SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Photography, Digital including Point and Shoot -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: nigel bates who wrote (3687)6/29/2012 8:02:10 AM
From: Lahcim LeinadRespond to of 4530
 
At least it's far less likely to have dust on the sensor ?
Sure hope so, though the rock climbing sample images do have a few dead pixels. I'm hoping that was a prototype problem, not a production one.



To: nigel bates who wrote (3687)7/20/2012 9:10:43 AM
From: Lahcim LeinadRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 4530
 
Been playing with the Nokia 808 for a couple of days now, and absolutely love it!

Thus far, this is the best snap I've made with it, yesterday. A portrait of my favorite living painter - Charles Thysell - ISO 200, 8 megapixel setting, auto everything else: point and shoot.

The original file is 4.7MB. Tell me it was not made with a $5k DSLR! :-)))




To: nigel bates who wrote (3687)7/21/2012 2:17:55 PM
From: Lahcim LeinadRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 4530
 
Crawled though every frame at pixel level and found no dust or dead pixels in the Nokia 808's output.

That's more than I can say for my $5k Canons.

Shall see what happens after 3 million exposures - like each of my 1DmIII bodies made, valiantly, rated for 300k - then we'll talk about all that, again.

Problem, apparently, is flying...

Bringing a digital camera on a plane kills pixels?