April 23, 2014, 04:33:17 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 218
1501
I have to concur that Win-8 sucks big time on a desktop. Metro has no business on a PC machine...

but on a tablet device or a phone, Its far better than my Iphone. The only reason I haven't jumped ship is that the more and more stuff you buy on itunes and the app store, the more it ties you down on the system.  :P I couldn't switch if I wanted too with all my purchases.

It did, I agree. I think Windows 8.1 fixes most of that, though. It still isn't ideal, but a hell of a lot better than what it was. That's Microsoft's MO, though. It always takes a couple versions for quirks to iron out. Also, keep in mind, people utterly HATED Windows XP when it first hit (I remember reading scathing, hateful articles months and months after its initial release), and it was over a year before it became the most used and most loved Windows OS ever. I don't suspect things will be any different for Windows 8...and it is a hell of a lot better release than Windows Vista was (so the next major release should be a pretty significant improvement even over Win8.1).

Microsoft has a different release MO. Apple builds up an unquenchable fervor by not releasing ANY details about its releases until the day they unveil. (Well, they did....seems that may change under Cook, and I guess we'll see whether that is to the detriment of apple in the long term.) Microsoft has always approached releases with lots of software leaks, beta versions, community technology previews, etc. I think that can be good and bad, but these days, it seems it gives people too much time to play with new products before they are even released, encounter all the pre-release bugs, and decide they don't like the product. I would prefer Microsoft take the old Apple/Jobs approach. Don't release anything until its done, and when its released, make sure its solid, and make it a big party. They wouldn't lose people in the beta and CTP phase that way, they wouldn't get a bunch of pre-release bad press, and they would gain the benefit of people being antsy and excited to see and use the next greatest Microsoft thing. People just end up bored with the bugs before new Windows versions are actually released, the excitement is gone, so the release suffers, and it takes longer to build momentum.

Maybe the MS reorg will change things...but I don't really trust Ballmer to be anything other than a raging tool...so....

Windows 2000/NT - Good

Windows ME - Bad

Windows XP - Good

Windows Vista - Bad

Windows 7 - Good

Windows 8 - Bad

Windows 9 - ? Fill the blank.

I love M$ products but not when they revamp something the first time. The second attempt is usually perfect.

Yup, that's pretty much it! :D It would be nice if it became:

Windows 9: Good
Windows 10: Good
   .
   .
   .
Windows N: Good

I get the feeling it will probably be more along the lines of :

Windows 8: So-So
Windows 8.1: Better
Windows 8.2: Even Better
Windows 8.5: Good
Windows 9: Better than Good
Windows 9.1: Even Better than Good

And if there are six to eight months between each release, then reaching Even Better than Good could take years. Assuming they don't end up continuing to flipflop.

1502
I have to concur that Win-8 sucks big time on a desktop. Metro has no business on a PC machine...

but on a tablet device or a phone, Its far better than my Iphone. The only reason I haven't jumped ship is that the more and more stuff you buy on itunes and the app store, the more it ties you down on the system.  :P I couldn't switch if I wanted too with all my purchases.

It did, I agree. I think Windows 8.1 fixes most of that, though. It still isn't ideal, but a hell of a lot better than what it was. That's Microsoft's MO, though. It always takes a couple versions for quirks to iron out. Also, keep in mind, people utterly HATED Windows XP when it first hit (I remember reading scathing, hateful articles months and months after its initial release), and it was over a year before it became the most used and most loved Windows OS ever. I don't suspect things will be any different for Windows 8...and it is a hell of a lot better release than Windows Vista was (so the next major release should be a pretty significant improvement even over Win8.1).

Microsoft has a different release MO. Apple builds up an unquenchable fervor by not releasing ANY details about its releases until the day they unveil. (Well, they did....seems that may change under Cook, and I guess we'll see whether that is to the detriment of apple in the long term.) Microsoft has always approached releases with lots of software leaks, beta versions, community technology previews, etc. I think that can be good and bad, but these days, it seems it gives people too much time to play with new products before they are even released, encounter all the pre-release bugs, and decide they don't like the product. I would prefer Microsoft take the old Apple/Jobs approach. Don't release anything until its done, and when its released, make sure its solid, and make it a big party. They wouldn't lose people in the beta and CTP phase that way, they wouldn't get a bunch of pre-release bad press, and they would gain the benefit of people being antsy and excited to see and use the next greatest Microsoft thing. People just end up bored with the bugs before new Windows versions are actually released, the excitement is gone, so the release suffers, and it takes longer to build momentum.

Maybe the MS reorg will change things...but I don't really trust Ballmer to be anything other than a raging tool...so....

1503
Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!

The Magic Lantern 14stop Dr thing is interesting. Certainly not the same as what you get with a D800 and its Exmor...you lose vertical resolution. To me, the point of having additional native hardware DR is the ability to recover shadow DETAIL. You can always downsample, which will improve image DR, but at the cost of detail...so to me that is kind of a net zero tradeoff (at least, when printing...doesn't matter if your uploading online.)

I guess for web publishers, the trick will be quite handy, and will certainly be better than the banding you get now on a Canon sensor.

1504
Thanks jrista and Driz for the info. I couldn't quite picture a BSI sensor so I wikipediaded it and found some links that were helpful. I learned something today! This is why I love CR!

Let me see if I have this right -

So FSI is cheaper as only one side need to be treated in the manufacturing process, it's more common and what Canon uses. However light can be reflected by the metal layer which sits in front of the photodiode. One way to get around that would be to make the transistors and metal logic parts smaller, right? Or just have less pixels. See 1DX.

And BSI is more expensive to make due to both sides of the wafer being treated however it essentially captures more light and is better for low light photography as light hits the silicon layer directly. So this has up until recently only been used in very small sensors, right? I read Sony were putting a 1 inch sensor in the RX-200.

Some conflicting info though. Have Sony found a way to reduce the cost of producing a BSI sensor then?  And are there any other disadvantages to BSI?

I would imagine that the equipment that is used to make BSI sensors also costs more than FSI and that for Canon to switch they would have to spend a boat load of money which in turn would mean more expensive cameras? Or can it be done relatively easily and Canon are working on this for the big megapixel body next year?

I think Sony quite simply just adds more debt in order to manufacture their sensors. They have tens of billions in debt, in no small part due to the creation of their highly modern fabs. Sony does bring in revenue, but last I heard, their operating expenses were higher, so they are loosing money to the tune of several hundred billion yen a year. I can't say whether they have found ways to make BSI fabrication cheaper or not...although I suspect they can certainly refine the process over time.

Canon is capable of producing sensors using more advanced processes. Currently, they use 8" wafers for fabricating smaller CMOS devices, sensors for small cameras. An 8" wafer doesn't offer as much surface area, so it is more expensive to fabricate larger sensors, like APS-C and FF, on them. They build their own fabs, so I see no reason they couldn't build a fab capable of 180nm on 12" wafers.

I think it is probably more likely that Canon is using some kind of BSI 500nm process for their high density APS-C and FF sensors. They actually have a patent for such a thing, and it wouldn't require them to build a new fab...and it would really be the only way to continue using a 500nm process and still make sensors with even smaller pixels produce IQ that is on par with their past and current generation sensors. I haven't heard even a rumor of anything indicating they have created new fabs or anything like that (although I certainly hope they have...I don't see how Canon can remain competitive moving forward without jumping to a 180nm process, while the rest of the world is already there or even moving beyond. Canon has certainly been able to remain competitive with 500nm...but they have to be well into the realm of diminishing returns now.)

1505
read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel  size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough


It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.


I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks!

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?


Glad it was helpful. Any engineering stuff aside, an image sensor is really just a circuitboard with sensors that generate electric charge in response to light stimulus surrounded by a bunch of electronic logic (transitors, capacitors/resistors, and wiring) designed to make it possible to "read" out the charge of each pixel when told to do so. Generally, as a matter of physics, the larger the area of the sensor, the more light can be detected and converted into charge.

BTW, BSI stands for Backside Illiminated, it has to do with the specifics of how the sensor is manufactured. These nano-scale circuit boards are "etched" onto the surface of highly polished, high grade silicon wafers. Etching occurs via light, which is beamed through a much larger scale "circuit board template" and onto the surface of the silicon (its a lot more complicated than that, as etching a CMOS device is usually done in layers, with depositions of various material for each layer, and further etchings with different templates...but that's the gist). The "front" side is the side that is etched. Usually, all the logic is etched onto the front side, and the photodiode itself is simply appropriately doped silicon in a grid at the bottom of the "well" created by all the transistors and wiring. Sensors etched in such a way are FSI, or Front Side Illuminated.


Fig 1: You can see the photosite well in this image. The "pixel cathode" is the photodiode. Various wiring surrounds the photodiode. Above the pixel is a color filter and a microlens.


Fig 2: You can see the grid layout of pixels in this image.

A newer technique originally designed to support the increasingly small photodiode area left available in small form factor sensors (such as the ones that are a fraction of a fingernail in size) for cell phone cameras, cheap point & shoots, etc. put the photodiode on the back of the silicon wafer, then etched the wiring on the front side, connected to the previously etched photodiodes. There are also usually color filters and micro lenses etched into the back side as well, above the photodiode itself. The process is more expensive as usually, only one side of the wafer needs to be etched or doped. The back side is usually just part of the "substrate", and the number of defects (stratches, pits, or other marks or even particulate embedded into the surface) do not matter. Since both sides of the wafer are important in a BSI design, both sides of the silicon wafer must be not only polished, but defects must be kept to a minimum. Hence it is more expensive and harder to manufacture.


Fig 3: A sony BSI sensor design. You can see all of the logic on top (front side), and microlenses, color filters, and photodiode on the bottom (back side). You can see where the photodiode for each pixel is connected to its logic in the middle.

An alternative to BSI design is LightPipe design. Canon also has patents as well as prototype (and possibly production...not sure) designs for a 180nm Cu (copper wiring) LightPipe sensor design with a double layer of microlenses. LightPipes make use of a high refractive index material to fill in the well. Normally, any light not directly incident on the photodiode itself will convert to heat or possibly reflect. That results in a loss of light energy, reducing the sensitivity of the sensor.


Fig 4: Canon's 180nm Cu LightPipe sensor cross section. This is for a very small sensor, possibly with pixels less than 2 microns in size (as evidenced by the very large wiring blocks next to each pixel, which on a 180nm process, means these pixels are quite small.)

1506
Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 16, 2013, 07:31:47 PM »
Simple fact of the matter is a better lens will perform better on ALL sensors, 20mp, 30mp, or 50mp. The problem with DXO's tests is they quite simply don't give you a reasonable camera-agnostic basis from which to compare lenses.


Actually, they do. There is a way to extract the pure lens resolution from the data they used to publish (full MTF curves, not the nonsense they publish now).

Umm, no...sorry. The final image is a convoluted result...one could not extract a "pure" lens resolution...you could only approximate it. (For the very same reason one cannot perfectly extract noise from a noisy image...it is part of a convolution produced by a complex real-world system. Too much uncertainty and a loss of information prevents perfect noise removal.)

You are wrong on that. I am not saying that you can remove the AA filters/sensor blur from the image. I am saying that you can find (estimate, if you wish) the strength of the sensor blur. If you are interested in the math, go to my profile, click on the link, etc. Deconvolution is a very different process, very unstable but you do not need to deconvolute to estimate the effect of the sensor blur. You can get instability only if you use sensors with such a low resolution, that the lenses you want to compare look the same (and they are not).

The problem with all that is that even if you are going to get the pure lens resolution somehow, you still need to consider the blurring effect of a future sensor, and compute the combined resolution again. So my question stands: are you sure you know how to do that?

It doesn't matter what kind of sensor you have, low resolution, high resolution, or tomorrows resolution. A convolved result is a convolved result, and in this case stability (or the lack thereof) doesn't really apply like it might when trying to denoise or deblur. You are talking about reverse engineering the actual lens PSF from an image produced by a grid of spatially incongruent red, green, and blue pixels (likely covered by additional lenses (microlenses)), then further interpolated by software to produce the kind of RGB color pixels we see on a screen and analyze with tools like Imatest (or DXO's software). The moment you bring the sensor into play, there are significant enough losses of data, and you can only, at best, guess at what those losses are (unless you have some detailed inside knowledge about whatever sensor it is your testing with). Your article is an interesting start, but you are assuming a Gaussian PSF. An actual PSF is most definitely not Gaussian, nor is it constant across the area of the lens (i.e. it changes as you leave the center and approach the corners...do a search for "spot diagram" to see actual lens PSF's produced mathematically from detailed and accurate lens specifications...even for the best of lenses, outside of the most centeral on-axis results, a PSF can be wildly complicated). Not to mention the fact that you have to guess the kernel in the first place, so whatever your result, it is immediately affected by what you think the lens is capable of in the first place.

Personally, I wouldn't trust any site that provided "lens resolution" results reverse engineered from an image produced by any sensor. I would actually rather take the "camera system" tests than have someone telling me what their best guess is for lens performance.

Quote
One wouldn't, necessarily. But your missing the point. The point is to call out DXO's BS approach to performing lens tests. The point is to clearly note that those tests are "camera system" tests...they are neither lens tests nor sensor tests. I wouldn't go so far as to say that is 100% useless, but it is certainly biased the way DXO does it, and there is a suspiciously long-term bias towards a particular manufacturer by DXO. (Not just away from Canon, either...even the Sony lens, which actually has better transmission, should have scored better...but it was limited by a sensor!)

Of course those are lens+camera tests, and DXO never said otherwise.

Hmm, DXO's own description on the lens tests page begs to differ:

Quote
DxOMark's comprehensive camera lens test result database allows you to browse and select lenses for comparison based on its characteristics, brand, type, focal range, aperture and price.

Nowhere in there do they state that the camera sensor is a factor in your ability to select and compare lenses. They only state that the lens characteristics, brand, type, focal range, aperture, and price are the applicable factors.

1507
Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 16, 2013, 06:23:16 PM »
Simple fact of the matter is a better lens will perform better on ALL sensors, 20mp, 30mp, or 50mp. The problem with DXO's tests is they quite simply don't give you a reasonable camera-agnostic basis from which to compare lenses.


Actually, they do. There is a way to extract the pure lens resolution from the data they used to publish (full MTF curves, not the nonsense they publish now).

Umm, no...sorry. The final image is a convoluted result...one could not extract a "pure" lens resolution...you could only approximate it. (For the very same reason one cannot perfectly extract noise from a noisy image...it is part of a convolution produced by a complex real-world system. Too much uncertainty and a loss of information prevents perfect noise removal.) A mathematically generated MTF that takes into account the real mathematical point spread function of the entire lens is really the only way to get any realistic idea of how a lens will actually perform. The moment that convolution is further convolved by a sensor, you lose the ability to "perfectly" (or purely) revert to the prior result...there is too much uncertainty and loss of information.

Quote
The Nikon 500/4 performs "on par" (toung in cheek) with the Canon 500/4 solely because of the higher resolution sensor. That sort of tells you that the Canon lens is particularly good, because it is performing so well on a worse sensor...but you don't really have any exact way of comparing. You only get a "feeling" that it performs so well.

Why in the world would you want to know how a Canon compares to a Nikon without a body? For bragging rights? They tell you what is achievable with the current bodies on which the lens works, the way it is deigned to work. A better lens on one body will be better on future bodies as well.

One wouldn't, necessarily. But your missing the point. The point is to call out DXO's BS approach to performing lens tests. The point is to clearly note that those tests are "camera system" tests...they are neither lens tests nor sensor tests. I wouldn't go so far as to say that is 100% useless, but it is certainly biased the way DXO does it, and there is a suspiciously long-term bias towards a particular manufacturer by DXO. (Not just away from Canon, either...even the Sony lens, which actually has better transmission, should have scored better...but it was limited by a sensor!)

1508

Have you actually used a Windows Phone 8 device? They are certainly not a joke, and after owning several generations of iPhone, I much prefer the Metro experience. The app gap is shrinking fast, and most of the apps I want are already available, and those that aren't are either coming, or I can write myself. I'd also point out that as the Android vs. iPhone battle has raged, iPhone has been losing, while Android and Windows have been gaining. Windows market share is about doubling every year, particularly with the Nokia Lumia phones. Again, I think people who skip past a Lumia just because its Nokia or just because its Windows are short changing themselves.

No point in having that argument really, not going to win anything.
I find the 'apps gap' irrelevant in about 5 mins I'd downloaded (free) every app I'm likely to need on my phone. (Nokia 925 win8)

I think what Nokia are doing is facinating, apart from IQ what I want to see improving substantially though is focus and shutter lag.

Shutter lag on an electronic shutter has always been an oddity to me. Is it simply because most smartphone cameras (and, for that matter, P&S cameras) insist on making a cutsie and unbelievably annoying little fake shutter click when people press the button? I figure, assuming the lens is focused, taking a picture should be near instantaneous...

1509
I just read some of the reviews on the Lumia 1020. I have to say, from a photography standpoint, I am REALLY impressed. It finally brings the true PureView 808's 41mp sensor, the 6-element Zeiss lens from the 925, and full Xenon flash to a phone pretty much built for photography. Their pro photo software looks rather nice, giving you complete control over all the standard aspects of exposure (i.e. want to do a long exposure and blur people walking by...you can). I love the fact that it has the extended battery "grip" accessory, too.

http://www.nokia.com/global/products/phone/lumia1020


So, does this mark the true end of the point and shoot, and the beginning of full blown photography phones with all the features we *photographers* have come to expect from an actual camera? To date, phone cameras have been geared more towards the instagrammer crowd...the Lumia 1020 seems to be positioned more for pro photographers who want something simpler, but still just as capable, for a handy every-moment alternative to a DSLR.

Is it only me who thinks this?


I don't think there is much of anyone (camera or other phones) that will have much to fear from competiton from this phone, as long as it is running Windows.

 ;D ;D

Cayenne


Have you actually used a Windows Phone 8 device? They are certainly not a joke, and after owning several generations of iPhone, I much prefer the Metro experience. The app gap is shrinking fast, and most of the apps I want are already available, and those that aren't are either coming, or I can write myself. I'd also point out that as the Android vs. iPhone battle has raged, iPhone has been losing, while Android and Windows have been gaining. Windows market share is about doubling every year, particularly with the Nokia Lumia phones. Again, I think people who skip past a Lumia just because its Nokia or just because its Windows are short changing themselves.

1510
I guess I'd like to keep things separated while batteries have just enough juice for one day on those huge screen phones. I'd rather shoot as much as I like, use the flash as much as I like, without having to think if I can get through the day. (These things change rather quickly, though.)

I make pretty heavy use of my Lumia each day, and it gets at least 9 hours of battery life. It doesn't have a Xenon flash, but it does have an exceptionally bright duel LED flash (very high MCD). I'm not sure that the screen is really the primary power draw anyway...the bigger draw is usually the LTE and WiFi, both of which I keep on at all times now since AT&T went the way of Verizon, and is now capping bandwidth at 5Gb/mo (I browse enough high def photography and videos on my phone that I can burn through that).

One of the things I like about Windows Phone 8 is that it is actually quite efficient, and when the battery drops below a certain threshold, you can configure it to enter a low-power mode where it will only turn on the LTE or WiFi if you actually need to use it. That usually extends my battery another three hours, so I can usually get 12 hours a day out of my 920.

1511
read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel  size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

1512
Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 16, 2013, 12:32:57 PM »
why would i care what the test results of a lens would be mounted to a camera i would never shoot. i would rather see test results from a lens/body combo that i could actually use.

Because lenses, especially one like this, will probably be used on new bodies for the next 10 years or so.  It will far outlast the current "best" body of a brand, possibly by several generations. [...]

So my answer is yes: to the greatest degree feasible, a "lens test" should isolate the lens, even mounting the competitors on the same body if possible.  (of course that's difficult, but that's what I'd like to see)

But there is still a problem: if you have a pure lens test, are you sure you know how to compute how it will perform on a future, say, 50mp body?

MTF charts are, for all intents and purposes, "pure lens tests". They already give us a way to compare lenses across the board, brands be damned. Simple fact of the matter is a better lens will perform better on ALL sensors, 20mp, 30mp, or 50mp. The problem with DXO's tests is they quite simply don't give you a reasonable camera-agnostic basis from which to compare lenses. The Nikon 500/4 performs "on par" (toung in cheek) with the Canon 500/4 solely because of the higher resolution sensor. That sort of tells you that the Canon lens is particularly good, because it is performing so well on a worse sensor...but you don't really have any exact way of comparing. You only get a "feeling" that it performs so well.

1513
jrista - I am not going to buy a Nokia as I do not desire a Nokia. It is a brand that makes me yawn, actually it does not even do that - I pass it in Duty Free and rarely even stop. I do not know why that is, but there you go. If the Lumia 1020 was on Android then maybe, but it is not.

I am sure we both agree that there are exciting times ahead for the camera/phone. Whether it is Sony (an ex-user), Samsung (a current user) or some other manufacturer I really do not care.

When they make camera phones that are as capable as the RX100-II or even the RX1 then I will take note.

Well, to each his own, I guess. Like I said, I think your short changing yourself, to restrict yourself to a specific phone OS and not even "look" simply because of a company name. If your content to wait until Samsung produces something similar (which I suspect should happen sooner or later), I'm sure there will be a product out there that suits you.

In the mean time, I'm happily considering a Lumia 1020 for myself. I have held off on buying a more portable camera because I wanted something that would be easy to always carry around with me, without losing out on quality. I can't think of a better way to do that than to embed a 41mp camera (that actually gives you the option of taking full 41mp photos when using pro photog mode) into my phone...I already always have my phone on me, so that neatly solves the problem in its entirety right there.

1514
What do you have against Nokia? You clearly seem to like the Lumia 1020...so what exactly has Nokia done wrong there? Seems they have succeeded WITHOUT marketing to me. If you simply don't like the name, well I guess I don't consider that grounds not to buy something. If the technology is excellent, the technology is excellent. It doesn't really matter how the company markets, or who's name is on it. I think your preventing yourself from getting a phenomenal phone with the best camera on the market just because of some name hate. Nokia's PAST problem was that they were unprepared for the onslaught of Apple and the iPhone...however...so was everyone else! Lumia is an excellent brand, with excellent features and competitiveness. It only seems to get better as time goes on. If you have ever actually used one, your dislike of the Nokia name would disappear in a heartbeat. Remember the old saying? "The best marketing is when you don't have to."

jrista, your caps lock kept getting stuck in that post!  ;)

Hmm...that usually means the entire thing is CAPS. Only two words of my post were caps, and quite explicitly so. ;) Strong difference between a stuck caps key and careful, intentful use...

I do not dislike Nokia, nor do I like Nokia, and that is their problem - at least from my perspective. And that is why I say that in my opinion Nokia really needs to do something about its brand image.

For example, I like Mercedes and BMW, and while I respect Jaguar I would, rightly or wrongly, probably prefer the two German brands over a Jag.

The great thing about technology, and innovation is that I can applaud Nokia, admire what they have brought to market, and now eagerly await what the response from Sony (in particular) and Samsung is going to be. I am in no rush, my life will not change no matter how great a camera/phone is, and if I get one today, or in a year's time, it really does not matter. We are still in early days of the true camera/phone so things are only going to get better, which is great for us - the consumer.

Oh and btw - the rumour on the Honami is that it will be able to record up to around 4000x2000 in video clips (yep, 4K). That and the Snapdragon 800 processor, and the rumoured 1/1.6-inch sensor make me salivate! Not bad for a phone!

I think the car analogy is flawed. You buy a car with the intention of owning it for years, even a decade. You expect the company to build them to a specific level of quality such that they will last for that duration of time. You also expect the company to stand by their workmanship over the lifetime of any warranty, provide high quality replacement parts, etc.

Comparing a smartphone with a car is a little ludicrous. You generally own a smart phone for two years at most. The expectations regarding long-term parts support...well, they generally aren't there, with one exception maybe being replacement of cracked screens. Even in that respect, the cheapest and more reliable approach is to use a third party (just look into the statistics on how often iPhone screen replacements end up getting broken again, needing replacement multiple times.) In two years time on average, you'll probably be upgrading your smartphone to the next great thing. I don't think that there is ANY kind of "We stand by our product" that even resembles a corner of a shadow of what you get from BMW or Mercedes from Samsung or Sony when it comes to their phones.

So, again...I think your short changing yourself by excluding Lumia as an option for the simple reason that Nokia is the manufacturer. Personally, having owned a wide number of phones over the years, including HTC, Samsung, Nokia, as well as several iPhones, I have to say I am particularly happy with the build quality, software quality, and reliability of the Lumia 920 I have. It feels solidly built, stronger than all the iPhones I've owned, and far more sturdy than any Samsung phone (they all feel like featherweight plastic that will shatter if touched by a pin). The only other phone I've owned that felt as solidly built as the Nokia was the HTC, however it had a number of other detractors that turned me off of it (their software isn't that great), and it was as heavy as my 920 while being smaller in form factor (so, sturdy, but overly so).

I wouldn't write off the Lumia line of phones simply because it's Nokia. They are extremely well built, sleek and aesthetic in design, the screens are phenomenal (truly...one of the key reasons I picked the 920 was its screen...higher pixel density than the Apple Retina, better microcontrast...simply beautiful) and, back to the original purpose of this thread....their cameras are phenomenal!  ;D

1515
I am very interested in camera phones. If the Lumia 1020 was anything but Nokia, I might even consider buying it, but alas it is not.

Samsung recently launched the Zoom which has not had the best of reviews, and Sony are expected to launch the Xperia i1 Honami - a 20MP smartphone with Qualcomm Snapdragon 800 processor to take on the Samsung and Nokia camera / phone.

If Sony could add a phone to something as capable as the RX100-II I would definitely buy it. In fact if Canon could team up with a phone maker and create something as good as the RX100-II (or even better) but with smartphone functionality and similar Canon menu system to what is in the DSLRs for the camera, then I would buy that without a doubt.

I think we are still some way from the death of the p&s but we seem to be heading in that general direction. This could also affect the DSLR market as the camera phones get better and better, people will eventually grow tired of lugging the weight, extra size and attachments around.

Nokia, needs to do some serious PR and image building in my opinion, as the brand has almost 0% appeal for me.

What do you have against Nokia? You clearly seem to like the Lumia 1020...so what exactly has Nokia done wrong there? Seems they have succeeded WITHOUT marketing to me. If you simply don't like the name, well I guess I don't consider that grounds not to buy something. If the technology is excellent, the technology is excellent. It doesn't really matter how the company markets, or who's name is on it. I think your preventing yourself from getting a phenomenal phone with the best camera on the market just because of some name hate. Nokia's PAST problem was that they were unprepared for the onslaught of Apple and the iPhone...however...so was everyone else! Lumia is an excellent brand, with excellent features and competitiveness. It only seems to get better as time goes on. If you have ever actually used one, your dislike of the Nokia name would disappear in a heartbeat.

Remember the old saying? "The best marketing is when you don't have to."

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 218