alfpang

ProfHankD: Hmm. Sounds like a nice implementation of a computational multi-camera, with a lot of compute inside. Oh, and the MIT review says the mirrors in the folded optical paths move to keep cameras pointing at the target? Buried in the specs they say 4K video with zoom... that's a heck of a lot of processing to do in real time! The package is also very small -- not much space for battery and "guts"... so perhaps they're doing a lot of the processing in the camera modules themselves?

In sum, nothing really new, but one heck of a job of miniaturization if they can really pack everything (including processing) into that form factor. I didn't see any sample images posted nor any detailed specs, but they have some serious capital and maybe....

memau: while some orthodoxy folks may feel disappointed, and yes it's not a full improvement over previous Foveon X3 sensor, it's still better than a mosaic sensor ( fujifilm's X-trans also included) , because it captured whole luminance details, but quarter color details, so it's basically like a yuv4:2:0 conversion(and so original Foveon X3 is 4:4:4), if you try compress a jpg both in 4:4:4 and 4:2:0, you'll find the difference is not that huge,

for example:

http://postimg.org/image/6rsfuy1nh/
http://postimg.org/image/5azzlhmab/

which one is 4:4:4 ??

Mike7500: Is it worth the extra $150 to buy the II instead of the I?

I will be using it mainly for low light indoor and outdoor concerts.

Michael Z Houston: I really like the fact that the hotshoe allows me to attach the small Sony bounce flash to the camera when taking photographs of friends in unlighted spaces. I am pleased I traded up from the RX 100. Of all my cameras this is the one I use the most because I always have it with me.

technic: lots of new products from Canon lately and mostly very, very incremental upgrades. Is the whole R&D department in winter sleep or are they making so much money that the beancounters think they can get away with warmed up versions of the cameras from a few years ago?

panpen: I have a DP2 and it is as good as my M8 with 28mm Elmarit third version at iso 100 and 200. Anything above 400 is for black and white as color is completely lost. While the DP2 is an amazing camera that replaced my $4k M8 with a manual lens, I would never pay $1k for the Merill version. If iso 400 and 800 were good I would have given it a second thought. In the last two months Adorama had tons of DP1 and DP2 demos or E+ for less than $300. $1000 is a stretch even for a great camera like Sigma DP

D1N0: too bad decent camera's dont run on iOs or Android (and no the iPhone is not a decent camera you morons!)

Luke Kaven: I'm having a hard time understanding how one can market a set of tools for "photojournalism" that surely renders all of your work unpublishable by journalistic standards.

sean000: Interesting story to juxtapose with Kate Bevan's anti-Instagram rant. It's a wonderful photograph. But does the art filter make the photograph better or worse? I like the photo and I like the look and mood the filter creates. I would probably like the photo without the filter effect as well. Any time you use effects like these you run the risk of alienating some viewers who find it gimmicky, but you may also wow some viewers who think it is really cool. Either way the photograph needs to be a good one, and this one definitely is in my opinion.

But as Luke Kaven commented, I would think that most journalistic photo editors would reject this shot because of the filter. New York Times Magazine is of course a features publication, so it can get away with obviously manipulated images. For straight news reporting, the audience might wonder if the contents have been altered as well as the colors. Was that kit really there, or did the photographer add it?

szlevi: Apple's whole implementation sucks, big time. The iPhone 4S employs the same Sony EXMOR R sensor like my year-old Xperia arc yet my phone blows it out of the water...
Old but representative: http://www.xperiablog.net/2011/10/16/camera-shootout-iphone-4s-versus-xperia-arc/

alfpang: Just tried on my 4S--Worth the price for night mode alone (true slow shutter up to 1 sec exposure).

The ability to take useable pics in a dark room w live preview was quite impressive, but it does chew up battery life (fair trade off for a serious functionality boost).

Lossless jpegs are about 10mb each. Haven't tried downloading the TIFFs

migus: It's still far from 'retina' (326dpi) but much improved display. I hoped for AMOLED w/ deeper black than the typical milky-gray IPS... Not convinced yet that i ever need an iPad, though one could use it for photos - as an expensive digital frame :-).

My main interest for such toys would be in maps/GPS and PDF papers/magazines... basically a hi-res reader. Again, i'd rather save my eyes w/ e-ink or a friendlier display (not backlit). Mitch