Slashdot Mirror

https://www.dpreview.com/artic...

2006 Panasonic Lumix TZ1 anyone?
https://www.dpreview.com/artic...

I'd wondered when this was coming for cell phone cameras. I had a Minolta DiMAGE X back in the day, it had a periscope lens with not just a fixed 5x telephoto, but a 3x zoom that moved inside the body sideways.

https://www.dpreview.com/artic...

I await the day they don't use 3 separate lenses/sensors and do something like this in a cell phone.

Sam

You don't have to speculate a lot, fingerprint/iris etc. is point identification where the person wants to identify. With facial recognition you can people over time from camera to camera. If you got them positively identified at one point you can track both forwards and backwards. If you got a superzoom you can do it from a great distance. If you're the Chinese they can probably cross reference with cell phone towers, electronic payments etc. to narrow down the number of likely people from 1.4 billion to a few thousands. Like Facebook they'll probably build shadow profiles on all the unknown people, only better.

Compact point and shoots still have _crappy_ glass. Better than a cell phone, but still crap.

That's not true at all. There are some point and shoots with very good quality glass. Far better than smartphones in the right hands. The problem point and shoots have is that their workflow after the picture is taken SUCKS and they are one trick ponies. They take good pictures just fine but then what? They offer nothing after that. With a smartphone I can edit the photo, add filters, back it up to the cloud, share it with my friends, post to social media, all within seconds. And I have a device that does other things. The makers of point and shoot cameras have completely shit the bed in realizing that for these cameras it's the workflow that matters more than the image. They never bothered to make them web connected, give them editing and social media tools, etc which would actually make the possibly worth bothering with. They still live in the SD card to a PC world which smartphones made obsolete years ago.

If they wanted to make a point and shoot relevant again it should have LTE and wifi. It should back up to dropbox and the cloud. It should have a big and good touch screen. High quality glass. GPS and location tagging. Seamless transfer to tablets. It should have image processing better than that on a smartphone. Image cataloging. Flip screens for vlogging. It should have 4K video at high frame rates and tools to actually do something useful with it IN CAMERA. All this should be automated to a high degree in a compact size and the cost cannot be more than a smartphone. Better images only matter when you can actually use them to do what you want and taking the picture is just the start. Nobody wants a point and shoot camera that can only take pictures and can't do anything in post. Smartphone makers understand this and camera makers remain utterly clueless about it.

Oh and a LOT of these complaints apply to high end pro cameras too. They also have shit interfaces and terrible connectivity and work flow. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc all persist with the delusion that only image quality and physical ergonomics matter. And this myopia will cost them dearly.

And dpreview[dpreview.com] talks a lot about the F-mount, but is not so enthusiastic overall.

You know the funny thing. Film photography purists were making some fairly similar statements about how digital cameras were merely toys and you need a "real" (film) camera for anything serious, not all that long ago... You obviously aren't all that familiar with modern smartphone photography. Not to mention, with recent mirrorless cameras even starting to _supersede_ DSLRs these days, the differences are less and less, apart from the actual glass. The sensor is "different" mostly in size (DSLRs do use larger sensors).

To explain further, you now CAN trigger remote flash with a phone, you CAN have actual control over focus, and you CAN adjust shutter speed, etc. Just not always with the default built-in camera app. Manual aperture is one missing component, but the camera software is now so fricking good that with just a single or dual aperture, you can get essentially the exact same result (in the finished photos).

Take a gander here and here and here for hundreds of examples. Many of those I could have sworn were produced by a high-end DSLR if I didn't already know otherwise.

You know the funny thing. Film photography purists were making some fairly similar statements about how digital cameras were merely toys and you need a "real" (film) camera for anything serious, not all that long ago... You obviously aren't all that familiar with modern smartphone photography. Not to mention, with recent mirrorless cameras even starting to _supersede_ DSLRs these days, the differences are less and less, apart from the actual glass. The sensor is "different" mostly in size (DSLRs do use larger sensors).

To explain further, you now CAN trigger remote flash with a phone, you CAN have actual control over focus, and you CAN adjust shutter speed, etc. Just not always with the default built-in camera app. Manual aperture is one missing component, but the camera software is now so fricking good that with just a single or dual aperture, you can get essentially the exact same result (in the finished photos).

Take a gander here and here and here for hundreds of examples. Many of those I could have sworn were produced by a high-end DSLR if I didn't already know otherwise.

You know the funny thing. Film photography purists were making some fairly similar statements about how digital cameras were merely toys and you need a "real" (film) camera for anything serious, not all that long ago... You obviously aren't all that familiar with modern smartphone photography. Not to mention, with recent mirrorless cameras even starting to _supersede_ DSLRs these days, the differences are less and less, apart from the actual glass. The sensor is "different" mostly in size (DSLRs do use larger sensors).

To explain further, you now CAN trigger remote flash with a phone, you CAN have actual control over focus, and you CAN adjust shutter speed, etc. Just not always with the default built-in camera app. Manual aperture is one missing component, but the camera software is now so fricking good that with just a single or dual aperture, you can get essentially the exact same result (in the finished photos).

Take a gander here and here and here for hundreds of examples. Many of those I could have sworn were produced by a high-end DSLR if I didn't already know otherwise.

If your memories matter to you that much then get a real camera.

[...]

Most of what makes a good photo isn't the camera, it's the photographer.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Everyone knows you can take amazing photos with modern smartphones. You can save your bullshit hyperbole about "if you care about your memories" -- give me a fucking break. There are people taking better photos with an iphone than you'll ever take with your DSLR.

The benefit of the galaxies is they don't move

That's wrong on pretty much every level.

allowing us to reset the nose floor between identical exposures

I like my photographs to work from a single exposure. A bird wont take a fish from water multiple times in a row to allow you to capture multiple identical exposures and eliminate the noise as the difference between them.

Just doing a longer exposure doesn't help you much determine what is Galaxy and what is a photon hitting the sensor.

The photons come from the fucking galaxy. A longer exposure does indeed allow you to receive more light from the galaxy, or star, or reflection of light off a sea eagle in its dive.

Of course, that sea eagle is moving quite quickly, which is why bigger pixels allowing more of that reflected light to be captured in a shorter timespan are so fucking useful.

NASA specifically created a technique for eliminating sensor noise by making sub-pixel shifts in the camera

My camera can use sub-pixel shifts in the sensor too but that's still fuck all use with moving subjects, or when you don't want to sit there waiting.

I use the same technique when I image galaxies to great effect

You don't even need to use sub-pixel shifts, multiple images of the galaxy will suffice. Ideally throw in an image of a black cloth over the lens too to really highlight the sensor noise profile.

The difference between large and small sensors all but disappeared a few generations back.

Did it fuck. Check https://www.dpreview.com/revie...

Oh look. The full frame sensor has discernably less noise than the APS-C sensor, despite both being 24MP. The 20MP four-thirds sensor is even worse, and the 20MP one inch sensor is fucking terrible in comparison.

Those are all 2018 cameras.

To be clear bigger still is better, but that is purely hardware and first principles and ignores a whole lot of signal processing advancements that have been made.

Which is my entire fucking point. At any sensor generation, the larger sensor captures light much better.

Shit, go back four years - multiple sensor generations - and check the APS-C sensor noise levels compared to the same megapixel smaller sensors now:
https://www.dpreview.com/revie...

Oh look. The one inch sensor still has relatively poor noise. So it's taken 4 years for sensor quality to jump one size in quality.

Meanwhile, since this conversation is based around mobile phone sensors I added one to that last comparison. Despite being three stops slower than the other sensors its noise profile kind of proves my point pretty emphatically.

My six year old camera with a four-thirds sensor still takes lovely photographs. My year old camera still sucks at low-light photography compared to a new full frame DSLR.

Sensor pixel size matters.

The benefit of the galaxies is they don't move

That's wrong on pretty much every level.

allowing us to reset the nose floor between identical exposures

I like my photographs to work from a single exposure. A bird wont take a fish from water multiple times in a row to allow you to capture multiple identical exposures and eliminate the noise as the difference between them.

Just doing a longer exposure doesn't help you much determine what is Galaxy and what is a photon hitting the sensor.

The photons come from the fucking galaxy. A longer exposure does indeed allow you to receive more light from the galaxy, or star, or reflection of light off a sea eagle in its dive.

Of course, that sea eagle is moving quite quickly, which is why bigger pixels allowing more of that reflected light to be captured in a shorter timespan are so fucking useful.

NASA specifically created a technique for eliminating sensor noise by making sub-pixel shifts in the camera

My camera can use sub-pixel shifts in the sensor too but that's still fuck all use with moving subjects, or when you don't want to sit there waiting.

I use the same technique when I image galaxies to great effect

You don't even need to use sub-pixel shifts, multiple images of the galaxy will suffice. Ideally throw in an image of a black cloth over the lens too to really highlight the sensor noise profile.

The difference between large and small sensors all but disappeared a few generations back.

Did it fuck. Check https://www.dpreview.com/revie...

Oh look. The full frame sensor has discernably less noise than the APS-C sensor, despite both being 24MP. The 20MP four-thirds sensor is even worse, and the 20MP one inch sensor is fucking terrible in comparison.

Those are all 2018 cameras.

To be clear bigger still is better, but that is purely hardware and first principles and ignores a whole lot of signal processing advancements that have been made.

Which is my entire fucking point. At any sensor generation, the larger sensor captures light much better.

Shit, go back four years - multiple sensor generations - and check the APS-C sensor noise levels compared to the same megapixel smaller sensors now:
https://www.dpreview.com/revie...

Oh look. The one inch sensor still has relatively poor noise. So it's taken 4 years for sensor quality to jump one size in quality.

Meanwhile, since this conversation is based around mobile phone sensors I added one to that last comparison. Despite being three stops slower than the other sensors its noise profile kind of proves my point pretty emphatically.

My six year old camera with a four-thirds sensor still takes lovely photographs. My year old camera still sucks at low-light photography compared to a new full frame DSLR.

Sensor pixel size matters.

Leica discontinues the M7

They still make the M-A and MP

an old Leica M or Minolta CL may be the one 35mm camera I could be bothered to get. I'm done with the kerr-chunkk of SLRs. Rangefinders, you don't hear 'em... *shhk*

In the movie the actions didn't make sense. After deactivating HAL, I got no motivation to want to fly the Pod into the monolith. Was it a sense of duty to complete the mission? Was he just trying to kill himself from a mission with no way back? Being that the actors were directed to act near emotionless, there is little understanding on the action, just from the movie alone.

I saw the movie as a very young boy, my Dad took us to see it when Mom needed us out of the house for a bit.

I followed it mostly I remember in the theater then, until the very end.

For years after, whenever it was shown on TV...I'd watch it and I got most of it, except the end.

I finally bought the book, read it, and was a bit disappointed at again at the end....didn't really explain the star child thing from what I remember.

Now....over the years, I take it to be the next step in the evolution of Man as aided by some alien form.

I dabble in video, and work in After Effects, etc. To this day, so many of the effect of this 60's movie still stand today as pretty darned good!! We didn't really see another leap in special effects till we got Star Wars in what...'76?

Over the past years, I've gotten a bit of an interest in Kubrick. I've been reading and watching those that analyze him and his films.

I'd not say I"m a HUGE fan, but more and more as I watch and re-watch his films, I must admit I watch looking for things in them.

Full Metal Jacket....wow, some parts just inspired, especially the first part.

The Shining - whatever you think of how Kubrick messed with King's story, if nothing else, the analyzation and supposed "hidden' messages in the movie by some border on the level of conspiracy theory (is it really tied to Kubrick faking the moon landings??). I don't buy into most of it, but when you know what to look for, there is some really WEIRD stuff in the movie. The layout of the Overlook hotel for instance, that quick scene with the guy in a bear costume that's been going down on another man in a room with the door open, etc.

On that one, with Kubrick usually being such a stickler for details...the things that are in the Shining, well, so different of him to let those go that many think they are there for a reason.

If nothing else, makes for fun reading and watching of analysis.

Dr. Strangelove - Im' still trying to figure that one out.

Barry Lyndon - Whew..that is LONG and hard to watch, BUT...I'm still fascinated that Kubrick basically got ahold of a customized NASA lens with a max aperture of f/0.7 , so that the scenes lit only by candle light...were lit ONLY by candle light on the set.

Pretty amazing stuff there for that alone.

Clockwork Orange - Well, I need to watch that a few more times.

I'll be honest, I'm just a novice when it comes to films, I watch all these...and of late, now I"m reading about them, and looking at them with different eyes so to speak, and well....its interesting and in some way fascinating if, for nothing else, the technical aspects of his lighting, framing and VFX of the day that were often groundbreaking.

I now like to look for all the leading lines (One Point Perspective?) in the framing of scenes.

A lot of interesting stuff, in a lot of movies that on first glance, look kinda plain.....and simple.

It's not even the first digital camera with dual lenses

Funny you say that, because recently dpreview had an article that high-end smartphones are good enough to replace SLR cameras for most users. I do have an SLR camera, but that becomes an issue of, sometimes you would rather have a capable swiss army knife in your pocket than lug around an 18 knife set plus a can opener.

...if I'm taking pictures of my kids, I want something that looks good, not just OK.

Then get a cheap phone and spend the rest of the money on a camera with a good lens. dpreview 2017 compact enthusiast round-up is probably a good place to start for things that will fit in your pocket and still take great pictures. Here are some side-by-side examples by what admittedly looks like a probably camera-biased site smartphone vs camera

There are 2.5 billion smartphones in use. If each of those had two CCD sensors, that's 5 billion.
https://www.statista.com/stati...

245 million CCTV systems were installed in 2014. If that is a yearly estimate, then you could extrapolate over a decade.
https://technology.ihs.com/532...

That's another 2.5 billion.

If you look at a sales figures of digital SLR cameras vs smartphones, digital cameras are in decline:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/...
That puts smartphones at 1.5 billion/year. That could be extrapolated as well.

Possibly 14 billion, but not trillion.

Can it beat this Android phone made by Huawei + Leica ? Didn't think so.

Light levels in a lot of restaurants are still to low for iPhones. It's ridiculous that every iPhone release people keep coming out and saying that they are DSLR replacements. My Canon S100, which is several years old now, takes better photos than my iPhone 6s, although I'm sure the 7 is a big step up. I just don't happen to carry it very often these days, which is key. My 8 year old entry level Canon 500D DSLR takes vastly better photos than my iPhone, although I've replaced it in the past year with an 80D, which is even better.

Not to say that iPhone photography is pretty amazing, especially in good lighting and viewing the results only on small mobile screens. How about stopping the perpetuation of this marketing bullshit though? They're just not big enough with their sensors and glass and only have a fixed focal length and aperture to be even close to comparable in situations I use my DSLR.

This is, in large part, bullsh*t. It holds true for really crappy cameras, like webcams with bad lighting, but most cameras over a few hundred dollars are actually pretty good at capturing contrast. For example look at the photographic comparison with a Canon Powershot S95 from 2011 (purposefully selected because it's one of the worst rated cameras at dpreview.com). Even on that POS the contrast doesn't wash out until the very low end of the scale and very few people have features that dark, and none uniformly so (you still have the sclera of the eye, teeth, general geometry of the face from the outline, etc). What cameras tend to get wrong is the tone of the skin, not the contrast. The real problem is also demonstrated by that review, the only face on the reference is of a fair skinned woman. Most facial recognition systems have been disproportionally trained and tested with Caucasians and don't do well with darker skin because they weren't tuned and tested for it, not because they can't. BTW: dpreview has since updated their target to include multiple ethnicities. But this was done to determine how good they are at handling skin tones, not contrast.

This is, in large part, bullsh*t. It holds true for really crappy cameras, like webcams with bad lighting, but most cameras over a few hundred dollars are actually pretty good at capturing contrast. For example look at the photographic comparison with a Canon Powershot S95 from 2011 (purposefully selected because it's one of the worst rated cameras at dpreview.com). Even on that POS the contrast doesn't wash out until the very low end of the scale and very few people have features that dark, and none uniformly so (you still have the sclera of the eye, teeth, general geometry of the face from the outline, etc). What cameras tend to get wrong is the tone of the skin, not the contrast. The real problem is also demonstrated by that review, the only face on the reference is of a fair skinned woman. Most facial recognition systems have been disproportionally trained and tested with Caucasians and don't do well with darker skin because they weren't tuned and tested for it, not because they can't. BTW: dpreview has since updated their target to include multiple ethnicities. But this was done to determine how good they are at handling skin tones, not contrast.

Today, that means something like Phase One's 100 megapixel medium format digital back. This lets us initially grab as many pixels as possible and then throw away the ones we don't want later.

Pffft Is that all?

But really it's a lot of naval gazing and penis compensation. High-end reprographic work hasn't gotten any better in the past 5-10 years. The same arguments were made back when medium format backs were 30mpxl and DSLRs were 8mpxl. The same argument is being made now. Interestingly the pictures are still the same quality which really puts the whole "*really* need" thing into perspective.

Those who *really* need more pixels (e.g., those of us in high-end reprographic work, fashion photography, people shooting landscapes they want to print out wall-sized, etc.) generally get a bigger sensor. Today, that means something like Phase One's 100 megapixel medium format digital back. This lets us initially grab as many pixels as possible and then throw away the ones we don't want later.

I'd rather get a Pentax K-1 for half the price. Full frame, 36MP, image quality way up there, superior in some cases (particularly for static scenes using Pixel Shift), in-body stabilisation (doesn't need new lenses). Video facilities not as good, though: the K-1 doesn't do 4K but does do Full HD @ 60fps.

It doesn't do everything, but what it does, it does very well. Besides, why get what everyone else gets? Canon and Nikon are the Toyota and Nissan of camera companies. Boring. ;-)

No, they don't.

Technically they do, otherwise synthetic fabrics would come out purple (see "Infrared / Ultraviolet pollution" half way down the page). They're just not 100% effective so a little IR gets through, and depends on the camera as some are worse than others.

...the N808 Pureview, with the most awesome firmware and a beautiful Carl Zeiss lens.
Check out the pro DSLR review ... http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview

"The 808 proves that Nokia can innovate, and its PureView technology has piqued the interest of serious photographers, being one of the most important innovations - arguable the most important - in mobile photography since the smarphone era dawned five or so years ago. As such, the 808 is intriguing not just in itself, but because of what it represents. Things could be about to get interesting..." ... and here we are today, in interesting land :)

S5 waterproofing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

It didn't make it to the S6....(although there will presumably be an S6 active that is)

Sony Xperia Z series perhaps? Or how about Pentax WG-3 GPS ?

Well they don't fuck around when it comes to cameras http://www.dpreview.com/articl...

Iâ(TM)ll wait for something from DPReview.

Why wait?

Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014

Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014

Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014

Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1

Iâ(TM)ll wait for something from DPReview.

Why wait?

Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014

Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014

Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014

Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1

Iâ(TM)ll wait for something from DPReview.

Why wait?

Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014

Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014

Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014

Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1

Iâ(TM)ll wait for something from DPReview.

Why wait?

Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014

Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014

Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014

Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1

Iâ(TM)ll wait for something from DPReview.

Why wait?

Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014

Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014

Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014

Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1

Iâ(TM)ll wait for something from DPReview.

Why wait?

Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014

Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014

Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014

Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1

Iâ(TM)ll wait for something from DPReview.

Why wait?

Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review - September 2014

Real-world test: Going pro with the Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1 real-world sample images - Nov 12, 2014

Photokina 2014 Video: The Samsung NX1 - Sep 19, 2014

Enthusiast mirrorless camera roundup (2014) Samsung NX1 - Nov 27, 2014

Samsung NX1

Take a look at light field cameras, the future of photography is clearly much more interesting than just higher resolution & channel depth:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5867769785/light-field-cameras-focusing-on-the-future

Also, this technology seems kind of Blade-Runnerish:

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/camera-sees-around-corners-0321

http://connect.dpreview.com/po...

Not so funny anymore.
http://www.dpreview.com/articl...

This is why I won't be switching to Lightroom, there is no way I am going to rent software from Adobe.

Lightroom can be purchased as a stand-alone product, and Adobe currently has no plans to move LR to CC.

The images from a modern cell phone camera are competitive with the images from a DSLR from about 15 years ago. Sensor noise has been reduced and sensitivity increased. You can apply these improvements by either holding the sensor size (and pixel pitch) constant and getting much higher ISOs (we've gone from 1600 ISO as a max to 256,000 ISO as a max on DSLRs). Or you can hold ISO constant and reduce sensor size. Cell phone cameras just do the latter. As long as you aren't trying to make a telephoto or shoot in low light, the tiny lens size doesn't hurt you because we aren't yet close to the diffraction and resolution limits for the 20-40mm equivalent that's typically found on cell phone cameras. We still have some size reduction that's possible before we'll hit diffraction limits.

Here's some sample photos from the Nikon D1X from 2001. Now, show me a camera phone that is even close to the dynamic range and light handling of even a relatively primitive DSLR.... The night shots alone from the DSLR blow any camera phone away simply because the sensor is physically larger and is able to take in more light and DSLR lenses are light years better... If you had gone with a 15 year old P&S digital camera, I would agree with you, but DSLRs, even old ones, are in a completely different class.

http://www.dpreview.com/galler...

Based on the fairly favorable reviews of the 41 million pixel Nokias, there are apparently some clever tricks to turn lots of fairly lousy pixels into a smaller number of better ones.

Given that the state of sensor tech is basically the same at all (reasonable) sensor sizes, you are still going to get better results with a bigger chip than you will with the pitiful little sliver in your average cellphone; but apparently having more pixels is, at least potentially, a useful thing.

Uh... no. I'm not saying no one uses those terms the way you define it, but "dynamic range" is pretty much the only term I've seen used for what you call exposure range.

For example, if I Google "dynamic range photo" (and in the interest of fully disclosing my methods, that's the first search term I tried), the first five results are:

"Overall, the dynamic range of a digital camera can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity measurable (above read-out noise)."
http://www.cambridgeincolour.c...

"In photography, dynamic range is the difference between the lightest light and darkest dark which can be seen in a photo."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tec...

"The dynamic range of a sensor is defined by the largest possible signal divided by the smallest possible signal it can generate." This one is closer to your definition of dynamic range.
http://www.dpreview.com/glossa...

The wikipedia hit I get goes right to the HDR articles, which says "In photography, dynamic range is measured in EV differences (known as stops) between the brightest and darkest parts of the image that show detail." If you follow the link to the dynamic range article, you get "Photographers use "dynamic range" for the luminance range of a scene being photographed, or the limits of luminance range that a given digital camera or film can capture, or the opacity range of developed film images, or the reflectance range of images on photographic papers." (emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

The fifth link, http://www.stuckincustoms.com/..., doesn't have any definition of dynamic range, and is basically an ad site.

So if I'm generous and count dpreview for you (and then count the fifth link as neutral), that's 1 out of 4 links that agree with you and 3 out of 4 that use "dynamic range" to mean what you call "exposure range".

Fashionistas might like it. It goes well with the new Hasselblad-decorated Sony NEX7 http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/06/10/hasselblad-lunar-now-shipping or the new Leica M decorated by Jony Ives and Mark Newsom.

Of course, some of a certain age might remember the last time Cadillac tried this, in the '80s, with the Cimmaron, a rebadged Chevy Cavalier with the addition of clear-coat paint and a hideous chrome-plated luggage rack on the top of the trunk lid. It nearly led to the death of the brand.

As an American and as a human being with a conscience, I don't know whether to root for a success here, or to well-deserved failure. Mebbe newly-rich Chinese and Russians are attracted to these, but even they will, eventually learn the real value of things. They'll spend a hundred bucks on a Ferrari baseball cap and call it a day.
 

The Nokia does have a larger sensor than most camera phones, so it's not nearly as ridiculous as it seems. But. when compared to real cameras, the 808 falls short. I'm sure the 1020 is similar.

Scott Adams once divided markets into four quadrants, with the axes being "stupid" vs. "smart" and "rich" vs. "poor", advising people to go for the "stupid and rich" quadrant (poor, and they can't spend a lot of money on your products; smart, and it's a lot more work to convince people to buy your product).

The Nokia insider seems to really like that quadrant; as the article says:

Ironically Nuovo feels the answer to Apple’s conundrum can be found in re-examining Nokia history, and one of its enduring success stories, Vertu.

Vertu is a manufacturer of luxury mobile phones, which have sold for as much as $US300,000 a piece. It was conceived by Nuovo and eventually spun out as a separate private concern.

Cellphones for people who really need the bearings for the buttons to be made from ruby.

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.

So: 1) large, non-pocketable, cameras; 2) smartphones that the review you link to did not actually decide is better than an earlier Lumia model with a less capable camera. You are trying so hard it hurts. Surely you forgot the Galaxy "S4" Zoom? ;-)

Nokia traditionally lead in phone cameras and when the original Pureview 808 came out it looked pretty neat.

Right. And Lumia 1020 has improved on that.

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

Now you've gone and destroyed the last shreds of credibility by linking to the blog of an exposed liar.

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.

What's wrong with the apps? OK, Instagram has decided to play nasty. Is anything of value lost?

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.

So: 1) large, non-pocketable, cameras; 2) smartphones that the review you link to did not actually decide is better than an earlier Lumia model with a less capable camera. You are trying so hard it hurts. Surely you forgot the Galaxy "S4" Zoom? ;-)

Nokia traditionally lead in phone cameras and when the original Pureview 808 came out it looked pretty neat.

Right. And Lumia 1020 has improved on that.

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

Now you've gone and destroyed the last shreds of credibility by linking to the blog of an exposed liar.

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.

What's wrong with the apps? OK, Instagram has decided to play nasty. Is anything of value lost?

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.

So: 1) large, non-pocketable, cameras; 2) smartphones that the review you link to did not actually decide is better than an earlier Lumia model with a less capable camera. You are trying so hard it hurts. Surely you forgot the Galaxy "S4" Zoom? ;-)

Nokia traditionally lead in phone cameras and when the original Pureview 808 came out it looked pretty neat.

Right. And Lumia 1020 has improved on that.

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

Now you've gone and destroyed the last shreds of credibility by linking to the blog of an exposed liar.

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.

What's wrong with the apps? OK, Instagram has decided to play nasty. Is anything of value lost?

DPreview Connect Lumia 1020 preview (page-2) has even comparsions, see it.