or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › First look: Sony's iPhone-compatible QX10 and QX100 Cyber-shot lenses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First look: Sony's iPhone-compatible QX10 and QX100 Cyber-shot lenses - Page 2

post #41 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post
 

 

Obviously, you've never used a Digital SLR camera.  At least, not extensively.  There's a BIG difference in the image creation capabilities of a Digital SLR versus a point & shoot.  Not the least of which is tighter control over depth of field thanks to the SIGNIFICANTLY larger image sensors in Digital SLRs.  And recent Digital SLRs can focus and take a photo in a fraction of the time and in a fraction of the light needed for point & shoot cameras.

 

ok, and so what of those features is missing in Sony's offering?  The larger image sensor is there.  Fraction of the time remains to be seen.  It depends on what all is done on the lens side vs the phone side.  However, it seems like the phone is purely a viewfinder and so there's no image processing being done on the phone side at all.  Thus, it should take pictures at nearly the same speed as a DSLR.  Especially if it never has to transfer the photos to the phone.

 

I think the confusion the photography folks are having with this is the fact that the lens is the camera.  The phone is just an accessory so that you can see what the lens is seeing (since there's no display on the lens itself).  So I don't see how the lens can't have the same features a DSLR has.

 

Edit: There does seem to be an eyepiece on the lens.  That, combined with a way to manually snap pictures without using the phone at all, should eliminate any lag.


Edited by auxio - 9/4/13 at 2:57pm
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #42 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
 

 

Uh, did you miss the part about it storing the images to a memory card on the lens?  The auto-transfer feature is only to get the pictures to your phone (if you need that).

 

Please, all you pro photographers, enlighten us unwashed masses on how this is not a reasonable DSLR (obviously not for professionals, but for most others)?

 

Wow, why are you getting so whiny? I simply corrected the post as this is not a high-end camera. It is lower to mid-mid. 

 

Full frame sensor1, adjustments, ability to add different lenses, focus tracking, metering, speed (for the size of the sensor), ISO, ability to reduce noise. Look at the 5D MIII and that camera (body only) is only $3500; not even top end. So not even close. Is this a great product, could be, and I am going to look into buying one as I think it has some great uses as I pointed out already. However, calling this high-end like is just irresponsible. 

 

1Imaging Sensor : 1.0" (13.2 x 8.8mm) vs. 24 x 36mm


Edited by Richard Getz - 9/4/13 at 3:15pm
post #43 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
 

 

ok, and so what of those features is missing in Sony's offering?  The larger image sensor is there.  Fraction of the time remains to be seen.  It depends on what all is done on the lens side vs the phone side.  However, it seems like the phone is purely a viewfinder and so there's no image processing being done on the phone side at all.  Thus, it should take pictures at nearly the same speed as a DSLR.  Especially if it never has to transfer the photos to the phone.

 

I think the confusion the photography folks are having with this is the fact that the lens is the camera.  The phone is just an accessory so that you can see what the lens is seeing (since there's no display on the lens itself).  So I don't see how the lens can't have the same features a DSLR has.

 

Edit: There does seem to be an eyepiece on the lens.  That, combined with a way to manually snap pictures without using the phone at all, should eliminate any lag.

 

Larger image sensor, not large. And at that small sensor, sure, it will do 10fps probably and for what this product is, that is great. But when I am on a wildlife shoot or a wedding, this would not be used unless for some fun stylized images such as I pointed out with the balloon. 

post #44 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
 

 

ok, and so what of those features is missing in Sony's offering?  The larger image sensor is there.  Fraction of the time remains to be seen.  It depends on what all is done on the lens side vs the phone side.  However, it seems like the phone is purely a viewfinder and so there's no image processing being done on the phone side at all.  Thus, it should take pictures at nearly the same speed as a DSLR.  Especially if it never has to transfer the photos to the phone.

 

I think the confusion the photography folks are having with this is the fact that the lens is the camera.  The phone is just an accessory so that you can see what the lens is seeing (since there's no display on the lens itself).  So I don't see how the lens can't have the same features a DSLR has.

 

I'm not remotely confused about these new Lens-Style cameras from Sony.  The only confusion here is that you think they are somehow equivalent to a digital SLR.  They are not.

 

I mentioned depth of field.  Depth of field is the area within an image (the depth of area) that is in focus.  With larger apertures (which, BTW, are designated by LOWER numbers), the depth of field (area that is in focus) decreases (becomes narrower).  Depth of field is a very important creative tool for photographers.  Here is an example of a very shallow depth of field:

 

 

 

That image was shot with a Canon digital SLR using a 50mm f/1.8 lens.  The new Sony QX100 has an aperture of 1.8 at its widest angle of 28mm (35mm equivalent).  But the moment you start zooming the lens, the aperture starts getting smaller, the f number goes higher all the way up to an aperture of 4.9 at full zoom of 100mm.

 

But even though the QX100 can do f/1.8 at 28mm, it can NEVER shoot the equivalent of the image I've linked above.  It's not possible for it to have that shallow of depth of field.  Why?  Because the image sensor size is a factor in determining depth of field.

 

Go to this site and use the Depth of Field calculator near the middle of the page:

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

 

Examples:

 

Canon Rebel DSLR (This camera has a 1.6 crop factor.  Meaning, a SMALLER sensor than a full-frame 35mm sensor, but it's still a LARGER sensor than the 1-inch sensor in the QX100.)  Aperture: f /1.8, Lens: 50mm.  To achieve the same depth of field, a camera with a 1-inch sensor would need to have a of 29mm lens (very close to QX100) and an aperture of f/1.1.  Oops...  the QX100 only goes as low as f/1.8.  Sorry!  Plus the QX100 would need to be a lot closer to the subject.

 

Now, let's compare the same settings to:

 

Canon 5D Mark III DSLR (This camera has a full-frame sensor, the exact same size as a frame of 35mm film, and significantly larger than the 1-inch sensor in the QX100.)  Aperture: f /1.8, Lens: 50mm.  To achieve the same depth of field, a camera with a 1-inch sensor would need to have an 18mm lens (far wider than the QX100 can go) and an aperture of 0.7 (the QX100 isn't even close).

 

To top it off, there are dozens of different lens choices for digital SLRs.   Lenses that will provide an even wider angle of view, wider apertures, and an even narrower depth of field.  Plus macro lenses, and telephoto lenses, etc., etc.

 

The creative possibilities of a removable-lens digital SLR far exceed what is possible with any point and shoot fixed-lens camera.  And that's exactly what the QX10 and QX100 basically are, fixed-lens equivalents.  The fact that they can be attached to a smartphone doesn't change that.

 

Yes, digital SLR systems are more expensive.  You can spend thousands (trust me, I know). But there's simply no comparing the capabilities of a digital SLR system with point & shoot cameras.  Sure, you can take some terrific pictures with a point & shoot.  But there are lots of photographic possibilities with a digital SLR system that simply aren't possible with ANY point & shoot camera (at least, not any of the current models).

 

Bottom line (which is where this discussion started):  The QX10 and QX100 are not remotely close to being a digital SLR.  And if you continue to believe that, you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what you are saying.

 

Mark


Edited by Mark Booth - 9/4/13 at 5:06pm
post #45 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
Edit: There does seem to be an eyepiece on the lens.  That, combined with a way to manually snap pictures without using the phone at all, should eliminate any lag.

 

There is NO EYEPIECE ON THE LENS!  Yes, you can snap photos with the QX10 and QX100 without a smartphone linked.  But you WILL NOT be able to see what you are shooting.  There is no viewfinder.

 

Mark

post #46 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
 

Thus, it should take pictures at nearly the same speed as a DSLR.  Especially if it never has to transfer the photos to the phone.

 

Again, obviously, you've never shot images with a digital SLR.  Even the fastest point & shoot is a slug (speed-wise) compared to a modern digital SLR.  And I'm not talking about rapid-fire successive images either (though, that's another area where digital SLRs are king).  I'm talking about how long it takes for a camera to autofocus and snap a photo once the user looks through the viewfinder (or LCD back panel) and pushes the button.  No point & shoot (and certainly not the QX10 or QX100) can touch a modern digital SLR for speed.

 

Mark

post #47 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
So I don't see how the lens can't have the same features a DSLR has.

 

The QX10 and QX100 are lacking a boatload of features found on a digital SLR.  Namely, no manual modes!  They can't shoot in Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, or full Manual.

 

The ISO on the QX100 goes up to 6400 (the QX10 goes up to ISO 3200).  On my 5D Mark III the ISO goes all the way up to 25,600, allowing low-noise images to be shot in extremely low light without the need for a flash.  And even at equivalent ISOs (6400 compared to 6400), I guarantee you the 5D will have less noise.

 

The ability to shoot in RAW mode doesn't exist on the Sony Lens-Style cameras.

 

Etc... etc...

 

In fact, now that I think about it, these new Lens-Style cameras are lacking many features that ARE found on high-end point and shoot cameras.  So, even though they are a clever design and add much versatility when paired with a smartphone, they aren't as capable of cameras as equivalent point and shoots.

 

Mark

post #48 of 79

Here's another example shallow depth of field.  This one was shot with a full-frame Canon digital SLR, with a 135mm lens, at f /2.0.

 

 

To achieve that same artistic depth of field (at the same perspective), a camera with a 1-inch sensor would need to be at 49mm (well within the QX100's zoom range) but with an aperture of 0.7 (well OUTSIDE of the QX100's capability).  With the QX100 at 49mm, not only won't you get f/ 0.7, but you can't even get f/1.8!  At 49mm I'd estimate the best you could get would be about f/3.  Not even close.

 

Mark

post #49 of 79

Okay, enough of me trying to get auxio to understand the capabilities of a digital SLR.

 

From my comments, one might get the impression that I think the QX10 and QX100 are worthless.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  In fact, I'm pretty confident that I will be asking Santa for one of the two for Christmas this year.  As point & shoot replacements/substitutes, particularly with the link to my iPhone (which I always carry), these two Lens-Style cameras look pretty darn nifty.  They should be fun little accessories that take up a minimal amount of space, yet give my iPhone much improved photographic possibilities (both in zoom range, and image quality).

 

But they aren't replacements for—or even comparable to—a digital SLR.

 

Mark

post #50 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post
 

Okay, enough of me trying to get auxio to understand the capabilities of a digital SLR.

 

From my comments, one might get the impression that I think the QX10 and QX100 are worthless.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  In fact, I'm pretty confident that I will be asking Santa for one of the two for Christmas this year.  As point & shoot replacements/substitutes, particularly with the link to my iPhone (which I always carry), these two Lens-Style cameras look pretty darn nifty.  They should be fun little accessories that take up a minimal amount of space, yet give my iPhone much improved photographic possibilities (both in zoom range, and image quality).

 

But they aren't replacements for—or even comparable to—a digital SLR.

 

Mark

 

I think he tapped out a few posts ago :) 

post #51 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

they aren't replacements for—or even comparable to—a digital SLR.

There's a review here says it's based off the Sony RX100 camera:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/sony-qx100_Digital-Camera_review

So that's probably the best reference point for quality:



http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/sony-rx100-ii-1160503/review/6#articleContent

http://gizmodo.com/5931587/sony-rx100-review-this-camera-singlehandedly-makes-point+and+shoots-relevant-again

"Let's say you're thinking of buying a DSLR or mirrorless camera, slapping a 50mm lens on it, and shooting whatever you come across during the weekend, buy the RX100 instead. It's smaller, and for your purposes, will yield photos that are just as beautiful with less tinkering.

Or, let's say you're a serious photographer who doesn't want the burden of always carrying around a DSLR. The RX100 is right for you as well. No, you absolutely won't get all the same shots you can pull off with your bigger camera. But you will get some of them (especially in good light). And you won't have five extra pounds strapped on at all times. Plus, this is way better than your smartphone camera (even the good ones)."

There's compromises all the way up any given price range. I expect the quality will come out below a $500 Canon Rebel and well below a $4000 Canon 5D and it misses features out (changing lenses for a start). It's more comparable to a fixed lens point-and-shoot in the sub-$1000 price range. If it can give similar output to the $600 RX100 for a bit less money then it'll please some people and some might put aside their DSLR on occasions. It can't, as you say, replace a DSLR for people who use the features they offer.
post #52 of 79
You're not getting anything CLOSE to a DSLR. Also, for $500, you can get a real DSLR, used on Craigslist with a kit lens, that will blow this away.
post #53 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arbiter8 View Post

This is perfect for when my wife leaves her giant Nikon at home and we end up wanting to take some nice pictures. I am a bit surprised that a lense with a 10x optical zoom is half the price of a lense with a 3.6x optical zoom. For us, 90% of the time we take pictures the optical zoom is the most important feature!

 

Just so you know, price and zoom depth are not correlated. When marketing to casual photographers (i.e., the average consumers), the zoom ratio is usually what gets advertised, because it's the easiest concept to grasp (that, and megapixels). But the price is based on other factors that have equal bearing on the quality of the picture.

 

Photographers who know their lenses will recognize these numbers:

QX10 - 3,3-5,9/4,45-44,5

QX100 - 1,8-4,9/10,4-37,1

The numbers mean: aperture range (f-stop) / focal length range (mm)

The focal length range is just another way to express the zoom factor, written out as minimum and maximum focal lengths. For example, 4.45mm - 44.5mm means 10x zoom. You already knew that. So it's the aperture that makes the difference: the QX100 is capable of f1.8, which is much wider than the QX10's f3.3, and should (at shortest focal length) allow about 3x the amount of light to hit the sensor. Larger apertures also creates a shallower depth of field, which is sometimes desirable for artistic effect. In the DSLR lens market, if all else was equal and two lens differ only in aperture, the larger aperture version would cost more, sometimes double or triple.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #54 of 79

I don't know which irritates me more, Nokia calling cropping a high resolution image "zoom" or attaching a huge appendage to a camera to accompolish a similar feat--for $500 nontheless.  Here's hoping a future iPhone blows both out of the water.

post #55 of 79

I might get me one of these things, would be fun to try out.

Just throwing this out there, some decent enthusiest camera have good sensors & most mirrorless cameras of do of course, the QX10 & 100 are basically the top enthusist camera out there (RX100 II), i dont think this is treading on DSLRs toes, the thing people have to rememeber, they look at mega pixels they look at ISO sensitivity, the look at the appiture but miss one big thing, the QXs can't shoot in RAW, so thats something you can't really overlook if you are really into photography beyond happy snaps, that should tell people how serious you can get with this, so if you are happy with JPGs then this thing will rock, if you require more detail & quality, you need a camera that can shoot in RAW, then you can edit the pics, do whatever you want, save it into a format that can keep the quality like a TIF or something.
Lets face it. most people don't own DSLRs & they dont need one, they can use their phone & it will work well, the people that own DSLRs will keep buying them, they have a use & this type of camera can't replace it.
Im not giving my DSLR & mirrorless cameras away anytime soon, but this thing looks like a fun little camera. 
people need to chill out, these things find their markets, if its a good idea, it will sell, if it sucks, it will bomb. 

post #56 of 79
I've been waiting for this but it's a half done product. With retina displays, we can bypass the need to place an optical viewfinder on the same box as the lens and sensor. Imagine twin 4K OLED screens built into glasses enabling a 75 degree field of view where no pixels are discernible. The display is not see-through because that wipes color saturation and makes black impossible. Displays mounted in glasses utilizes your own head to block sun or other lights from washing out the screen image. It's like head mounted binoculars no thicker than reading glasses. This is hands free to manage the wireless lens/sensor; for example, on top of a pole. The glasses are narrow enough that the upper half of the photographers field of view is un obstructed. A quick slight glance down views the screen focused with the eye muscles at rest, focused at infinity. All in 3D!
post #57 of 79

There doesn't seem to any mention of these lens attachments providing video capture. If this feature is indeed missing, and I suspect it is, then I think this the most serious limitation. I'll be waiting for version 2.

post #58 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob England View Post
 

There doesn't seem to any mention of these lens attachments providing video capture. If this feature is indeed missing, and I suspect it is, then I think this the most serious limitation. I'll be waiting for version 2.

 

Both the QX10 and QX100 can be used to record HD video.  It's been mentioned in multiple hands-on reviews.  And, in fact, due to the QX10's 10x zoom, it has image stabilization for video use.

 

Mark

post #59 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post
 

 

Obviously, you've never used a Digital SLR camera.  At least, not extensively.  There's a BIG difference in the image creation capabilities of a Digital SLR versus a point & shoot.  Not the least of which is tighter control over depth of field thanks to the SIGNIFICANTLY larger image sensors in Digital SLRs.  And recent Digital SLRs can focus and take a photo in a fraction of the time and in a fraction of the light needed for point & shoot cameras.

Granted, the best camera is the one you have with you.  But anyone who thinks there aren't real and significant benefits to shooting with a interchangeable lens Digital SLR is just fooling themselves.

 

Mark

People seem to be still in the DSLR/Point and Shoot bind here.  The mirrorless cameras are in between.  The mirrorless cameras have large image sensors and interchangeable lenses - placing them above traditional point-and-shoots.  The new Sony products make an iPhone into a pretty good mirrorless camera.  Mark you are wrong about the "SIGNIFICANTLY larger image sensors in Digital SLRS".  The 1" image sensor on the QX100 is considerably larger than the 22 mm X 15 mm sensor on current Canon Rebel  and 60D DSLRs.  You should read the specs before commenting. If you already have the phone these products give you a good mirrorless with half the weight.  I would like to have that image sensor and interchangeable lenses.  Hope someone comes out with this.

post #60 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgasser View Post
 

People seem to be still in the DSLR/Point and Shoot bind here.  The mirrorless cameras are in between.  The mirrorless cameras have large image sensors and interchangeable lenses - placing them above traditional point-and-shoots.  The new Sony products make an iPhone into a pretty good mirrorless camera.  Mark you are wrong about the "SIGNIFICANTLY larger image sensors in Digital SLRS".  The 1" image sensor on the QX100 is considerably larger than the 22 mm X 15 mm sensor on current Canon Rebel  and 60D DSLRs.  You should read the specs before commenting. If you already have the phone these products give you a good mirrorless with half the weight.  I would like to have that image sensor and interchangeable lenses.  Hope someone comes out with this.

 

Actually, YOU should read the specs before commenting!  The QX100 has a 1" sensor.  Its dimensions are 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm.  SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than the 22.2 mm x 14.8 mm sensor in a Canon or Nikon APS-C camera.  And, of course, the full-frame sensor in cameras like the 5D are 36 mm x 24 mm, which is about NINE TIMES the size of the sensor in the QX100.

 

Here's where you can look at the specs for the QX100:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-qx100/2

 

And here's a little chart to help you visualize the different sizes of sensors (click image for larger version):

 

 

The Sony QX10 sensor is 1/2" (second from the left in the chart above).  The QX100's sensor is 1", which would place it between the 2/3" and the 4/3".  A pretty small sensor when compared to the APS-C sensor in the Canon Digital Rebel and downright PUNY when compared to a full-frame sensor!

 

I await your apology!

 

Mark

 

Edit:  If the above chart isn't helpful to you, perhaps this one will be:

 


Edited by Mark Booth - 9/5/13 at 4:46pm
post #61 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgasser View Post
The 1" image sensor on the QX100 is considerably larger than the 22 mm X 15 mm sensor on current Canon Rebel  and 60D DSLRs.  
 

Well that isn't actually true, the '1"' sensor isn't actually an inch in size, its referring to a legacy scale (from memory) the Canon APS-C size sensor is actually quite a bit larger than the 1", as far as sensor sizes, its the canon APS-C, then the Nikon APS-C, then full frame.
That really doesn't matter tho, I agree with you about mirrorless cameras, they are the camera that sits between the enthusiast & DSLR 

 

 

 

PS, Damn, Mark beat me to it :P 

post #62 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post
 

 

Actually, YOU should read the specs before commenting!  The QX100 has a 1" sensor.  Its dimensions are 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm.  SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than the 22.2 mm x 14.8 mm sensor in a Canon or Nikon APS-C camera.  And, of course, the FULL FRAME sensor in cameras like the 5D is 36 mm x 24 mm, which is about 9X the size of the sensor in the QX100.

 

Here's where you can look at the specs for the QX100:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-qx100/2

 

And here's a little chart to help you visualize the different sizes of sensors:

The Sony QX10 sensor is 1/2" (second from the left in the chart above).  The QX100's sensor is 1", which would place it between the 2/3" and the 4/3".  A relatively small sensor when compared to the APS-C sensor in the Canon Digital Rebel and downright PUNY when compared to a full-frame sensor!

 

Mark

Mark, I apologize.  I did not understand that '1" sensor' did not mean a 1" X 1" sensor (25.4 mm on a side).    Where does one get 1" out of 13.2 mm X 8 mm?  That's much less than 1" on a side and much less than 1 square inch.  The diagonal of that is still just 15 mm so it doesn't have a 1" diagonal!?!  Their nomenclature is very confusing and I thank you for setting me straight!

post #63 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgasser View Post
 

Mark, I apologize.  I did not understand that '1" sensor' did not mean a 1" X 1" sensor (25.4 mm on a side).    Where does one get 1" out of 13.2 mm X 8 mm?  That's much less than 1" on a side and much less than 1 square inch.  The diagonal of that is still just 15 mm so it doesn't have a 1" diagonal!?!  Their nomenclature is very confusing and I thank you for setting me straight!

 

Thank you!

 

BTW, the inch-based sizing system stems from the vacuum image-sensing tube days.  QX100's 13.2mm x 8.8mm sensor is able to image the same amount of area as a 1-inch vacuum tube image sensor.  The inch-based sizing is simply a legacy way to reference the amount of image area that is captured by the sensor.

 

Mark

post #64 of 79
Can you read?

"that is connected to the device over peer-to-peer Wi-Fi."
post #65 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieinHK View Post

Can you read?

"that is connected to the device over peer-to-peer Wi-Fi."

 

My question was answered many messages ago.  But thank you for the input!

 

Mark

post #66 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by abarry View Post

Great. A 1" CMOS sensor! F 1.8!! All good in the zoom model, although I wish they would have had a f/2.5, instead of 4.9, at the tele end. Still superb. For $500, you're getting a DSLR, pretty much.

Question: Since the connection of the lens to phone is through P2P, does it mean I can be out in the wild taking photographs without any available Wi-Fi?

My problem here is - for $100 more, you get Sony RX100 camera with 1" 20MP CMOS sensor, 1.8 wide end aperture (28mm equivalent), flash, full manual controls (P, S, A...). Volume of the camera (with retracted lens) does not seem to be much larger than volume of this "lenses", it is actually more flat when retracted, thus more pocketable.

And you can pull it out of pocket or bag and shoot within a few seconds.

To me, this looks more practical compared to carrying, attaching and removing this add-on lens to my smartphone.
post #67 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Fields View Post

You're not getting anything CLOSE to a DSLR. Also, for $500, you can get a real DSLR, used on Craigslist with a kit lens, that will blow this away.

That is relative. You are getting close to older DSLR models, IMHO. Even bettering in some cases. This comparing RX100 and Nikon D70s.

Granted, far below what modern DSLR cameras can give in IQ, but DSLR nevertheless.

And even those older DSLRs are still much better than your typical P&S, or smartphone camera... so you do get a lot of IQ with 1" systems.
Edited by nikon133 - 9/5/13 at 9:13pm
post #68 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

There's a review here says it's based off the Sony RX100 camera:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/sony-qx100_Digital-Camera_review

So that's probably the best reference point for quality:



http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/sony-rx100-ii-1160503/review/6#articleContent

http://gizmodo.com/5931587/sony-rx100-review-this-camera-singlehandedly-makes-point+and+shoots-relevant-again

"Let's say you're thinking of buying a DSLR or mirrorless camera, slapping a 50mm lens on it, and shooting whatever you come across during the weekend, buy the RX100 instead. It's smaller, and for your purposes, will yield photos that are just as beautiful with less tinkering.

Or, let's say you're a serious photographer who doesn't want the burden of always carrying around a DSLR. The RX100 is right for you as well. No, you absolutely won't get all the same shots you can pull off with your bigger camera. But you will get some of them (especially in good light). And you won't have five extra pounds strapped on at all times. Plus, this is way better than your smartphone camera (even the good ones)."

There's compromises all the way up any given price range. I expect the quality will come out below a $500 Canon Rebel and well below a $4000 Canon 5D and it misses features out (changing lenses for a start). It's more comparable to a fixed lens point-and-shoot in the sub-$1000 price range. If it can give similar output to the $600 RX100 for a bit less money then it'll please some people and some might put aside their DSLR on occasions. It can't, as you say, replace a DSLR for people who use the features they offer.

Having this camera, the thing I most frequently wish for is more DOF control.

Sure with 1.8 aperture you should be able to get decent amount of it, but... camera's exposure tops at 1/2000, and on sunny day, that is not enough to let you use 1.8 aperture. One can fight that limitation with additional ND filter, but I don't like glue-on solutions (camera hasn't got thread).
post #69 of 79

@Mark Booth website addy? 

post #70 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

My problem here is - for $100 more, you get Sony RX100 camera with 1" 20MP CMOS sensor, 1.8 wide end aperture (28mm equivalent), flash, full manual controls (P, S, A...). Volume of the camera (with retracted lens) does not seem to be much larger than volume of this "lenses", it is actually more flat when retracted, thus more pocketable.

And you can pull it out of pocket or bag and shoot within a few seconds.

To me, this looks more practical compared to carrying, attaching and removing this add-on lens to my smartphone.

It depends on the use case. A significant number of people take pictures on their iPhone and upload them to flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras

You can see the iPhone takes the top 3 spots in most popular cameras - not quite sure how multiple models have over 50%, maybe some accounts are families with multiple phones. Interestingly, the RX100 takes the top spot in point-and-shoot. This lens gives people a combination of both. Flickr has over 87 million members.

A few iPhone 5 pics use post-processing filters:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/apple/iphone_5/

With the combination of the lens and phone, you get the quality of the RX100 and the immediate editing capability of the iPhone with direct upload to flickr.
post #71 of 79
I noticed that on flickr stats, Android phones don't feature very highly:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras

Despite outnumbering Apple's phone sales share by a large margin, they don't even register in the top 5 overall cameras. There's only one in the most popular Cameraphone segment and that's the old Galaxy S3. Even the iPhone 3G recently topped that again.

No Nokia Lumia with the better camera, no flagship S4 or Moto X. Surely they can't be sitting in drawers too.

The sales numbers for Android are often reported to be outnumbering the iPhone by a huge amount but the numbers are really: Android - 1 billion activations, iOS - 650 million devices sold, which they'll likely announce in a few days. That's pretty impressive for one company selling one new phone version per year vs so many Android handsets starting at <$100 off-contract.

40% the Android ones are the old 2.3 devices so when it comes to flagship models running the latest OS, they are pretty close and clearly people are using iOS devices more for things like photography.

It would be nice to see the internal iPhone camera get more upgrades. Sensor sensitivity is the big one to bring it closer to DSLR quality and they have technology already:

http://broadcastengineering.com/cameras-amp-lenses/new-graphene-sensor-holds-promise-better-low-light-images-lower-cost

Lenses still offer the cool effects but maybe they can have a depth sensor and do accurate DoF blurring on the phone. They can even sample offset images to get a rough idea of where things are depth-wise.
post #72 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It depends on the use case. A significant number of people take pictures on their iPhone and upload them to flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras

You can see the iPhone takes the top 3 spots in most popular cameras - not quite sure how multiple models have over 50%, maybe some accounts are families with multiple phones. Interestingly, the RX100 takes the top spot in point-and-shoot. This lens gives people a combination of both. Flickr has over 87 million members.

A few iPhone 5 pics use post-processing filters:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/apple/iphone_5/

With the combination of the lens and phone, you get the quality of the RX100 and the immediate editing capability of the iPhone with direct upload to flickr.

True, depends on use case.

From my point of view, having to carry same bulk, fiddling with attaching lens to phone (and possibly loosing perfect shot opportunity) and loosing RAW and manual controls is much bigger handicap than losing capability to Instagram and post immediately in Flickr or FB. But then, I don't post instantly anyway, even when I can... and I don't Instagram at all... thus my preference.
post #73 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post
 

@Mark Booth website addy? 

 

Photo: http://thephotobooth.net

Blog: http://markshangout.com

 

Mark

post #74 of 79

This is a nice idea from Sony but its way too clumsy for real world use.

post #75 of 79

Why no flash?  I'd love to see Canon and Nikon response to this.

post #76 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kung Fu Guy View Post
 

Why no flash?  I'd love to see Canon and Nikon response to this.

 

I hope they do bring out their own versions.

I love what Canon & Nikon do, they make the best DSLRs in the world, the only problem with going against the QX100 & 10, Sony makes the best enthusiast camera & the best selling & pretty much best mirrorless cameras too (the NEX series). 

So Nikon & Canon will need to pick up their game.

post #77 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post
 

 

Photo: http://thephotobooth.net

Blog: http://markshangout.com

 

Mark

 

SoCal here as well :) 

post #78 of 79
Is this Wi-Fi or bluetooth? Wi-Fi feels like too much of a hassle. Bluetooth would be great.
post #79 of 79
They should have put a ring of LEDs around that lens.

The deal breaker for me is that you are limited to using it with just the Sony app.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › First look: Sony's iPhone-compatible QX10 and QX100 Cyber-shot lenses