a version just for Sony camera, they might be able to share battery and storage functions, thus reducing the size of the camera module considerably.

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

Yep and weight too.
A direct connector and tight fitting would make it less cumbersome in handling.
Sony could also made dedicated camera bodies too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (7 months ago)

In the past (and in many ways still) Sony have been too protective of their own brand and this often cost them.

Given the tiny market share they have in smartphones I understand they didn't a) want to again give the impression of having a closed system and/or b) didn't even bother spending money to develop it, given the truly niche market it would target.

2 upvotes
Photographer_C
By Photographer_C (7 months ago)

These might take better photos than the smartphone's built-in camera, but for what use..? These cameras, like the Nikon's 1 system don't have a target market. My mom or my girlfriend would never attach such a weird module to their smartphones, and a serious amateur or a professional photographer would never use these when there are countless other good cameras out there. I'm not saying that these are not good cameras, just that I think very very few people will buy them...

1 upvote
abluesky
By abluesky (7 months ago)

I find the new concept intriguing.

I can imagine mounting the camera to all sorts of things, and taking photos from many perspectives.

3 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

Another one of Sony's great inventions that will turn out to be a flop in the end.

2 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (7 months ago)

Like the MD audio recorder :( great hardware, poor software. The memoryapps, seems quite limited, almost point&shoot.

0 upvotes
MASTERPPA
By MASTERPPA (7 months ago)

I can think of some certain fields who would love this. (mostly house, and other types of inspectors..)

3 upvotes
MASTERPPA
By MASTERPPA (7 months ago)

Does it have to be attached to work since its WIFI? I can so imagine one person holding the "camera part" and another person with the phone. I think if the price is right, this is a cool idea..

1 upvote
mypobox
By mypobox (7 months ago)

it wont need to be attached. i think they are just pairing it, after that you have the wifi distance.

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

The clamp is attached by a bayonet mount. You have to remove it just to get to the battery, so the answer is no you don't have to use the clamp. It just has to be within wifi signal range.

3 upvotes
Dimit
By Dimit (7 months ago)

Can be done within a 9 meters distance approx.

1 upvote
Tonkotsu Ramen
By Tonkotsu Ramen (7 months ago)

I don't think I've ever seen more skeptics gather on dpr

You people are ridiculous

10 upvotes
GPW
By GPW (7 months ago)

Hey Sony, Stop wasting money an crap like this and build an action/wildlife DSLR, with some good lens

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

Stop wasting your time on posting and go take an English grammar class.

11 upvotes
minoltak
By minoltak (7 months ago)

Couldn't agree more.

0 upvotes
SDF
By SDF (7 months ago)

I cannot wait to slap this baby on my Ipad. My cats are going to hate this little lens lol

0 upvotes
veroman
By veroman (7 months ago)

Elegant and certainly innovative concept, but hard to judge. I wonder who the intended audience is. Most people shooting with smart phones are happy to do so and like the results. I just received a bunch of iPhone 5 shots from one of our boys in Italy and was pretty impressed with the quality. It's the only "camera" he carries these days, although he also owns a G12.

But most serious photographers who shoot with smart phones also have their high end p&s or M4:3 cameras or DSLRs with them. Is this new Sony idea supposed to replace those cameras? I doubt it. So who's it for? And why?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

The same question I have... it's definitely not for enthusiast amateurs... I REALLY contemplated getting the QX100 instead of the RX100 Mk II because of the (then-rumoured, somewhat lower) price. Then came the reality: no RAW, ridiculously bad video, almost no manual modes etc. That is, this camera just isn't for us geeks / power users.

For Average Joes, it's just too big / expensive. They won't purchase it either.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (7 months ago)

This feels like a over the top product. Just integrate phone connectivity into every camera.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

That's starting to happen. Still, one day if you could buy a camera for a couple hundred less that didn't have a screen and all that on it don't you think there'd be a market for that? Cameras with screens that could pair to a phone and cameras that don't have screens paired to a phone. I don't see any reason why the two can't both exist.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (7 months ago)

Who has a smartphone and is considering a QX100 or a RX100 and really would prefer the QX100? I don't get it. I guess the QX100 is cheaper but it cannot function on it's own and the RX100 is comparable in dimensions in many ways. We all have smartphones with nice screens already, I get it Sony. What I don't get is why I wouldn't just either want a sony phone with a QX100 built in, perhaps in a little bit more physically reasonable way?

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (7 months ago)

They're the engineers. I'm sure they tried something similar to the Samsung Galaxy Zoom but ended with a bulky design, and they don't like bulky designs at all.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"Who has a smartphone and is considering a QX100 or a RX100 and really would prefer the QX100?"

I would have preferred the QX100 to the RX100 Mk II mostly because of the price, assuming the same feature set (minus the flash). However, the lens being so badly dumbed down to a level to an auto-only P&S camera (except for the JPEG IQ) with painfully bad video recording capabilities, I wouldn't purchase it for not even $300, let alone $500.

0 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (7 months ago)

We'll soon see wider clips (from Sony or 3rd parties) to allow the device to be attached to a tablet as well. Interesting possibilities... A HUGE viewfinder.

3 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (7 months ago)

my thought exactly

0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

Back to the future!
Year 1998, Minolta Dimage EX1500
It even had "apps" loading capabilities.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minolta1500

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
minoltak
By minoltak (7 months ago)

Did not sell very well.

0 upvotes
cplunk
By cplunk (7 months ago)

Minidisk meets the Minds of Minolta.

Sure, it's cool, but is anyone actually going to buy it?

0 upvotes
marcel smit
By marcel smit (7 months ago)

Totally waste of time and money if you ask me imho.
For that money en size you better spent your money on a decent compact camera.

3 upvotes
Josh SZ
By Josh SZ (7 months ago)

When you separate it from the phone, it will make a lot impossible photo takings possible now. So I would say it is useful is certain situations.

0 upvotes
Cipher
By Cipher (7 months ago)

How many compact cameras have the ability to post photos to social websites via cellular network?

2 upvotes
belard
By belard (7 months ago)

No one did.

0 upvotes
vadimraskin
By vadimraskin (7 months ago)

The path that Sony opened might lead to some very nice "pancake" like zoom lenses that could be easily attached to the phone and left on it for some time. That would solve the problem. Let's wait and see.

1 upvote
Benarm
By Benarm (7 months ago)

This is true innovation. Hopefully other manufacturer's will follow with more features and controls. Using smartphone's touch display is superior in user experience if you compare it against current camera touch screen LCDs in Canon Rebel or Sony NEX.

6 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

On the one hand, you have to admire Sony's creativeness. On the other, what else can they do? Make people switch from Nikon and Canon? Sell lots of cheap cameras that have or will be replaced by phones? They've got the money to keep trying and that's great. Who knows, maybe the photo-Walkman is around the corner.

3 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

I have to express what I find most amusing about this story. Whenever someone announces a new idea in the camera field it seems like there are two camps: patient and impatient. The patient people see a release of camera technology in the context of photographic advancment over decades and understand the average pace of change is usually pretty incremental. The other camp of impatient people see cameras as computers with lenses on them and want exciting changes every six months.
Those impatient people are usually the ones who use the word "innovation" a lot. Now a company comes out with a really innovative product and the patient people don't really see the need for it and the innovation pushers criticize it for missing the point.
Smartphone photographers: your phone is always going to suck compared to a real camera. Suck. Just really, really suck. A lot....in a vast majority of situations. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram in good health....while sucking.
This is innovation.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
yudhir
By yudhir (7 months ago)

:) I would like to add a 3rd camp. people like you who remind this . I too fall in this cat though.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

And just for the record, my fairly expensive G1 X is also going to suck in many situations that my 7D would be awesome at despite the fact that the G1 X has amazing image quality. So, if I had to put my cameras on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being total suck and 10 being freaking awesome I'd go with: iPhone 4S -- 3; G1 X -- 6; 7D -- 10.
The trick with the scale is when I have each of those cameras with me. I don't take the G1 X and 7D everywhere, but my phone is always with me. If it's all I have, a 3 on the suck scale is way better than nothing. If I might have to shoot something but don't know I need the performance of the 7D, the G1 X is a perfect anytime/anywhere camera. If I'm in need of ultimate IQ and performance the 7D comes along with a backpack full of stuff. Convenience does not mean good, it means better than bad or nothing. Having a camera with you all the time is great, but the presence of something rather than nothing does not imply anything about quality.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Serenity Now
By Serenity Now (7 months ago)

Hang on a minute...there are two scales going on here. The suck scale...and the real scale. "Your phone is always going to suck compared to a real camera" At what point on the suck scale does the camera become real? Are real cameras a suck free zone? Are the emotions I feel from pictures taken on my phone imagined or real? Or do I have to qualify everything i see or use based on how they came to be? It' relative I hear you say and you'd be right. It's just not relative to the equipment - EVER.
There are many camps and - we're all in one including your good self. Perhaps you don't see it. that way? Maybe if your comments were typed on a real typewriter?

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

You are discussing subject matter and composition. Those are always important and should be considered outside the realm of the abilities of the camera. Then, when you actually have to take a picture, you must consider what the camera you're using is capable of doing. Go do some birds in flight close ups with your phone. Go do sports photography with your phone. Go try to get a picture of a child moving around quickly at their birthday party in a poorly lit room (FYI, most indoor lighting is poor if you want to take a picture of something moving even at a slow speed, much less anything really unable to stay still like a child).
Discussing artistic or emotional value is a different discussion from what a camera is able to do. For example, if you can't get a shot because your camera is incapable of capturing it then you don't get to feel an emotion when you (don't) look at that (non-existent) image. A camera phone is a camera phone. Cameras can often be much more capable.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

When you compare something to nothing that something is almost always going to come up smelling like roses...because it is much more than nothing. Don't kid yourself into thinking that something that is designed primarily to take photos (you know, not making phone calls, connecting to the internet, playing games, being super slim and stylish, and fit comfortably in your pocket) won't usually do a much better job and be more useful in general when taking photos than a camera built into an 8mm thick phone. And yes, I've seen what Nokia can do and as long as you've got a bunch of light it might be a 3.5 on the suck scale.
All that aside, once you have managed to get a picture you have it. It's there. Your plan worked, whether you thought much about it or not. Maybe you don't even realize all the images you missed and could have gotten. Does it matter? To some it does, but not to you....so who cares! An image in the hand is worth two in the bush or something equally trite.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (7 months ago)

Another Hipster toy. Pass.

1 upvote
yudhir
By yudhir (7 months ago)

Fingers Crossd.

This is how you bring the best of both . QX10 and Any other decent Smart Phone will do.
Spending on camera phone like Galaxy s4 zooms are forever bulky but with this you can carry your slim phone and optionally QX lens when you in a clicky mood.

2 upvotes
sean lee
By sean lee (7 months ago)

at that price, I rather buy another compact camera with wifi....

2 upvotes
SWSF14
By SWSF14 (7 months ago)

Bulkier than an actual RX100, indeed!

If Sony were to make the "cheaper" unit for approx $100 it could sell, WELL. Advertise the zoom and video capabilities and wireless uploading possibilities with apps and they would be set. Oh, and make a white one.

1 upvote
yudhir
By yudhir (7 months ago)

white exists!!

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"Advertise the zoom and video capabilities and wireless uploading possibilities with apps and they would be set."

The video recording capabilities? Of these lens? They're pathetic - as if it was a 2009, pre-1080p-era model...

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

The next version should have a wired connector to a dedicated body.
Minolta did a similar concept ages ago with separated body and lens/sensor modules.
IOW I'd like to see a RX100 but with detachable lens module so it can be used as dedicated camera or with tablets, phones and laptops, tethered or wireless.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (7 months ago)

Tying it to Sony phones would reduce the market ALOT.

1 upvote
JohnFredC
By JohnFredC (7 months ago)

This is very very creative of Sony. Exciting, even. Sony seems bent on innovating come hell or high water and I applaud them. Who else is testing the market with such interesting approaches? One of these days one of these things is going to "stick" big-time and this offering seems sufficiently well thought out to be a candidate.

If Sony is smart they will share the API with developers.

I would pair either of these with my Note 8 tablet. There is nothing quite like the ease of composing and focusing on an high-resolution 8" screen.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
PhotoPoet
By PhotoPoet (7 months ago)

Nice vivisection concept. But no thanks. I have the RX100 and sadly many other cameras of varying sizes. Even with the RX100 in my backpack I have a tendency to reach for my iPhone. As mentioned in another post, I print rarely, I share daily. I am a committed iAll gadgeteer. I will await the time in the near future when the lens tech allows for optical zoom on an iPhone and then I'll have it all. As I was typing it popped into my head when and why I need my D7000, speed. Birds landing on the water, sporting events (even the amazing Snappy Cam app not good enough), my kids, kids running around, etc. I do not wish to lug a "lens" around, thanks Sony but no...I'll just phone it in....

2 upvotes
Grzesiek Maj
By Grzesiek Maj (7 months ago)

"now you have two problems.."

4 upvotes
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (7 months ago)

Of course the other way to do it would be to build a phone into the camera :o)

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

see: Samsung Galaxy NX

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (7 months ago)

It doesn't make any sense to me. The argument that smartphones have the edge over conventional cameras due to their portability is completely defeated with this bulky and heavy device. And handling the combo must be more than a little bit awkward. Add its price to that of a smartphone and you may find there are some very capable specialized cameras for much less.
So what's the point? The industry will stop at nothing to keep hipsters' pockets empty. None of this 'connected' craze makes sense anymore. Want image quality? Buy a dedicated camera. Wanto to share snaps instantly? Be content with less quality. You can't have the best of both worlds.

7 upvotes
Photato
By Photato (7 months ago)

Sony is in a roll lately.
The fact that the lens is separated from the display makes it an excellent camera to get any kind of angles.
Awesome.
But it can be clumsy to handle and the interface must be slower than a traditional camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

There are a number of cameras that can use a smartphone or tablet as a second display, rather than the only display, and those would have the same advantage.

4 upvotes
Joseph Mama
By Joseph Mama (7 months ago)

Who is gonna buy this crap? The RX100 equivalent is HUGE and difficult to pocket. Look at the picture of it...it sticks wayy out. It lacks obvious features such as ISO control and even a freaking SHUTTER PRIORITY mode... and NO RAW! No HD video either...all MPEG4. And they want 500 bucks??

18 upvotes
instamatic
By instamatic (7 months ago)

Does the iPhone have any of those features? No. It has touch based exposure and focus control only. It's a different paradigm of photography that way. iPhone's in-camera postprocessing also results in surprisingly good color and contrast, so the need for RAW is virtually eliminated. I think this new Sony addition addresses the iPhone's few photographic deficiencies. I just hope it's in-camera processing matches or surpasses that of the iPhone. The target audience of this product can be anyone, but I suspect it's the blogging, snapping, FB posting folks that are considered the primary customers. For me personally this would be a great travel snapshot camera.

1 upvote
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (7 months ago)

If I've got this right and it has a 1" sensor then OMG ... this is nothing short of revolutionary! Sony's only problem thereafter is getting their main target market to appreciate the spec and ability of this product; and then perhaps justify its price against NEX and RX100 offerings. Great to see such innovation though, I could certainly see a (very) limited place for it in my arsenal ... welcome back Sony!!!!

Joseph - To call it crap is just rude and showing your ignorance; would you rather things like this not be developed (thus leading to other break throughs which can feed down to everyday DSLR users). I'm quite sure, via the phone, users will have full control of ISO etc ... although no, maybe no RAW but seriously, its a product not really aimed at that market sector. If anything, this product is TOO revolutionary! (much like the Lytro)

7 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

It does add a big sensor and nice lens to the iphone, but in doing so it removes the primary strength of the iphone - always in your pocket and ready to go.

If you are willing to lug this thing around, you probably already carry an rx100 or similar camera.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (7 months ago)

Having a wifi enabled remote camera could be useful in a lot of situations. Put it on a neck chain and shoot a photo using your phone. Put it on a tripod somewhere in the room during a party and snap a photo when everyone is drunk and playing Just Dance like a bunch of idiots....no need to worry about grabbing a camera. Set it in an inconspicuous place and monitor another room in the house.....while obeying all privacy laws in your city/county/state/country!!! Put it in a waterproof container and swim around with it while someone else snaps photos. Does wifi go through water very well?
Anyway, it's a neat idea. Don't know I'd spend money on it, but having the camera tethered wirelessly to your phone allows for some interesting shooting options. How about mount the camera on a pole and shoot ten feet over a crowd? I don't care for Sony cameras usually, but I may have to look into this sometime in the future.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"Does the iPhone have any of those features? No."

Actually, the iPhone supports 1080p30 at a very good quality - MUCH-MUCH better than that of these lens.

"iPhone's in-camera postprocessing also results in surprisingly good color and contrast, so the need for RAW is virtually eliminated."

Well, I'd certainly welcome RAW. For example, to get rid of the NR's smearing.

0 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (7 months ago)

Sony should put a MFT sensor right on the backplate of the Z1, with a clever way to protect it, and introduced an attachment that let me put on MFT lenses on there. Now that would have been too good rather than upgrading your smartphone to a mediocre point & shoot.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Why would Sony use mFT when they already have the NEX mount that they own and design?

5 upvotes
Jojakim
By Jojakim (7 months ago)

A great innovative daring product. Hard to say if it will be a succes but I really like to see something so different!

2 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (7 months ago)

It will be as successful as MiniDisc, DAT and all those Sony answers to questions nobody asked.

3 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (7 months ago)

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?

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (7 months ago)

But I do agree with others that it's great to see innovation!

3 upvotes
Sonyshine
By Sonyshine (7 months ago)

Love it! Ordered one via Amazon already!

6 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (7 months ago)

You love your fantasy of it. You will love or not love IT when you have a chance to live with it for a while.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 233
123