Popular tech personality Marques Brownlee has published his latest blind smartphone camera test, this one featuring many of the most popular flagship smartphones from 2019, including the iPhone 11 Pro, Google Pixel 4, Galaxy Note 10+, Huawei Mate 30 Pro, and OnePlus 7T Pro.
Each smartphone camera was used to capture a basic profile shot of Brownlee in a natural lighting environment in front of a partly cloudy blue sky. Assessments of the results came from public opinion; millions of Instagram and Twitter users were asked to choose which images they thought had the best quality.
Brownlee reveals the results from these polls in his 2019 blind smartphone camera test video above. The results from the first polling bracket are surprising: the One Plus 7T Pro smartphone, for example, beat the iPhone 11 Pro in the court of public opinion.
Both the Samsung Note 10+ and the Galaxy S10e took the final two bracket slots, with the Note 10+ ultimately crowned the victor.
I love it how 99% of the comments are complaining about methodology or stating that all phones have great cameras or that quality doesn't matter. When the recent DP Review posts about other phones are full of comments like "this camera phone is certainly the best" and bla bla bla.
Fanboys will be fanboys. Haters are going to hate. Few people actually have the decency and enough brain function to acknowledge that each test, each opinion has it's value and different results. That there will be different winners in different methodologies.
We learn more about how people are stupid in these forums than about cameras. Which is naturally obvious.
Ok, when blurry back ground fills up most of the picture, this is not the sign of a good picture but of a bad subject framming... people where right to choose the other one.
This is very interesting, we all know that public opinion is important, most people are always right, it is irrefutable proof that the quality of the winning device is the best, most people are experts in image, I do not have any doubt.
Very interesting, also the assumptions (only) over the difference in saturation, blurred background as a reason for the participants choice. The next time however smartphones should be better tested in poor lighting condition, where smartphones are reaching their limits. That is also the environment smartphones are often used (restaurants, photos of children at home) and the differences should be probably bigger than differences in white balance, hue or saturation during normal daylight conditions.
Truth is that all mid tier and up phone have excellent cameras. This constant battle of the "best" is really just chatter and usually argued by the pixel peekers. Snap some images with any and one will be very pleased.
By the author's own commentary, this poll shows that the details of how you ask the question, or in this case how you shoot the photo, greatly influences the outcome in undesirable ways.
This is particularly demonstrated in the comparison of the two phones where the color of one of the cases inadvertently put a color cast on one of the photos perhaps changing the outcome.
However, I am greatly pleased by the outcome since I own a Note 10+ and will now be able to lord it over all those pesky iPhone owners.
It looks like the first round only compared two phone/cameras instead of all of them together. A HUGELY BIASED "poll". For example, the iPhone 11 Pro is compared to the OnePlus 7T Pro, but not the other 14. (Maybe it is just the presentation and not the actual poll.) Poorly done presentation in either case.
I'm hoping these Phone Camera competition races -- means that we will soon see a Sony RX 100 VIII in a cellphone format, with everything you could possibly want from an Android cellphone & a truly pocketable Sony camera like their RX 100 series.
Just do it, Sony. You already are killing it in cameras -- take the Cellphone camera race, too. Work with Google to just make a Sony RX100 VIII Google Phone. I don't care if its heavy, if I was going to carry around a phone + a Sony RX anyway! You'll be lightening my load!
Putting an RX100, especially the current one, in a phone means it would be less pocketable than just carrying the RX100 and a phone; primarily because the entire phone would be much thicker.
Yeah, no kidding. But its circuitry would be integrated with the cameras circuitry and take the same amount of space AS THE CAMERA. I already know it would be bigger than a cellphone, that's the whole point, haha. It will be the exact same size as an RX100, just with the ability to talk on cell and be always connected. Possibly slightly chunkier for a bigger battery, but thats depth. The width and height should be the same and thus fine for pocket.
Very few people would pay flagship phone prices for a phone as small as the RX100. So what you would end up with is a phone the size of three Pixel 4s stacked on top of each other, or two with a massive camera lens hump, and that edge thickness is what would make it less pocketable that carrying a Pixel 4 none pocket and an RX100 in the other.
This is a very loose type of comparison, but the concept is great. Really makes me wonder why DP Review doesn't do exactly the same type of test but with some more scientific methodology?
COME ON DP REVIEW! Stop all the contentious click-bait phone articles and give us a proper blind test!
I *really* wish you would provide transcripts of things that you post as videos. I find most YouTube videos really tedious. I can read a transcript and get to the meat of it and finish in about a third the time it takes to watch a YouTube video with a boring, self-promoting intro, begging me to subscribe, etc etc. I just don't watch them. I am spending more time on other sites that haven't been doing this. Maybe I'm alone in this, I don't know. I'm reasonably sure I would have been interedsted in this, but not at the price of 5 extra minutes of boring horse*.
I really wish there were a 1-5 star rating for posts so i could skip reading boring posts like this. I'm going to to see a movie tonight but wish I could just read a transcript of it so i can skip through all the boring parts. I wish I could watch videos for free and get a transcript for free too. I wish people would write transcripts for free. I wish I could have every camera I wanted for free with a free lens. wah wah wahhhhh....
Yeah. Often there is a comment that will say review, lesson, etc starts at t = xx:xx. I also watch them at 2x speed. 1x if I am really curious about what they are saying
Baron_Karza, if you don’t care about accessibility, that’s fine. But a transcript would allow many more to enjoy the content, whether it be because they are hard of hearing, or they are already listening to music, or they don’t speak English natively. It also enables the content to be indexed and searched for more easily. I don’t understand why you would berate or mock someone for wishing for a transcript.
Same here. I typically read these articles in between meetings or on my lunch break at work, where I don’t want to disturb those around me by watching videos with sound. Some of us do still know how to read. ;)
Huawei: the Chinese run spy unit. So many countries have banned them (US included) and they have paid many millions for their dirty work. Sum ting wong.
A useless test--not only because the A-B testing precludes comparisons across all smartphones in the test suite, but also because of the many confounds present.
Thankfully, at least the comments section highlights these methodological shortcomings, unlike the DPR article, which merely parrots the video's findings without critically appraising them.
One reason I just don't care at all about the rear shooter on my smartphone. They're all good enough for snapshots, all pictures made on them in decent conditions can be made to look pleasing enough. If I need to capture photos to print or show on a big screen (or photos I'll want to keep), I'll whip out my D3500.
Maybe the author had his own logic, but why not get all the samples out then people can score them together? A/B comparison to eliminate is like world cup soccer ... May the luckiest team to win ...
After all, we just realize that he needs more click$ with multiple rounds LOL
I am surprised by the "magenta at the bottom" photo. I would have thought that a 'professional' photographer would have known to lay the "camera" against the glass to avoid as much reflection as possible. Just in case - if you get close enough to fences you can get a picture without the wires/railings,etc in the picture! (sorry, couldn't resist that)
Considering the wide disparity of exposure exhibited between the blind photos this was likely more an evaluation of the phones' metering capability than anything else, and a rather specific one at that considering the high contrast between the daytime highlights and Marques's dark complexion.
It doesn't really matter if the difference in image quality comes from exposure metering, lens quality, JPG processing or anything else because none of these factors can be controlled by the photographer. In the end, you press the button and a photo comes out. Some phones will produce a better photo than others and that's the winner.
Did they though? 4.8B for 6 movies comes out to 800M pet movie and they had ~200M budget each, without marketing costs. Their break even was ~600+M r movie so they made some profit, but not even close to a lot. And the latest two barely scraped by with 600M and 470M box office and nobody is talking about sequels.
Compare that with MCU that has 23B/4.4B or Harry Potter with 7.2B/1.2B or James Bond at 12B/2B (adjusted for inflation), etc.
you put way to much effort into that retort. but it provides me hope for humanity that there is some evidence that people didn’t like transformers as much as i assumed. but they still made 5(?) of them.
I’m more of a Marvel guy, really like Batman, Spider-man and Superman...
They were viewed at both cinema reference screens and huge prints made on the highest quality print paper (as well as glass) with provided enlargement lenses and were lit by state of the art light sources.
You know, just like everyone views Instagram photos normally.
Several years ago I took two almost identical shots, one SooC JPEG from a 22MP full frame camera with a high quality lens. The other was an SooC JPEG taken using my 12MP camera phone. Both taken in good sun. Printed both at 8"x10", then I took the prints to my local independent camera shop for a blind trial.
The results were very interesting.
Of the four staff, all keen photographers, three preferred the shots from the phone!
Why? Because whilst the full frame camera shots were more accurate in terms of colour, they generally preferred the more heavily saturated and more aggressively sharpened pictures from the phone!
Ironic considering they still don't sell phones 😉
Obviously you can easily sharpen and boost your saturation, and I know the test is the probably the optimal use case for the phone. The phone would have struggled in low light, and/or very contrasty scenes.
Interesting that all images were SOOP (straight out of phone). The manufacturers recognize this is the way 99% use their phones for photography, but readers of DPR will find this unacceptable for use of their cameras. If you had allowed post-processing, I guess the results might have been different.
Literally no one edits smarphone photos. They are designed to look good as shot. This is why cameras are dying, because manufacturers continue to give us reality xeroxing sensors which give a bland look. No one wants to edit anymore. Those here who do, are a small minority.
how many smartphone photos are taken are edited. Extremely low % of photos that have been taken on smart phones. Extremely low. Normal people dont care about editing.
@gravis Simply repeating your claim doesn't make it true. Again, explain why image editing apps like Snapseed have millions upon millions of downloads.
smartphone companies are embracing machine learning and photo AI. Their goal is to make photos good, so editing is not required. Right now, editing is required, sometimes, because this has not been perfected. But over time smartphone photos will get better and better, with less editing required.
This is why the camera market is dying. Because of the old school hardliner attitude that a digital sensor needs to replicate reality as much as possible. And one that does, is the best sensor. This makes no sense. Reality is boring, people want their images to be exciting. As smartphone sensor embrace AI and their images get better, the camera industry will continue to die until someone realizes that the masses do not want to buy a camera that is overcompliated for no reason, has an outdated menus system from 1994, and all the images look boring and lifeless unless they spend 1/2 an hour fixing them.
People like cameras. But modern digital sensors lack character.
@gravis92 It doesn't matter how many are edited, your statement "Literally no one edits smarphone photos." is false, if you can find one counter example. You were wrong.
Smartphones also don't always produce an acceptable product. I recent showed my Niece how to improve her smartphone photos when confronted with certain tricky lighting situations. (Hint: It involved editing, she was a grateful for the "pro tip".)
you cannot call my statement false. And your focus on my statement which cannot be proven false or true, and not the other things I say, mean you are not interested in a real discourse on the future of cameras, but rather a troll. My statements did not have quantification, you cannot falsify it. If 1/5000 people who have a smart phone, edit their photos, thats an extremely small percentage. Its effectively "literally no one" in relative terms. Do you know why that's important? Because people have always loved taking pictures. Before digital, most everyone had a camera. People took pictures and they didn't edit them. Now, everyone still had a camera and everyone still does not edit them. And yet, camera companies still give us cameras and force the images to be boring and force people to edit. The vast majority of people with smartphones, do not edit, nor do they care. That is the market. The camera market is dying because they are focusing on a niche market.
I can, I did, it was. It was quantified, look up "literally" in the dictionary, the second word in the definition in mine is "exactly". You said exactly no one did it, I provided a counter example.
A reasonable person would admit they mispoke rather than double down.
I did not misspeak. Literally no one edits smartphone photos. I said it like I meant it. This used to be the camera market, but it was stolen by smartphones. If camera companies want to increase their market share they need to make their images look good without editing. Which how literally everyone that uses smartphone cameras take pictures. Only a very small percentage care about editing. People that care about editing, are likely into photography. People that just take photos with their phone just want to take pictures. For some strange reason, camera companies have refused to try and get that market back. They have bigger sensors and nearly a century in some cases of photographic experience, and yet they refuse to put all their effort into making a digital sensor that take pictures that look good immediately.
Every sentence that anyone says, could technically corrected by someone else for "mis speaking" based on their perception/interpretation.
Gravis92, still waiting for you to explain the popularity of image editors for mobile phones given your falsifiable claim that not a single person (“literally on one”) edits mobile phone images...
The point of my argument is that the percentage of people who edit photos on smart phones is so minuscule that is clearly shows that the masses do not want to edit photos. Also, mobile phone editors are not at all the same as lightroom. Literally no one takes photos with their smartphone camera and loads them into lightroom on their computer and sits in a dark corner away from their family and friends and edits the afternoon away. Camera manufacturers have lost touch with reality by requiring that their images need this and still thinking that the are "good". Literally no one edits smartphone photos like that. Why is this relevant? Because it shows that normal people, of which there are likely a billion , like taking photos but hate editing like that! When they have a camera that they can use to take photos that are easy to share and look good, they dont want to edit! The smartphone is simple! Make a dslr with a fantastic FF sensor, IQ driven by AI, and 2 buttons.
Gravis92 “Long-winded douche-nozzle” is a metaphorical description applied to those who are seemingly unable to grasp the meaning of the word “literally”. Furthermore, I have an absurdly large collection of photo editing apps on my iPhone. I edit iPhone photos every day. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that explores the question of how we “know” things. A perusal of basic principles could help you to understand the difficulties which arise when we assume knowledge that we cannot have.
@Gravis so now it seems you have redefined "editing" to mean "editing in Lightroom". I don't own Lightroom, so I guess I don't edit photos at all. Thanks for clearing that up.....
Docno image editors on smartphone take 1 minute. And you can do that anywhere. This is not even the same thing as editing camera raw images. That process is so much more involved. Of course people would like to edit their photos to look better, but the process of editing that camera manufacturers force us to buy into is awful, and not worth it. Photos from camreas look bad initially, and then you have to figure out how to make them better with some over complicated program on a computer. Good luck trying to seamless transfer those photos to your phone without compatibility issues to do a 2 min edit on your phone while you are out with friends or whatever. Everything about phones is easy. Even editing. Everything about cameras is annoying and is now just a niche market because of that. Literally no one takes photos with their smartphone and edits them in lightroom on a computer. And yet, every camera manufacturer expects us to do this with their product.
@slouch hooigan of course you have apps on your phone. You are the niche market. You are on the dpreview forms. Out of the 20 family members I know of all ages who have phones, only 1 likely edits photos on their phone. And thats me. And that process is so easy. Give a new mirrorless camera to someone and an lightroom subscription and they will take one look at that and take a hard pass. The expectation that camera manufacturers have is misguided. They want to give us some "accurate" representation of the scene which ends up just looking bad. Forcing the customer to spend more money on more programs to make it look decent. Just make the photos look great immediatly with filters that are actually good, not just for fun and overdone. Also embed an editing program right on the camera such that I dont need another device. This is the future. If only zeiss had not priced their attempt at this at 5000 dollars. It needed to be 600 dollars.
People stopped caring about smartphone cameras a long time ago, they are all good. The idea of switching back and forth from IOS and Android becomes more difficult for most users as time goes on. App purchases, exclusive content, eco system, something as simple as iMessage is a larger factor than pixel peeping images.
I mean, the test purposely was not in low light, with fast action, or of video features. You may find your lower tech cell phone camera to be similar enough to best in industry products for those types of shots but that's not the only type of shot people use. You hear the commentary talking about resolution and contrast being effectively irrelevant not because there aren't differences, but because the social media platform's compression is such that they all result in the same thing.
When you need more camera for a more challenging shot or you demand more than an instagram photo in quality, you will see pretty quickly that there are differences in cell phone cameras.
I wouldnt say 'eco system' is that big a deal globally - iMessage is of next to no relevance outside the US. Good or bad, android severly outnumbers other plattforms there.
Plus there are people with biases towards a product. I would rather buy before I buy an Iphone. Not that I don't like Iphones. I hate Apple. Plus I am and Android fan (no walled garden for me).
And there are plenty of Apple lovers who would never buy an Android product.
There you have it. Real people, as opposed to DPR visitors, don’t like shallow depth of field. And as a side benefit it’s another nail in the coffin of Equivalence Photography and their mindless obsession with using the widest possible aperture.
The second someone brings up the necessity of shallow DOF, you know they know little of photography, framing, content, and are in desperate need of a "crutch" . "subject isolation" really usually means "I couldn't fine a proper background to compliment the subject", though can also mean the light was too low or I needed to fast a shutter speed for me to use a more reasonable aperture.
I have always felt this way and I am far from unaware of the effects of aperture on depth of field. I've always tried to maximize depth of field in my shots. Fast apertures are a price to pay when you need more light and you're willing to SACRIFICE depth. You cannot add light very often (flashes suck for so many reasons). I like fast glass not for it's shallow depth but because it keeps ISO down when light is limited.
This might also be why I prefer shooing wide angles so much as well. I actually want the background to be interesting and detailed.
In photography we like to get images "sharp" or in focus, then in post production "soften" or "blur" areas to make the content look more pleasing, such as faces. You can always soften and blur an image that is sharper than desired, but unless you have multiple exposures with varying focus, you can never truly add sharpness and detail to an image (although there are claims of AI doing this to some extent). But the point is, the rule of thumb is, more DoF is better because you can't add back in areas in focus or sharpness.
I don't see the data supporting the 'real people don't like shallow depth of field' conclusion.
Real people like a lot of different things, and in general tasteful application of depth of field is an art in itself, and is extremely subject dependent. A rough example would be the difference between traditional portraiture and environmental portraiture; light permitting, even the same lens may be used, and even the same shooting aperture, with subject distance and framing resulting in a difference in depth of field and perceived subject isolation.
'People' like both, and preferences are more likely to align with the use of the shot in question than whether one is 'better' than the other.
"Dear John, your response is unacceptable. There's no such thing as a diversity in photo preferences. It is either you all agree with me and be on the side of righteousness, good taste, and deep technical understand of the issues OR you disagree with me and therefore a stupid sub-human. Pick a side and it better be mine or else you're a spawn of Satan.
GearGuy Of theYear, Unless you are a kind of professional photographer who shoots staged pictures, you often cannot select the "proper" background, especially when shooting candids, street pictures or "stolen" pictures. And I personally like reduced DOF because pictures taken with a huge DOF look flat to my eyes. Even when I shoot landscapes with a wide-angle lens, I try to have a part of the foreground blurred by a limited DOF. Oh, please, do not tell me that I can blur my picture in post. Because I prefer to spend my time outdoor shooting with my camera, than indoor tweaking pictures on my computer.
Lighten up my dudes. It’s just one of those food for thought things, no one has a gun to your head. Side note: Henri Cartier Bresson would post up at a location based on the background then wait for something to happen in front of his lens.
MrBrightSide, "Side note: Henri Cartier Bresson would post up at a location based on the background then wait for something to happen in front of his lens." Losing so much time is something a pro can afford if, in the end, he gets the "perfect" picture that will bring him back much money... As an amateur, when travelling, I cannot use this strategy...
To be specific, changing focus distance absolutely does change depth of field. With the same equipment set to the same settings, just moving closer to the subject reduces depth of field.
Karolly—in my long life I’ve found that in photography everything equals out in the end; so even though your time is limited I’m betting if you tried the Cartier Bresson technique you would get the same number of good shots in the same amount of time as you spend now.
As for depth of field you’re sorta right except that the effect is reduced as you move closer because you’re seeing fewer things in the background to be out of focus. Take it to the extreme: If You are taking a closeup photo of just my eye you could shoot at f/0.001 with an 8x10 view camera and you’re not going to see my ears out of focus because they’re no longer in the frame.
A useless test unless you're trying to gauge which camera processing best satisfies predominating tastes, which doesn't sound like a useless test at all...
This is common knowledge to corporations and marketers. Boost saturation, make stuff sweeter, crank up the luminance on display TVs, etc.
Years ago Pepsi-cola learned that by making their soft drinks sweeter they could easily win blind taste tests. They force Coke to come out with "The New Coke", which could compete with Pepsi in blind taste tests, but turned out to be a historic failure.
The Insta360 One R is a unique action camera: it has interchangeable camera modules, including one with a large 1"-type sensor and a Leica lens. We show you how it works and ask, 'who's it for'?
Exposure X6 is the latest Adobe Lightroom competitor from Exposure Software. With great image quality, impressive speed and powerful features, it's a compelling option that doesn't require a monthly subscription.
Sigma's 35mm F2 DG DN designed specifically for mirrorless cameras is a compact, well-built lens that produces lovely images. Is it a good fit for you? Find out in our field review.
US manufacturer Really Right Stuff just released a new lightweight travel tripod, aimed at active and weight-conscious photographers that don't want to compromise on quality. Does its performance justify its high price? Find out in our initial review.
Fujifilm's latest X-S10 is a likeable mirrorless camera with some of the company's best tech packed inside, and it doesn't cost the earth. We think it could be a good fit for photographers of all kinds – find out more in our full review.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2500? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2500 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional productions or A-camera for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
The lens is optically identical to its black and silver siblings, but spices things up with a bright-red paint job and a custom lens cap to celebrate the Year of the Ox.
Join filmmaker John Webster and his team as they voyage into the beautiful Sawtooth Wilderness in Idaho with Manfrotto's Befree 3-way Live Advanced tripod.
The inclusion of in-body stabilization in Fujifilm's X-S10 means it's able to offer a lot of the features of the flagship X-T4. So, price aside, what are the differences between the two models, and how much of a bargain is the smaller camera?
Which high resolution mirrorless camera is best for you? This week, we compare the Canon EOS R5, Sony a7R IV, Nikon Z7 II and Panasonic S1R to answer that question.
As part of CES 2021, Canon launched a new website allowing users to view select locations on earth from the Canon CE-SAT-1 satellite. Using the onboard Canon 5D Mark III and Canon telescope, you can zoom in and see our planet from a fresh perspective.
The new Pro+ and Platinum+ plans cost $150 and $300 per year, respectively, and add additional benefits over the complimentary 'Pro' plan Nikon Professional Services offers. These NPS plans are limited to residents of the United States and U.S. territories.
The Insta360 One R is a unique action camera: it has interchangeable camera modules, including one with a large 1"-type sensor and a Leica lens. We show you how it works and ask, 'who's it for'?
Considering getting your hands on a Soviet film camera? Good for you! There's quite a few quality options out there and many can be had for a reasonable price. But before you go and pull the trigger on a Zorki-3C rangefinder, we suggest reading the guide below, from our pals at KosmoFoto.
Although the announcement wasn’t set to be made public yet, we’ve been able to confirm with Venus Optics the details of its four ‘Argus’ F0.95 lenses set to be released throughout 2021.
Samsung has unveiled a trio of new Galaxy smartphones, the S21, S21 Plus and S21 Ultra. The S21 and S21 Plus incorporate new cost-saving measures amidst a variety of improvements. The S21 Ultra, on the other hand, showcases what Samsung can do with a $1,200 price point.
MacRumors has come across a bit of code that suggests Apple may soon show a warning in the Settings menu when the camera modules inside iOS devices have been replaced with third-party components.
We've been pressing on with our review of Panasonic's Lumix S5, and have put it in front of our studio scene to see what it can do. Spoiler alert, its JPEG engine and high-res mode are both really impressive.
Our team at DPReview TV recently published its review of the new Sony 35mm F1.4 GM lens. How good is it? Take a look at the photos they took while reviewing the camera and judge the image quality for yourself!
Costco has informed U.S. and Canadian customers that all in-store camera departments will be shut down on February 14, 2021. Costco’s online printing services will still be available.
It's been a long time coming, but Sony has finally announced a G Master series 35mm lens for its full-frame mirrorless system. This compact alternative to the Zeiss version has some impressive spec: click through to learn more.
Dora Goodman got her start customizing existing analog cameras. Since then, she and her team launched a company offering open-source designs for 3D printing cameras and selling customers 3D printed parts and fully assembled cameras.
We've been busy shooting around with Sony's brand-new, compact and lightweight FE 35mm F1.4 G Master lens and initial impressions are quite positive: It's extremely sharp wide open across the frame, and controls ghosting, flaring and chromatic aberration with ease.
The 35mm F1.4 GM brings one of photography's classic focal lengths to Sony's G Master series of lenses. How does it perform? According to Chris and Jordan, it's pretty darn good.
Sony has just announced their 39th full-frame E-mount lens, the FE 35mm F1.4 GM. It comes with a complex optical formula and fancy autofocus motor technology, but it's among the lightest fast 35mm lenses on the market.
In an article published by ICAN Management Review, Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki speaks to the future of the company, including the possibility of RF/Z mount Sigma lenses, future camera systems and more.
ViewSonic has announced new ColorPro monitors at CES. The monitors, available in 27" and 32" sizes, range from 2K to 8K resolution and have been designed for color-critical applications including photography and video editing.
BCN Retail, which tracks online and in-person sales of digital cameras in the Japanese market, has shared its end-of-year data, showing the COVID-19 pandemic further compounded the already-shrinking camera market in Japan.
Fujifilm's main macro lens for its GFX system is the 120mm F4 Macro – a lens we've been playing around with for some time. We got the opportunity to update our gallery using the GFX 100, and we jumped at the chance to see what this lens can really do.
A new license or upgrade for Capture One for Fujifilm, Nikon and Sony used to cost $129 USD. A newly-instituted price hike has increased the cost to $199 (or $149 for an upgrade). Alongside the price change, Capture One has added a seat to new license purchases. Subscription costs have also increased.
The OWC Envoy Pro FX is constructed of an aluminum closure that’s IP67 rated to ensure your photos and videos are protected from the elements (and clumsiness)
The new CV5 system on a chip can encode 8K video at up to 60 fps, while also providing enough overhead for AI-powered features and capture modes, such as face-detection in action cameras and collision avoidance in drones.
What is field curvature, and why should you care? In this article – the second of two – professional optics geek Roger Cicala goes even deeper into the subject. Warning: many swirly graphs ahead.
Comments