Slashdot Mirror

Samsung has been showing serious cameras that have phone functions, standard phones which have been outclassing Nokia in general reviews and real optical zoom cameras with most smartphone features. Nokia traditionally lead in phone cameras and when the original Pureview 808 came out it looked pretty neat.

Now Nokia which has contracts that leave it trapped with windows they are desperate to get some of the 808's shine back. They know that users who already used a Windows phone won't do it again so they have to look for new audiences. Aiming to sucker in camera users who they hope won't check app availability let alone how up to date the apps in the app store are is one of their better chances.

Samsung has been showing serious cameras that have phone functions, standard phones which have been outclassing Nokia in general reviews and real optical zoom cameras with most smartphone features. Nokia traditionally lead in phone cameras and when the original Pureview 808 came out it looked pretty neat.

Now Nokia which has contracts that leave it trapped with windows they are desperate to get some of the 808's shine back. They know that users who already used a Windows phone won't do it again so they have to look for new audiences. Aiming to sucker in camera users who they hope won't check app availability let alone how up to date the apps in the app store are is one of their better chances.

Samsung has been showing serious cameras that have phone functions, standard phones which have been outclassing Nokia in general reviews and real optical zoom cameras with most smartphone features. Nokia traditionally lead in phone cameras and when the original Pureview 808 came out it looked pretty neat.

Now Nokia which has contracts that leave it trapped with windows they are desperate to get some of the 808's shine back. They know that users who already used a Windows phone won't do it again so they have to look for new audiences. Aiming to sucker in camera users who they hope won't check app availability let alone how up to date the apps in the app store are is one of their better chances.

"A phone can replace a camera," how cute.... Please take a photo with your camera that even approaches what you see on 500px.com

Dumbass. Every photo here is as good as anyone can expect to take in their lifetime, and orders of magntude better than your "work" I'm sure.

Next you will say something silly like "a phone can replace a video camera"....

Yeah, it's not like a film shot with a iPhone ever won an international film festival.

No apology necessary, as I don't have a high enough opinion of you to give a shit.

The EF mount was introduced in 1987. The EF-S mount was introduced in 2003 source

Nikon has been using the F mount since 1959. However, only certain lowend Nikon DLSRs (D40,D3100, etc) can actually use the oldest lenses. More expensive models are limited to using AI lenses (made after 1977).

However, this expanded lens compatibility comes at a price-- no metering on non CPU lenses, and no autofocus on non-AFS/AFD lenses.

So, if you have a Nikon D3100, as I do, you can use the Nikkor-S Auto f/1.4 50mm (1962), which won't meter, and won't autofocus, or you can use the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D (1995) which will meter, but won't actually autofocus, or you can use the AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4G (2009) which finally brings autofocus to the low end DSLR user.
Of course, it is f/1.4, so it costs $439.

I have the 1975 version Considerably cheaper, but no metering and no autofocus.

I suppose that if I had an EOS Rebel, the equivalent lenses would be just as inexpensive, but fully functional. Ah well.

I belive you are quite right, let me expand on what you are saying with a quote from one of my posts on dpreview.

quote follows below:

edispics wrote:
So how would you suggest that all the online software companies should sell their software, online?

It's not the selling online part that is the Problem, piracy happens for online and offline sales.

Keeping in mind that the solution has to protect the companies from piracy as well.

I have several responses to this point:

• 1) I don't have to find a solution, DRM is unethical, end of story. For your education I will provide further information, but this one single reason should be enough for anybody.
• 2) DRM doesn't work. Even the best schemes have been cracked, including single player games requiring the player to be online at all times (a truly infuriating concept).
• 3) companies don't have to use DRM. Piracy has been happening for a long time, and it's only the last few years where companies have been using the truly draconian DRM schemes, such as those requiring am Internet connection. Companies have been doing fine before that, it's only greed that motivates them really. Look at the history of music DRM and you will see an extremely clear example. Music is now mostly sold without DRM as the companies have finally realized that it doesn't help them, and several instances where DRM servers were shut down (forever, not just temporarily) showed the customers how vulnerable DRM leaves their purchases. Look up PlaysForSure on Wikipedia, never has a DRM scheme been named with more irony.
• 4) Companies need to shift their focus from protecting against piracy to serving the needs of their customers, then piracy will be less of a problem - it can never be solved completely. Fair prices, good value, not relying in ridiculous forced borders (region locked content, heavily variable pricing etc.), establishing a connection with the customer (not just treating him as a source of income), and appeals to customers moral senses - those things help combat piracy. Some people will always be pirates or not use the product at all. Those people will never be real customers, and punishing actual customers for the behavior of pirates just alienates your loyal customers.
• 5) in the case of music and movies and video games, studies have repeatedly shown that the people pirating the most content are also those that make the most legitimate purchases (do a Google search on this). For expensive software this is somewhat different, but those cases are mostly about low income persons (students etc. ) just not being able to afford to buy the software legally.

There was a proposal recently for another Mars rover for 2020 and I was like, how? We don't have the bandwidth to transmit data appropriate for entering the 3rd decade of the 21st century there... Curiosity is completely gimped due to only being able to send (even by 2013 standards) small amounts of data at certain times etc. etc.

By that time I'm really expecting, you know, some HD footage at 60fps of the landing and surface operations. At least make that your target and stretch yourself a little.

What is scientifically appropriate bandwidth for 2013? What would the Mars Rover designers have been willing to give up to get better bandwidth? More bandwidth comes (generally) at the expense of weight, greater space requirements, and power demands. All of which are a very constrained on a space probe. Or maybe you think they should have delayed Curiosity's launch another 5 years so a newer orbital relay platform could be launched that has more bandwidth?

The Curiosity Rover can send around 250 mbit of data to earth daily. Netflix sends around 3GB/hour when streaming HD content, so if you want them to be able to stream an hour of HD video in a day, what you're asking for is over 100 times more bandwidth than they have now -- two orders of mangnitude more bandwidth.

NASA can have all of the bandwidth to Mars that it's willing to pay for, just like you could have a 10 gigabit home internet connection if you were willing to pay for it. But is it worth the added expense? How much more science could they do with more bandwidth considering the tradeoffs they'd have to make to get that bandwidth?

If dynamic range is important to you, you may be interested in Rambus' new technology:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/27/rambus-shows-binaryt-pixel-sensor-technology-for-expanded-dynamic-range

Currently if you want to do the kind of 3D we're talking about you can buy a Lytro and get low resolution with a lot of data and processing, or you can buy one of the commonly available compact cameras that include two lenses (like this one) and get instant, high res results.

To be fair, that gives you stereography, not 3D. From stereography, you can compute, tada, something resembling 3D along a short baseline, i.e. not only showing the image through one of the lenses, but a theoretical image from anywhere close to where they were located. The Lytro is a much more solid way of achieveing that, though, if they can create sensors that are both wide enough and carry enough resolution. Currently, they are a long way off. I would even think that you could put to Lytros in kind of a stereographic configuration and get a baseline extension, kind of like astronomical interferometry arrays. You don't need the light field at all locations and having it some distance away is far more valuable than having each and every pixel in between.

"Currently, to gather data on 3D imagery we use technologies such as MRI, which in itself not really portable."

We use things like MRI to gather tomographic data. It's for seeing inside. Lytro doesn't do that, and never will.

Currently if you want to do the kind of 3D we're talking about you can buy a Lytro and get low resolution with a lot of data and processing, or you can buy one of the commonly available compact cameras that include two lenses (like this one) and get instant, high res results.

I think it has more to do with dynamic range than with bit-depth. Just find a contrasty scene, take a RAW picture and try to retain details in both shadows and highlights with your RAW conversion software. http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/dynamic_range_01.htm http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/tonal_range_01.htm

Thanks for the links. But if I understand correctly, the bit depth more or less precisely corresponds to the highest dynamic range the sensor is able to capture, right?

I think it has more to do with dynamic range than with bit-depth. Just find a contrasty scene, take a RAW picture and try to retain details in both shadows and highlights with your RAW conversion software. http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/dynamic_range_01.htm http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/tonal_range_01.htm

Thanks for the links. But if I understand correctly, the bit depth more or less precisely corresponds to the highest dynamic range the sensor is able to capture, right?

1) For a reasonably well-exposed photo where the white balance is roughly correct in the camera, are you able to produce a significantly better end result from RAW than from JPEG? (I definitely agree on using RAW+JPEG when you know exposure could be a problem)

Short answer : No
Longer answer : It depends on the light, the sensor, the image processor in camera and your RAW workflow.
From personal experience, I'd say that Canon JPGs are pretty good out of camera, Nikon JPGs lack a bit of sharpening, and Fuji X sensors have very good JPGs that are still impossible to match with RAW+Lightroom.
I use RAW as a safety net during events or weddings, so that if I get a picture with good expression, focus and composition but wrong exposure or WB, I can still save it and print it instead of having to delete it.
RAW is also interesting for scenes with high dynamic range, such as landscapes or concert.

Do you have any rough idea about the bit depth the RAW photos need to be at before you get a significant advantage over JPEG? My old camera produced 10 bit RAWs, and at that time I was almost never able to out-perform the JPEG. My new camera has 12 bit RAW, and I haven't really had much time recently (small children here as well) to play around with RAW. But maybe it would be worth it?

I think it has more to do with dynamic range than with bit-depth. Just find a contrasty scene, take a RAW picture and try to retain details in both shadows and highlights with your RAW conversion software.
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/dynamic_range_01.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/tonal_range_01.htm

1) For a reasonably well-exposed photo where the white balance is roughly correct in the camera, are you able to produce a significantly better end result from RAW than from JPEG? (I definitely agree on using RAW+JPEG when you know exposure could be a problem)

Short answer : No
Longer answer : It depends on the light, the sensor, the image processor in camera and your RAW workflow.
From personal experience, I'd say that Canon JPGs are pretty good out of camera, Nikon JPGs lack a bit of sharpening, and Fuji X sensors have very good JPGs that are still impossible to match with RAW+Lightroom.
I use RAW as a safety net during events or weddings, so that if I get a picture with good expression, focus and composition but wrong exposure or WB, I can still save it and print it instead of having to delete it.
RAW is also interesting for scenes with high dynamic range, such as landscapes or concert.

Do you have any rough idea about the bit depth the RAW photos need to be at before you get a significant advantage over JPEG? My old camera produced 10 bit RAWs, and at that time I was almost never able to out-perform the JPEG. My new camera has 12 bit RAW, and I haven't really had much time recently (small children here as well) to play around with RAW. But maybe it would be worth it?

I think it has more to do with dynamic range than with bit-depth. Just find a contrasty scene, take a RAW picture and try to retain details in both shadows and highlights with your RAW conversion software.
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/dynamic_range_01.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/tonal_range_01.htm

Why do you always launch to the defense of Apple?

I never could just let ignorant assholes be I guess. Somebody has to put them in their place.

It's not just Apple you know, I'm happy to put the heat down on ignorant assholes in any topic. Apple Haters are just one specific breed of ignorant assholes to put away.

I'm not saying YOU'RE ignorant (though much of your post is quite astonish), you are simply making mountains out of molehills.

One of the many examples of them being scratched out of the box.

Some of almost anything is scratched out of five million shipments. Mine was not scratched either, but I wouldn't have cared. I already knew that was possible from having the first iPhone which had a metal back. Metal scratches.

I don't think it was epidemic, just possible.

The maps have many errors

Not where I live. For most people they will see in reality a handful of errors. I'm not even sure that today, with nothing else fixed, it's that much worse than Google maps errors were and are.

The truth is that calling them "broken" is totally wrong. They work well enough and there are already some net positives (far lower data use and turn by turn) over ditching the old maps.

Flyover is not a replacement for StreetView

It totally is for any use of Street View I ever had, which is seeing what a storefront or area I'm about to drive to looks like.

Flyover not being as widely supported is a larger issue, but since Street View is just an app away I find it VERY hard to care at all about this being gone from maps - especially since it was so hard to activate in maps I almost never used it there.

Way more people will get benefit from turn-by-turn than will be harmed by having to visit a separate app for Street View.

The purple camera haze most definitely is a problem.

It's LENS FLARE, and it's SLIGHTLY WORSE than the 4s! OH NO!

Almost every camera on the PLANET has the same exact problem with lens flare at some specific angles! A stupider issue to complain about I could not possibly imagine, and I say that as a photographer who is very picky about quality of photographic equipment.

You know what? Whatever camera you have right this second will do the same thing under some conditions.

I'm sorry if this is going to cause you to take a reduced payment on your shill check from Apple./em.

I'm sorry you like to complain about issues that aren't as serious as you think. It shows a real lack of judgement I think.

I'll let you have the last response because really complaining about this stuff is just SO pointless it boggles the mind. In a month it will all be whisked away out of people's minds.

Camera review site (known for not being slanted in their reviews) to the iPhone 5 for an initial review (longer one comparing to other phones will come later) and dedicated a whole page analyzing the flare issue.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6867454450/quick-review-apple-iphone-5-camera

Here's their analysis of the flare issue:

"Really, our advice is not to worry. Just do what you should do anyway, and avoid putting bright lights near the edge of the frame when shooting."

Their final conclusion on the 5's camera:

"The iPhone 5 is a fine mobile device, with an excellent camera. In qualititative terms it's not the best camera out there, and nor is it the best camera on a smartphone (the Nokia 808 has that honor, for now) but it offers satisfying image quality, some neat functions like auto panorama and HDR mode, and - crucially - it is supremely easy to use. It isn't much better than the iPhone 4S, as far as its photographic performance is concerned, but it isn't any worse (notwithstanding a somewhat more noticeable propensity towards lens flare). When manufacturers employ pixel-binning to achieve higher ISO settings we don't normally celebrate the fact, but in the case of the iPhone 5, it gives you greater flexibility in poor light (i.e., you might actually get a picture now, where you just wouldn't with the iPhone 4S) and the drop in quality is unnoticeable when the images are used for sharing/web display."

Thanks for posting this link. The DPreview camera review is what should have been posted than the usual Gizmodo anti-apple trolling to generate page views...

Camera review site (known for not being slanted in their reviews) to the iPhone 5 for an initial review (longer one comparing to other phones will come later) and dedicated a whole page analyzing the flare issue. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6867454450/quick-review-apple-iphone-5-camera Here's their analysis of the flare issue: "Really, our advice is not to worry. Just do what you should do anyway, and avoid putting bright lights near the edge of the frame when shooting." Their final conclusion on the 5's camera: "The iPhone 5 is a fine mobile device, with an excellent camera. In qualititative terms it's not the best camera out there, and nor is it the best camera on a smartphone (the Nokia 808 has that honor, for now) but it offers satisfying image quality, some neat functions like auto panorama and HDR mode, and - crucially - it is supremely easy to use. It isn't much better than the iPhone 4S, as far as its photographic performance is concerned, but it isn't any worse (notwithstanding a somewhat more noticeable propensity towards lens flare). When manufacturers employ pixel-binning to achieve higher ISO settings we don't normally celebrate the fact, but in the case of the iPhone 5, it gives you greater flexibility in poor light (i.e., you might actually get a picture now, where you just wouldn't with the iPhone 4S) and the drop in quality is unnoticeable when the images are used for sharing/web display."

There are a couple Android-powered cameras - might be worth checking them out.

Nikon Coolpix S800c

Samsung Galaxy (camera)

Yes, just add it to any of the android powered DSLRs currently on the market. And you have so many to choose from. How many android DSLRs are there now? I forget.

Two.

tl;dr - A Samsung and Nikon point and shoot.

I'd suggest a different forum- try dpreview
http://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=longevity&forum=1003

would be a good starting point.

...such as??

Seriously. I'd like a list of features in the stock version of Gimp that have no equivalent in Photoshop, please.

I'm only aware of one: the Lanczos resampling mode in the image resize dialog.

I happen to know that one only because it's emblematic of the Gimp usability problem. Its naming says it's a good idea to give a creative app a feature named after a mathematician with an unpronounceable name. (Yes, I know, LUNT-shosh. A fact maybe 1% of the 1% Gimp community knows.) Why not name it after its effect, or after its raison d'etre? For all I know, Photoshop does have Lanczos resampling, but they've named it something sensible.

The closest you see Adobe coming to this problem is Gaussian blur, and the past several releases of Photoshop have been moving away from it. One of the banner features of Photoshop CS6, the blur gallery, should do wonders for sweeping plain old Gaussian blurs into the dustpan of history.

So is that it? Is there anything else Gimp can point to and call its own?

I guess you could point to the scripting languages. Yes, Photoshop doesn't have a Scheme or Python interpreter. But it does have JavaScript, and you have a choice of VBScript on Windows and AppleScript on OS X. This doesn't count in my book. These two feature sets are comparable. I'm asking for features Gimp has that actually make some difference to an artist. Artists don't care what language their scripts are written in.

News story Sony announces NEX-FS700 '4k-ready' E-mount camcorder

http://m.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/02/Sony-4k-ready-NEX-FS700-FS700E-camcorder

Sony is planning a future firmware upgrade that will enable the NEX-FS700 to output 4K bit-stream data over 3G HD-SDI when used with an optional Sony 4K recorder.

Ugly:

Much of the LFC experience is mediated via Lytro's website - at present there's nowhere else that can interpret the files or present them.

As a result of someone hacking the version of the 'light field' that is sent up to the Lytro site, it has become known that the camera analyses the depth information in each image and the desktop software renders a series of JPEGs representing the key depths in the image. ...

The downside is, of course, that you are currently dependent on Lytro not just to host, but to provide any form of interactive online access to your own images. The trustworthiness of Lytro - which we've no reason to doubt - and its long-term business viability aside, this presents some real concerns for early adopters. Lytro insists that it does not claim ownership of your pictures that you upload - 'they are yours' - but reserves the right to refuse to host or remove your images if it believe they conflict with the company's terms and conditions.

DP Review has a review of this camera. It sounds like it has a long way to go. Due to the way lightfield works, the final resolution is fairly low, in this case only 1024x1024.

Low res? No worries, just use the ENHANCE button. Problem solved.

Regards,
David Benton
Crime Scene Investigations, Miami PD

DP Review has a review of this camera. It sounds like it has a long way to go. Due to the way lightfield works, the final resolution is fairly low, in this case only 1024x1024. I don't know if there's really a way around it, since they're substituting resolution for the depth of field focus feature.

But that's still high enough for the vast majority of people's snapshots. 1024x1024 yields a 5"x5" print at 200dpi, while most people seem to be satisfied with 4x6" prints.

It's certainly not going to satisfy a pro or serious amateur, but for everyday snapshots, even the current level of the technology is a big step forward since it can eliminate every out of focus shot (though camera shake is still an issue)

DP Review has a review of this camera. It sounds like it has a long way to go. Due to the way lightfield works, the final resolution is fairly low, in this case only 1024x1024. I don't know if there's really a way around it, since they're substituting resolution for the depth of field focus feature.

Yep, as soon as they fire the guy at Apple who was responsible for the iPhone daylight saving bug in November 2010. And again in March 2011.

Also Flickr, with their own leap year bug. And Sony.

Not saying this isn't a black eye for MS - and yes, testing for leap year should be thought out ahead of time - but in fairness they're not the only people to have ever been caught out by something like this.

Yep, as soon as they fire the guy at Apple who was responsible for the iPhone daylight saving bug in November 2010. And again in March 2011.

Also Flickr, with their own leap year bug. And Sony.

Not saying this isn't a black eye for MS - and yes, testing for leap year should be thought out ahead of time - but in fairness they're not the only people to have ever been caught out by something like this.

It's a 1/1.2inch sensor = 2/3inch sensor, in which these are not actual inches but nominal inches related to the sizes of old TV camera sensor tubes, which had a sensitive area only in the center, but were specified by the outer diameter of the tube.
The nominal diameter in inches is about 1.5 times the real sensor size on the diagonal.

Type / Diag. / W / H (mm) / Area (mm^2)
1/3.2" 5.680 4.536 3.416 15.49 Phone camera
1/2.3" 7.700 6.160 4.620 28.46 compact camera
1/1.2 13.10 10.80 7.500 81.30 Nokia 808 41Mpix
4/3" 22.50 18.00 13.50 243.00 a.k.a. micro 4/3"
1.8" 28.40 23.70 15.70 372.09 a.k.a. APS-C
35mm 43.30 36.00 24.00 864.00 ratio of diagonals gives 35mm crop factor
(above information calculated from http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm )

The "41 megapixel" helps in impressing people but the really interesting thing in this phone is the size of the sensor (see dpreview for a comparison of sensor sizes). Physically larger than the majority of sensors found in compact cameras, it allows for better image quality.

It is likely that a 5 megapixel sensor of the same size would be equally and even better suited for taking images in low light conditions but such a sensor would lack the so-called "digital" zoom described for the PureView phone. The "zoom" is nothing more than cropping the image to smaller and smaller sizes and lower and lower quality. But it is there.

I do hope that compact camera makers will follow the example shown by Nokia and provide the new models with larger sensors providing better image quality. It is likely that such a move is detrimental to camera makers as it might steal from the dSLR territory.

No. Being "inspired" by other code is not copyright violation

Unless one party lives in the UK. Then being "inspired" by another work, and specifically creating your own new and different work to avoid infringing the first, is still a copyright violation.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case

It might not apply to Sony or Busybox devs due to neither being in the UK, but as a blanket statement about copyright, that is no longer correct.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case

By Sixpm (Jan 26, 2012 at 04:21:56 GMT)

It saddens me when I see that we all have been brainwashed and indoctrinate to fight for survival or for money, which is just a tool for mass control. Isn't it time for people to wake up that our world is full of abundance and scarcity was created to manipulate the masses into believing that we have to fight in order to get fed?

Our world is free for all to share, to enjoy all of our creativity, copyright law and patent laws are just a few 'regulations' to make sure we are 'trapped' in our own selfish mindsets to maintain our selfish ways of life.

Wake up and to realise that we are all living on a prison planet, undermine and controlled from the moment we're born. No one owns another, so the idea of one has the 'right' over another is totally absurd. Peace out!

Men are moved by two levers only— fear and self interest.

Napoleon Bonaparte

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The Bible (King James Version) 1 Timothy 6:10

This is why life on this planet is in such a mess for most of the people on it.... :(

Actually I do have this on my system. I just didn't think it was worth mentioning because it is kind of niche.

But just not calling home isn't enough to get me using any Chrome variant. It still isn't as configuration friendly, and still doesn't have the level of extensions available for FF.

Also every version Chrome sourced browser has that annoying white flash when looking at some dark web pages like this one:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/

Black background and when you click on messages in the forum, Chrome produces an annoying white screen flash (known bug there for years now) that I don't get in FF.

As far as I understand, film still has its use - in very low temperatures (say, -30C), CCDs do not work as well as film. I am sure that there are special cameras with heated CCDs, but they would cost a lot, where film can be used with a (relatively) cheap camera.

Actually, that's backwards. At low temperatures, photographic film becomes brittle and must be heated. On the other hand, CCDs have less noise at lower temperatures. Astronomers use cooled CCDs extensively. IR cameras often have cooled CCDs; if you want to image heat, you want as little extraneous heat as possible at the imager.

The OP should visit http://www.dpreview.com/

I found Snapsort to be pretty useful, too. I wouldn't trust the (machine-generated) ratings & recommendations, but to compare hard specs, it is fine. Want to know which is the lightest 4/3 camera? The compact with the widest aperture? etc.

Just be careful of the MILC drawbacks; slow to focus (a couple of people have already pointed this out), and poor(er) handling in low light (there was another dpreview article, mirrorless primer or somesuch, that also mentions this). Between my (aging) LX3 and a full DSLR, until they improve the 4/3 and m4/3s in terms of performance (and remember this is a very young market), I am still considering upgrading to an LX5 as I feel there's nothing in-between worth spending the money on, to fill that gap.
Ah, here's the article: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-cameras-a-primer
and quote:
The first is the inability to match the autofocus speed of DSLRs when conducting continuous or predictive AF. Single-shot AF tends not to be so much of an issue, with most recent Mirrorless models able to match or, in the case of Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic, exceed the single-attempt focusing speed of most DSLRs. ... The other drawback we've encountered is that the Mirrorless cameras we've tested so far can struggle to focus in low light to a greater degree than most DSLRs do. And, as the result of the way they focus, they don't always see the same benefit from using an AF illuminator as DSLRs do.

I personally use the Panasonic DMC-GH2, and I am reasonably happy with it (though not ecstatic). The kit lens provides for a 28-280mm zoom range, which does not have enough telephoto magnification for my tastes, but there are relatively cheap telephoto lenses available. The GH2 is somewhat unique among its class in that its autofocus performance is almost instantaneous; in fact, it's faster than on my old Canon Digital Rebel.

Pros:
+ Relatively small size
+ Fast autofocus
+ Excellent movie mode with full manual control
+ RAW support

Cons:
- Noise; anything above ISO 800 is pretty much unusable, and you really need NeatImage or some similar software to get rid of noise even at lower ISO ratings.
- Noise, again; at ISOs around 400 and above the camera sometimes produces streaky noise patterns that are hard to get rid of
- Slower autofocus performance in low light
- Poor color balance; photos can appear drab and yellowish without extensive tuning and/or Photoshop tweaking
- The "i.Dynamic" mode sounds awesome but does nothing

Despite the cons, I still prefer this camera to full-sized SLRs. This is the camera that I most often take with me when I go somewhere.
-

...Panasonic forum. There are probably dozens of threads like these, among the other DPR forums. These get into Micro 4/3 vs superzooms, in particular. There are good arguments for both sides of the debate.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=40183848

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=40183973

...Panasonic forum. There are probably dozens of threads like these, among the other DPR forums. These get into Micro 4/3 vs superzooms, in particular. There are good arguments for both sides of the debate.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=40183848

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=40183973

Ask your question at a dedicated photography website, try the forums at dpreview to start with.

I used many cameras since around 1975 specially while traveling.
While backpacking for many moths I liked to have the camera with me at all times. Weight, bulk and robustness are important on the road, so I would not recommend a heavy DSLR for this purpose. To have a good camera built in the phone is very handy because it reduces the bulk and weight so much. A small camera also reduces the shines-factor if you take informal pictures of peoples.
I used to have a waterproof, 2nd camera with me and appreciated not to have to worry about it on the beach, on boats or in the rain/dust.
For macro photography a closeup lens can be handy, it is inexpensive and lightweight but requires a thread in front of your lens to mount it. Clip-on macro lenses could be available for your phone.
A viewfinder is a must for a 'serious' camera, in my opinion. Make sure a digital viewfinder has a good resolution so that you can verify the sharpness of your picture (more than 1 M pixel).
I am using a 'Four Thirds' http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/3/7/panasonicg2 format camera for a year now and am very happy with it. I used 'Super-Zoom' cameras before because they are low weight an all-in-one but the image quality was rather poor. I can not recommend this type of camera.

In the end it will payoff to do your home work: make a list of features required and read as many reviews as you have time for.

Mirrorless basically gets you a smaller camera

so mirrorless is all advantage and no disadvantage?

No, it (mirrorless) has 1 primary advantage...size. It's also quieter, though that's not usually an issue since seemingly everyone has their P&S cameras set to make a fake shutter sound, thus defeating that advantage. Finally, it's one less moving part to break, though mirror mechanisms rarely break these days (even people taking more than 100k photos rarely have a mirror break). So there's 3 advantage to mirrorless, 2 of which are mostly moot. The remaining advantage, size, is likewise not always so big of an advantage. If you are strapping a 16 inch lens to the front of the thing, does it really matter if the body is an inch or so thinner? Actually, it may be a disadvantage...many photographers complain how awkward it is having a large, heavy lens and a small, light body. A tiny body is only going to magnify that awkwardness.

On the other hand, the mirror has 1 primary advantage: autofocus is generally MUCH better. Someone above said the Sony cameras have improved on this quite a bit. I checked out the DPreview.com review on this camera ( http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex7/page13.asp ) and it seems it is indeed better than others for focus, but still not nearly as good as a DSLR. Another potential advantage of mirror is the ability to have a viewfinder, but that's mostly just personal preference. Years ago that was a huge advantage, as you could see so much more detail in the viewfinder. However, that benefit is being negated these days now that cameras have larger and higher resolution displays on them.

More to the point, there are a lot of options above "cellphone" and below "full blown DSLR or expensive but compact equivalent"...

The OP should visit http://www.dpreview.com/ and first look for something in his price range that is the *form factor* he is interested in (probably above super-compact but not quite DSLR-ish) and then narrow the field by price. Why form factor? Since if you aren't comfortable carrying the thing lots of places, you likely won't take a lot of pictures with it. There are plenty to choose from that aren't DSLR, in fact for cost compact cameras take GREAT macro shots that would on a DSLR be only had with a $1000+ lens dedicated to macro. Once you decide on the type of camera with the right set of features, DPreview will point you toward the similar competing models from each brand (in the full review) so you can make a very informed decision.

I repeat, do not make a camera purchase without reading http://www.dpreview.com/ first, they offer the widest set of easy to read reviews you will EVER find.

More to the point, there are a lot of options above "cellphone" and below "full blown DSLR or expensive but compact equivalent"...

The OP should visit http://www.dpreview.com/ and first look for something in his price range that is the *form factor* he is interested in (probably above super-compact but not quite DSLR-ish) and then narrow the field by price. Why form factor? Since if you aren't comfortable carrying the thing lots of places, you likely won't take a lot of pictures with it. There are plenty to choose from that aren't DSLR, in fact for cost compact cameras take GREAT macro shots that would on a DSLR be only had with a $1000+ lens dedicated to macro. Once you decide on the type of camera with the right set of features, DPreview will point you toward the similar competing models from each brand (in the full review) so you can make a very informed decision.

I repeat, do not make a camera purchase without reading http://www.dpreview.com/ first, they offer the widest set of easy to read reviews you will EVER find.

I'm an experienced photographer. To simplify your search, there are only two features/metrics that you should look for: (1) the option for the camera to shoot both JPEG and RAW (a manufacturer-proprietary format that captures more data for important pictures, which you can then subsequently convert to JPEG); and (2) sensor pixel density.

For (1), Dpreview.com recently published a nice roundup of RAW-shooting compact cameras. You can't go wrong with any camera in that group even if you never use the RAW feature.

For (2), look for cameras with a sensor size at least as large as APS-C; a larger sensor will capture more light, and for a given number of pixels, a larger sensor will produce less noise than a smaller sensor. APS-C signifies a sensor size around 23mm x 15mm. (A full-frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm, which is found in high-end DSLRs.) An APS-C sensor can fortunately now be found in several small cameras that have come out in the last year or so, but they are still relatively rare and relatively expensive. Such APS-C compact cameras include: Sony Nex-3, Nex-5, and Nex-7; Fuji X100; Samsung NX100 and NX200; and Leica X1. The Micro-4/3 MILC cameras typically have a sensor size around 17mm x 13mm. Note that the compact cameras listed in (1) above have even smaller sensors around 8mm x 6mm.

I found this site very helpful: http://www.dpreview.com/

Read just one of their reviews and you'll learn about all of the most important things to look for in a camera. Their camera database is amazing for narrowing down your options once you have an idea of your price range and what you want.

The Canon Powershot s95 is a compact camera with all the amazing gadgetry of its physically larger big brother Canon Powershot G12. You bring the s95 anywhere. With a G12 or a DSLR you don't look professional at a party, just silly... And you don't carry a DSLR or G12 in your breast pocket next to your phone. Also, the s95 has an under waterhouse that you can dive with to 40 m, use on the beach, in a blizzard, or even a sandstorm.

www.google.com/search?q=Canon+Powershot+s95

Apparently there is an upgrade, s100, which I know nothing about.

But if it is two-third as good as its predecessor I'll recommend that too.

www.google.com/search?q=Canon+Powershot+s100

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_s100

Absolutely correct. I have a DSLR and a few lens which I love and I use when I'm looking to do real photography. But I also have, or had till I misplaced it, a small point and shoot camera about the size of an altoids tin. Of all the photos I have, I probably used that one for 90% of them. It would fit in a pocket, I had no qualms exposing it to potentially destructive conditions, and I almost always had it with me by keeping it in my computer bag.

Anyway, I'm really missing it and will need to replace it. I'd suggest looking at the reviews here:
http://www.dpreview.com/

Get a "travel zoom" camera.
Small enough to carry anywhere while very versatile.

My 2 cents, if you want good image quality (IQ) with a small pocketable body, and a camera that you can just turn on and leave in "auto" mode, either of these two will do (I have an LX3 that I've used for the last 4 years, and bought my wife an S95 - just before the S100 was announced, doh!).

There are subtle differences between both, the LX5 is not quite pocketable (too many protrusions), but IMHO has much better IQ compared to the S100 (I'm actually comparing the LX3 to the S95, but form factor and IQ are pretty much equivalent, except the LX5 has better zoom compared to my LX3). However, the S100 is more pocketable and has a higher zoom.

Both are cheap enough for you to start, and easy enough for you to learn to use, in case you decide not to move up to dSLRs, which are a whole different ball game in terms of price and useability. And to be perfectly honest, lense and chipset aside (which determines quality of JPGs, shooting speed, RAW output etc), the main other factor affecting IQ is the size and quality of the sensor, which, unlike the old days of changing file type in your camera/SLR, can't be readily changed. So, if and when you are ready to switch to dSLRs in 5 years time, you know what? Sensor technology will likely have changed again by then!

A good site is dpreview.com, that is my main go-to site for reviews.