Comments Locked

22 Comments

Back to Article

  • jabber - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    Note to smartphone manufacturers. I would be more than happy for you to market a 15mm thick smartphone if it meant a battery that could go three days and a better more advanced built in lens system (not the protruding as we have here). As a average human being I am able to manage to lift a 200g device quite easily. It really isn't a bother.
  • WorldWithoutMadness - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    Unless you were sleeping thru Physics class on school, you would had known that it is impossible with current technology to have non protruding lens. If someone can create what you're asking, doubt you not, he would get a noble prize.
    FYI, average human eyes (lens analogy) are 24 mm in diameter, be thankful to whoever created the species in the first place, designed us with eye sockets, not like flat smartphone.
  • Hulk - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    I think jabber is saying increase the thickness of the body to nearly the depth of the lens which solves two problems. The giant bulge of the lens and increases battery life. We'll take the increased depth and weight.

    I agree with him.
  • jabber - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    Thank you Hulk. Extra depth helps with camera and battery tech. Getting a smartphone down to almost 2D dimensions doesn't. Not to mention it doesn't help with rigidity. The designers are currently painting themselves into a corner.

    Extra depth would help.
  • IntoxicatedPuma - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    I agree, the Lumia 1520 and the 930 have the same sensor and lens, but the 930 has no protruding lens. Small phones like it and this CM1 are pretty easy to carry around when they make them thicker, in fact, I think a smaller phone is better off thicker, especially for people with big/fat hands like me. I think Panasonic thinks a protruding lens gives it more of an image of a "camera" phone where as a thick phone just looks like an old block. The Lumia 1020 did have that battery grip which was a nice idea but I don't think it worked very well.
  • surt - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    Actually, metamaterials have already solved this problem, but it would be outrageously expensive. Unfortunately they did not receive a nobel for the work, I kind of think they should have.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_index_metama...
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    Usually they're pretty wavelength-selective. If they managed to cover the visible range with decently flat spectral response, Stockholm may reconsider.
  • gfieldew - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    Perhaps I've misunderstood. My Sony Z3 Compact doesn't have a protruding lens.
  • gfieldew - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    Never mind, I suspect you mean a much bigger sensor and lens.
  • mkozakewich - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    This is the kind of thing I'm waiting for! I'm a little wary that it can record 1080p at only 30fps. At that size, I'd also hope that it's cheaper or has a bigger battery, but neither appears to be the case here.

    I wonder if they could partner with a company like HTC to build a cheaper high-quality device with the large camera and the Panasonic brand?
  • polaco - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    well with this sensor size and ISO level capability not having a powerful flash is not an issue. IMHO when you have a sensor that can perform flawlessly in low light then you never use the flash since using it erases the atmosphere of the moment, the colors, the lights...
  • coburn_c - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    That's a nice camera. I think using it as a phone is a bit ambitious. Nice ads where's the content.
  • hoodlum90 - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    Android 5.0 upgrade is coming in May.

    http://news.panasonic.co.uk/pressreleases/full-uk-...
  • sweenish - Monday, March 9, 2015 - link

    Hopefully they're smart enough to actually take advantage of camera2.
  • zodiacfml - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    Steep price. How much is a Sony RX100 and an LG G2 these days?
  • Impulses - Saturday, March 7, 2015 - link

    I hope this isn't a one off tbh, if it were a little cheaper and/or had a larger battery I'd be really info it.. Let's face it, as a phone it's a bit brick-ish, but no worse than a first gen HTC EVO. Timing of it is a bit unfortunate tho.

    First and second gen RX100 compacts with a 1" sensor still go for like $500+ tho, don't they? And this adds something roughly equivalent to a Nexus 5 atop that? ($350?) The price isn't that terrible, but as a convergence device sans zoom and with tradeoffs on the phone side it should be cheaper.

    I wonder how much of a role the sensor plays in the total cost, since they're probably sourcing it from Sony... And why Sony themselves haven't done something like this, since they basically pioneered 1" compact P&S (and then there's the QX...).
  • zodiacfml - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    Sony doesn't have similar as they are fixated on slim profiles for their Z series.
  • barn25 - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    This seriously making me consider selling my Galaxy K zoom. The night prowess of this sensor will be astounding.
  • D. Lister - Sunday, March 8, 2015 - link

    I would've appreciated comparative pictures and videos with a regular phone cam, a proper point-and-click digital (and also maybe a cheap DSLR), just to see how far this big-camera-on-a-smart-phone tech has come. And whether it's worth sacrificing other features.

    Also, 1080@60fps > 2160p@15fps any day of the week, IMHO.
  • nerd1 - Monday, March 9, 2015 - link

    It's still using 1" sensor, way smaller than most mirrorless offerings - and old mirrorless cameras are now really cheap so I don't see any target audience for this.
  • Impulses - Monday, March 9, 2015 - link

    It's all relative, it's still a way larger sensor than you'll find in most any phone or compact camera under $600... And as a complete package it's smaller than almost any mirrorless camera with a single focal length pancake lens.

    The Panasonic GM1 + 14mm f2.5 (28mm equivalent) or the slower kit zoom might be the exception to that, since it's smaller still (tho fatter), but it'd run you a good $600+ as well. An older E-PM2 might get close for way less...
  • lemon1510 - Monday, March 9, 2015 - link

    From a photography point of view primes will almost always be better than zoom lenses apart from being cheaper and smaller (for the same image quality)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now