beschizza — 2013-09-05T11:16:09-04:00 — #1
tyger11 — 2013-09-05T11:40:51-04:00 — #2
- You talk about the QX100 but show a picture of the QX10.
- The idea of the QX cameras isn't just that they're small - it's also that they're detached, enabling you to use them in ways you can't with a camera - no matter how small.
- The RX100 is already 'small enough'? Small enough for what? For whom? Completely subjective.
- May as well get a Nokia 1020? So you've compared the lens of the QX10 and the 1020 and say that the combination are equivalent? For what situations?
With respect: Fail.
incarnedine_v — 2013-09-05T11:46:40-04:00 — #3
what exactly is that?
tyger11 — 2013-09-05T11:53:10-04:00 — #4
Check out their promotional video: www.youtube.com/watch?&v=0TWh3EvSZ_0
Also note: the QX100 comes with a tripod mount (I don't know if the QX10 does).
All this isn't to say there aren't things to be (bitterly?) disappointed about with the QX100. No shutter priority mode, no RAW, no 1080/60p video, etc.
ronaldpottol — 2013-09-05T12:48:27-04:00 — #5
I'd thought a camera with an upgradable phone module would be cool (as cameras change slower than phones), this is a niftier version of the same idea, a camera that is little more than the sensor and lens, with the display and storage on the phone. I could see buying one, not saying that I will, I'd like to see some reviews, just for starters.
tyger11 — 2013-09-05T13:18:44-04:00 — #6
Oh, also, "only a little more expensive" is relative. It's $250 cheaper than the Sony RX100 Mk II. That's 1/3 off. Considering the crippled features, I think it should be cheaper, but that's a significant chunk of change for a lot of people.
wearysky — 2013-09-05T14:22:14-04:00 — #7
Engadget has a hands-on here: http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/04/sony-qx100-qx10-lens-cameras/
I love the idea of this, though I'd never buy one (far too expensive for the "neat toy" category that it would fall into for me).
Well, as far as I can tell it connects to the phone via wifi, so it doesn't technically have to be attached to the phone in order to work. Meaning you could place it somewhere, and control it remotely using your phone - limited only by the wifi signal strength, I guess. Which is probably available in other cameras (I have a feeling there are high end DSLRs that allow remote control via smartphone apps), but not sure how widely available it is in cameras in this price range.
incarnedine_v — 2013-09-05T14:30:56-04:00 — #8
that answered nothing other then that it's a hipster magnet.
beschizza — 2013-09-05T14:31:58-04:00 — #9
I mentioned both in the post.
In the post, I described various ways you could use it when detached.
The QX10's 1/2.3" sensor is unlikely to be a match for the 1/1.5-inch" one found in the Nokia 1020. Go with the 1" QX100 if you bother.
With respect: don't get this angry about gadgets.
jgs — 2013-09-05T14:32:38-04:00 — #10
I quite like having a camera that can still take pictures even when the wireless noise floor is high.
ministry — 2013-09-05T14:50:37-04:00 — #11
Me too. For the convenience of a camera phone, I'd use a camera phone, without carrying an accessory. For high-quality images, I'd stick with a DSLR. This occupies a mildly interesting middle ground, but I wouldn't want to spend serious money for what is, to me, a novelty compact camera.
wearysky — 2013-09-05T15:00:04-04:00 — #12
These ones can, too. You just have to shoot blind/store to the memory card in the camera instead of the phone.
Absolutely. The only thing that gets me excited about the QX100 is the F/1.8 lens, as if there's one seriously complaint I have about my phone's camera, it's the low light performance. But again, I can always just bring my DSLR with my "Nifty Fifty" if I'm going into a situation where I know I'm going to want better photos in low light. And really, I would never carry around the QX100 all the time, just for the "spontaneous photo opportunity" situations where I choose to use my phone's camera at the moment.
jerwin — 2013-09-05T15:00:20-04:00 — #13
And of course you paid no attention to how the hipster took a picture through a narrow crack (0:28), or how the hipster took a self portrait (0:45), or how the the hipster manually focused the lens (0:56) or how the hipsters used the optical zoom (1:15), all of which differentiate this camera from your typical cell phone camera.
Because the interface is a cell phone, it's as up to date as you expect it to be, My DSLR, for instance, "boasts" a 230,000 dot screen. Out in the real world, that's called "sub-VGA". It takes very nice pictures, but as a computer, it's way behind the times
jgs — 2013-09-05T16:48:31-04:00 — #14
Ah, I hadn't realized that, thanks! Still a pretty poor user experience (it just barely passes the smell test for "be able to take pictures") when there's RF interference.
peregrinus_bis — 2013-09-05T16:50:19-04:00 — #15
Just chipping in that the RX100 mark ii is a totally awesome cam. Tried to upload a frickin' awesome sunset I got by lazily standing by pretending to be "un photog". But awesomely the 20meg+ image is too frickin' big and powerful for bbs.
It is AMAZING. Sony totally has skin in the image game.
greggman — 2013-09-05T17:02:11-04:00 — #16
Problems with the QX
The QX100 and QX10 are nearly 2x to 3x as thick as the Point & Shoots they match. In other words they won't fit in your pocket.
They only take 220 shots on 1 charge (and being a marketing number it's probably more like 150). While you can replace the battery you probably can't replace the one on your phone. The point being they suck for travel or anything else where you're likely to take lots of shots. Also I'd like my phone still work after a day of shooting thank you.
Using a point and shoot is 2 steps (1) turn on camera (2) shoot. Using a QX is 5 steps (1) unlock phone (2) turn on camera (3) pair with camera (4) launch app (5) shoot.
Several features are missing (example: No shutter priority mode for action shots like your kids soccer or your beach volleyball)
The are no fun to use with iPhone (may or may not matter). On Android they use NFC. On iPhone they use WiFi so if you are inside or any other area with wifi you have to disconnect your phone from wifi to connect it to the lens' wifi then disconnect from the lens so you can upload that neat pick you just took to facebook, instagram, flickr, etc...
The exact same NFC/WiFI features are already available on the NEX-6, NEX-5R and RX-100 II so the "detached" feature is not new. None of the drawbacks, all of the benefits
The better news is Sony is opening up their API for all these cameras
wearysky — 2013-09-05T17:17:43-04:00 — #17
Oh yeah, no question. I was just pointing out that the feature does, in fact, exist - despite it's limited usefulness. But then, this whole device stinks of "limited usefulness" in my opinion (see my previous comments re: "a neat toy")
jerwin — 2013-09-05T17:35:51-04:00 — #18
Sadly, although not surprisingly, the QX100 is a JPEG-only device. And not only is RAW mode unavailable, manual exposure control is limited too, to aperture priority and exposure compensation. There's no shutter priority mode here, nor fully manual (even though we can't see why there couldn't have been). HD video recording is available at 1440 x 1080 resolution, reduced from the standard 1920 x 1080 found in most compact cameras (including the RX100 II).
which kind of what I thought was the product's rationale-- a decent camera that can be programed and controlled with a non-obsolete computer. But a brief look at the camera remote apps suggests that the API is too high level for that. "Take Picture. Record Video" yes. But "changeISO"? possibly not.
beschizza — 2013-09-10T11:16:11-04:00 — #19
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.