@matt buchanan: Ah, I checked it out and they didn't make it too clear by saying "SAMSUNG Lens f = f4.7-23.5mm". They referred to the focal length by mixing in aperture "f" notation.
Despite that, integrating WiFi is still a nifty idea and a camera with this kind of functionality is long overdue.
Despite that, integrating WiFi is still a nifty idea and a camera with this kind of functionality is long overdue.
"...relatively sluggish f4.7 lens..."
Not according to the product picture, where it says it maxes out at f/3.3 at the wide end and f/5.9 at the telephoto end.
Of course, it's still a relatively sluggish lens. :)
#corrections
Not according to the product picture, where it says it maxes out at f/3.3 at the wide end and f/5.9 at the telephoto end.
Of course, it's still a relatively sluggish lens. :)
#corrections
@Platypus Man: One good reason is for the better viewfinders many film SLR cameras have compared to most DSLRs. The view through my Pentax ME Super is superior compared to my K100D and K20D. The only way to get an equivalent view of the scene is by spending at least $1,000 for a (used) "full-frame" DSLR. How you see the scene through the camera plays a critical role in your photography, so a good viewfinder really matters to some.
Also, some folks just really like the way their favorite film renders a scene. Without the need for extensive post-processing, they can just shoot Velvia or Tri-X and get the results they want.
Though I enjoy shooting film for those reasons, I really do it for the fun of a different format and as an exercise in moderation. Entirely subjective reasons, of course, but film helps me slow down and think a bit more about the shot before tripping the shutter.
Also, some folks just really like the way their favorite film renders a scene. Without the need for extensive post-processing, they can just shoot Velvia or Tri-X and get the results they want.
Though I enjoy shooting film for those reasons, I really do it for the fun of a different format and as an exercise in moderation. Entirely subjective reasons, of course, but film helps me slow down and think a bit more about the shot before tripping the shutter.
Sam isn't kidding about the S1's use in museums. Check out this (incredibly, awesomely, geeky) New Yorker story about trying to digitize one of the most famous tapestries in the world: [www.newyorker.com]
@badbob001: The Evo's USB jack is there and it's actually quite comfortable for me in landscape. My right ring and middle fingers cradle the end of the cord when attached. I occasionally have to watch out for putting pressure on the jack while inserted, but it's comfortable enough for an hour or so.
@HiAperture: m4/3 represents a 2x crop factor compared to 35mm film. So an EF 50mm lens on this rumored body would give the field of view of a 100mm lens.
A super telephoto zoom with max apertures of f/4.8 and f/6.7?
Get ready for scores of consumers complaining about noisy, blurry photos because the exposure system will require high sensitivities and slow shutter speeds when shooting at 600mm equivalent focal lengths.
Get ready for scores of consumers complaining about noisy, blurry photos because the exposure system will require high sensitivities and slow shutter speeds when shooting at 600mm equivalent focal lengths.
@Lemonade: You should move to Texas: Saint Arnold's, Live Oak, Real Ale...
@ZenInsight: You're very welcome. I shoot Pentax equipment but that Canon combo should serve you very well.
@ZenInsight: It's possible, just not very likely because the trade-offs are complicated and expensive.
The most important factor to keep in mind about hand held low-light photography is the lens's maximum aperture at the focal length you want. Bigger apertures let in more light and make it easier to shoot in dark situations. Typical consumer cameras max out at f/2.8 at the wide end and f/5 at the telephoto end. The smaller the f-number, the bigger the maximum aperture. One of the reasons why people love the S90 and the Panasonic LX3 is because their max apertures at the wide end are f/2.0. This lets in twice as much light as f/2.8 does, meaning the shutter speed can be twice as fast (reducing motion blur) or a half the ISO sensitivity (less digital noise) can be chosen.
In other words, a good low-light camera must have a substantial max aperture at both ends of the zoom in order for it to be fully usable at night. The only other option is a long exposure on a tripod. Those cameras with apertures maxing out at 4.9 or 5.6 on the telephoto end are not good enough for hand held photography in dark situations.
A sensor manufacturer would have to pour its soul into a smaller sensor, giving it the best available tech, and keeping the megapixel count below 10. This would allow the use of smaller lenses and keep image quality up in higher sensitivities. Unfortunately, this special sensor would also increase the cost.
The lens manufacturer would probably need to avoid a real wide angle (28mm equivalent or wider). It would also probably have to skip fancy correcting optics that reduce distortion and chromatic aberrations.
I'm not an expert in digital imaging or optics, but my wild-ass guess is a great low-light camera with a built-in lens can't go beyond 4x or 5x before the camera becomes too big to be called a compact and too expensive for anyone to want it.
It's why I have a DSLR and "fast" lenses with max apertures of f/1.8 and more. I think the extra bulk is worth the ability to take pictures at night.
The most important factor to keep in mind about hand held low-light photography is the lens's maximum aperture at the focal length you want. Bigger apertures let in more light and make it easier to shoot in dark situations. Typical consumer cameras max out at f/2.8 at the wide end and f/5 at the telephoto end. The smaller the f-number, the bigger the maximum aperture. One of the reasons why people love the S90 and the Panasonic LX3 is because their max apertures at the wide end are f/2.0. This lets in twice as much light as f/2.8 does, meaning the shutter speed can be twice as fast (reducing motion blur) or a half the ISO sensitivity (less digital noise) can be chosen.
In other words, a good low-light camera must have a substantial max aperture at both ends of the zoom in order for it to be fully usable at night. The only other option is a long exposure on a tripod. Those cameras with apertures maxing out at 4.9 or 5.6 on the telephoto end are not good enough for hand held photography in dark situations.
A sensor manufacturer would have to pour its soul into a smaller sensor, giving it the best available tech, and keeping the megapixel count below 10. This would allow the use of smaller lenses and keep image quality up in higher sensitivities. Unfortunately, this special sensor would also increase the cost.
The lens manufacturer would probably need to avoid a real wide angle (28mm equivalent or wider). It would also probably have to skip fancy correcting optics that reduce distortion and chromatic aberrations.
I'm not an expert in digital imaging or optics, but my wild-ass guess is a great low-light camera with a built-in lens can't go beyond 4x or 5x before the camera becomes too big to be called a compact and too expensive for anyone to want it.
It's why I have a DSLR and "fast" lenses with max apertures of f/1.8 and more. I think the extra bulk is worth the ability to take pictures at night.
@ZenInsight: The only way to cram a 10x-12x zoom in a body that small is to shrink the sensor or seriously downgrade the lens with smaller maximum apertures. Both would allow for smaller lenses but both would make low light performance worse.
The point of the S9x series is to offer a relatively larger sensor with a relatively impressive maximum aperture. Compromising those specs for extra zoom range just makes it another pocketable megazoom.
The point of the S9x series is to offer a relatively larger sensor with a relatively impressive maximum aperture. Compromising those specs for extra zoom range just makes it another pocketable megazoom.
I've been frustrated trying to find cross-platform word games for my Evo and my friend's iPhone. Anyone have any suggestions?
@Kardster: What, you don't think a Bump or two can handle it? ;)
I'd love to see that much storage space in my future cell phone.
If this is a lens system, what is the focal length and maximum aperture? Seems kinda crucial.
"I really dont know anything about DSLRs aside from the fact that you press the button and it snaps the picture." -from the About page
I'll give respect to the engineering and the curiosity factor, but c'mon. Knowing some tech basics would have revealed whether the iPhone would "see" the aperture fully opened or fully closed, something that could dramatically effect the shooting process.
I'll give respect to the engineering and the curiosity factor, but c'mon. Knowing some tech basics would have revealed whether the iPhone would "see" the aperture fully opened or fully closed, something that could dramatically effect the shooting process.
@CaffineFreakUs: What if you consistently used the same lighting for each shot and "scanned" in RAW? That way you can experiment with the white balance in-camera to get the shots in the ballpark and then make minor adjustments as needed in post.
@Future Retro: APS sensors also have a noise advantage in that they are able to shoot in lower light without image-degrading specks of random color and grain.
@kittydeathgrip.com: Vignette is a great camera app. Tons of customization to get the shot you want and it can use the full resolution of the camera.
@norazi: I know, I see those warnings right after I click to buy or install. :)
What I'm saying is for Google to flag those permission requests that have the potential to do the most harm so the user has less reason to miss them.
What I'm saying is for Google to flag those permission requests that have the potential to do the most harm so the user has less reason to miss them.
