cinemascope: RAW is nice, but what about something in between, say PNG?
The world needs to stop producing content exclusively and directly to a crappy lossy format such as JPEG.JPEG is for distribution... Internet... Sharing... That's it.JPEG is not for content production... Not for saving treasured memories...
I know phones are used for sharing, but many of its images do get stored for future appreciation too.How many new born babies these days have their first photo taken by a phone?Just create the crappy JPEG at the moment of sharing... Done!And keep the proper copy. Duh?
Sure RAW might be too complicated and overkill to most phone users... Not everyone will care to change WB later, or to keep the original bayer info intact.But it makes sense to use a proper demosaiced, non-lossy format for creation and storage.We are in the HD era, it's not 1990 anymore, why we keep recording to a crappy distribution format?
It's like recording a feature film directly to DVD or VHS...
PNG is not going to help because it gives you none of the advantages of raw while also giving you none of the compressibility of JPG. Lose / lose!
utomo99: Little bit too late but still OK. I hope Google can add something to the current raw standard which can help making better picture/ easier processing and other good things
Unless you're talking about open DNG, there is no "current raw standard." The raw bits coming off of every camera are in their own format, which is why software continually has to be updated to understand the raw files of new cameras.
Google should just save to DNG, like some Pentax and Leica cameras can. Then any of the raw processors that support DNG will be able to open it without needing an upgrade.
KW Phua: Haha at lease when I upgrade new camera a few year later, I do not need to pay for new RAW converter, when I have the aperture.
These digital camera updates don't come without requirements. It says you have to have Aperture 3/iPhoto 11, and OS X 10.8,5 or later, otherwise you'll need to upgrade something or other. You can't hang on to a version of Aperture forever...if your Aperture is too old, you will have to pay for a new update to use these camera updates.
Marcin 3M: Adobe approach vs Google/Nik approach.Adobe is shrinking their product for different groups of users and products. They watch carefully to NOT deliver any new feature.Nik released free update with totally new plugin in the set.
Oh boy, a new filter!
That'll really show those Lightroom fans, who are only interested in improvements to photographic correction tools.
Timbukto: What is it that causes people to assume that software = free, but hardware costs money. Duplication and mass production of software has relatively insignificant costs in terms of energy and waste (fueled by junk food and soda cans perhaps), but the development and R&D costs are still there. Your photos can be duplicated for little to no cost as well, does that mean your photos should be free? The C100 is not even a mainstream consumer device where most of you should even gripe about, let the very few professional C100 owners complain. Our society places no value about the worth of firmware updates and the development that goes into it...but I bet you value techies the moment your OS F's up and you need to hire a techie to recover your photos. A camera with great hardware and absolute crap firmware still can make for a crap camera. So why the double-standard...one where you greatly value competent robust and innovative software, and one where you completely disregard its worth?
"Your photos can be duplicated for little to no cost as well, does that mean your photos should be free? "
It is pretty amazing how many photographers miss this point about the software business.
Kinda like how you hear a photographer whine and complain about people stealing his photos off the Internet, then he turns around and fills up his smartphone with copyrighted songs downloaded from a torrent site.
justin23: assuming of course it comes to your device... I love my android phone but OS updates take forever to reach the phone after android has been released.
Photohal said to stick with Nexus for automatic updates and no problems, but the big controversy last week was the news that the Galaxy Nexus will not get KitKat even though it is not that old.
Owners of the Galaxy Nexus have already started a petition because they feel so betrayed.
My iPhone 3GS had update support for twice as long as this.
I think of all those who fought in the forum flame wars about whether optical viewfinders are better than electronic viewfinders.
Robert Capa photographed a real war, and he didn't even need his viewfinder to become a more famous photographer than you.
capanikon: I'd rather they didn't put touch screens on cameras.
I used to think like you, because touch screens are generally worse than tactile controls, and I steered my mom away from any touchscreen P&Ss because so many functions were buried under touchscreen menus.
But then I saw how one camera uses the touchscreen to give you a simpler video rack focus than any tactile control ever has (you tap the two spots on the screen you want to rack between). That's when I realized that touch screens are OK as long as only appropriate and workflow-enhancing functions are assigned to them.
Don't pre-judge any camera UI. It's like criticizing people for taking pictures with those 8x10 slabs called iPads; the perception of the activity would be completely different if only those 8x10 slabs were view cameras...
This explains why all the old-timers can spend so much time telling us why photography was better before digital and smartphones. :)
But seriously, seems like many of the best photographers hit their stride after 50 (and I'm not there yet). Probably the ideal time because you can bring experience and life judgment to your favorite pastime and be less tempted by fickle trends.
Schweikert: I don't quite follow what they are selling. Are they charging a fee for the same content that was free during the creativeLIVE events? What is the value difference in content between the free stuff and paid?
Nothing's changed. They always show the course free when it is live, and they always charge a fee to download the recording, in case you missed the live one or you think it's important enough to watch more than once.
The only difference between this and what they always do is the prices of the recordings are on sale.
nicholo plaza: I agree with people saying that Lightroom is better for processing and has much more powerful tools, but Aperture just has such a smooth and seamless workflow that its difficult to ignore.
vadims, neither Aperture nor Lightroom require you to move your photos from where they already are. That criticism is so 2010...
write2alan: What good can the newest Mac OSX do if it can not be installed on a DuoCore Power PC with 16 GB of RAM. Apple is full of it....I won't spend a single dime on Apple products. I got robbed by Apple about $3000.00 a few years ago.
"Con artists?" Groucher, an informed shopper would never, ever spend $3000 based on the marketing claims of technology companies.
Seehund: Is there a technical reason for the inability to use movie mode and WiFi simultaneously? If not, can we expect a firmware update that addresses this issue?
Yes, it probably has to do with the lack of confidence whether the customer's wifi network can sustain the data rate reliably given what other traffic is likely to be on that network.
Remember that while you can stream HD video from Youtube to your phone or laptop over wifi, that's finished video optimized for low Internet data rates. But what comes out of the camera is un-edited video that is assumed to be going to an onboard card using the fast internal data transfer of the camera, so the bit rate is relatively high. So high that you need to buy a certain class of SD card to ensure no dropped frames. Compare that to the flakiness of WiFi and it's not such a mystery.
Wow...it'd be nice to have a list of all the commenters who suggested duct tape, because I wouldn't want that awful, messy, residue-shedding stuff anywhere near my camera bag. I'm not sure I'd trust someone who suggested using duct tape on any photo equipment that is not an actual duct.
Gaffers tape or GTFO.
I know DPReview commenters are off the rails when they complain about a curved phone handset. I used to use one all the time...
The Bell Model 500 rotary dial telephone was invented in 1951 and used by millions of Americans over the decades. Its handset was curved.
vladimir vanek: what the...? I mean, what's wrong with the world today? Do we need hundreds of phone models in every tenth of inch of screen diagonal? flat, round, black, red, white, blue, with this and that OS, with all sorts of resolutions. one with LED flash, another one with dual LED, and a third one with bi-color dual LED. oh yes, and a xenon of course. those with 8 mpix, 10 mpix, 13 mpix, a water resistant one, crush resistant, made of plastic, made of metals, made of glass... And most importantly, a new one every few months? why don't they make a flawless design, say in 5 different specs and that's it? cooperation instead of competition? and focus on more important things, like saving the planet, feeding people and living happy lives without all those twitters and facebooks even in our bedrooms? sorry for my essay, I'm just tired of this neverending competition that brings nothing but pulling out some money out of everyone's pocket as often as possible.
Without competition, we simply wouldn't have the advanced state of smartphones or the computers we're using to type these comments. Competition is what makes new ideas come out and test which ones work and don't work in the real world.
Nobody is forcing you to pull money out of your pockets. I kept my first smartphone for over three years. I have home theater components that are a quarter century old. The only person handing over money is you, when you choose to.
Once again DPReview covers a low-end consumer mobile camera, the type that is ruining photography. Photography should be about specs and expensive equipment and a tripod. Cameras like this put photography into the hands of anyone, and more dangerously, into the hands of the un-trained.
Oh sure, the smaller size of this camera is a convenience, but if you are serious about your photography you should be taking a Nikon DSLR everywhere you go. The lens on this thing is obviously some mass-market junk glass, and how do you focus? DPReview needs to stop covering these mobile photography trends that just demean all of the obscure technical knowledge we have toiled to acquire and memorize.
Unacceptably blown-out highlights, gimmicky circular crops (I remember when those become available in a recent Wordpress build) and cheesy sepia Instagram-style filters. This is not real photography!
/sarcasm, and I'm talking to you smartphone/P&S haters
Tonkotsu Ramen: How do you not take even one low light shot in all of those samples?
The picture of the sky in low light doesn't count.. because it's a picture of the lit sky..
What's going on over at dpr?
Thank you for the explanation. However, I'll say that I hardly ever look at bright light photos anymore, since almost any pocket camera or smartphone can excel in those conditions. Low light is certainly the differentiator: For noise, for low-light detail, for wide-open lens performance... Low light tells us everything about the camera while bright light tells us nothing compared to other cameras.
The question then is whether DPR has more to gain by posting pictures sooner that don't provide enough differentiating information about the camera versus other cameras (i.e. low value examples), or posting pictures later that are worth examining closely (high value examples).
Henrik Herranen: "Apple’s iPhone line arguably launched both the mass-market smartphone era and the practice of what we now call mobile photography."
This might have been true in the United States, the only market in the world where Nokia wasn't dominant when Apple's first smartphone launched. Everywhere else Nokia mobile camera smartphones outsold Apple's iPhones until just two years ago, not to even speak of Nokia's camera featurephones and other manufacturers phones.
So yes, this claim is quite arguable.
The claim is probably valid in that while cameras have existed on phones long before the iPhone, none of those cameras sparked an actual movement that caused even some legitimate and traditional photographers to explore and specialize in. This was helped by the new economy of iPhone camera apps.
All of those other phones you cited...none of them were able to launch anything on the scale of Instagram. That is I think the point here.
danijel973: This is not really impressive as I duplicated this result with a simple "sharpen" command in Gimp. Also, you can't get more information than you put in, meaning that you can't create detail from blur. You can clarify detail that's already there, but I would always prefer to do it optically to the maximum possible extent, and only then use software to try to go even further. Intentionally designing bad lenses and relying on software to make them mediocre is not a good idea.
The fatal flaw in your sharpening "duplication" of results is that you only applied a uniform amount of sharpening to all pixels. That's not where this technology is going. Your sharpening cannot correct chromatic aberration or intentionally compensating for compromises in the design of the lens to save money (as is done with several cameras' firmware already). Applying a blind uniform sharpening value is to miss the point.
Sorry, but in articles of this type, a reply posting "I got the same thing by sharpening in GIMP" usually discredits the post right away.