[aleonx3]

I just hope Ricoh is not going into something like the Fuji super CCD design and meet the same fate (not very well accepted).

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

But you have to admit, if you're going out and you have "oh god I can't go out without a camera" anxiety, slipping your phone into a pocket is less obtrusive than most cameras. I mean, it's not often I want a camera in a grocery store, but I used to carry one before I got my iPhone.

I agree: a phone camera is certainly better than no camera. But I hardly ever have my phone on me. At my time of life, going about with no danger of being disturbed by phone calls or text messages (whatever they are) is golden!

And when travelling light, I take the Q.

[derekkite]

But you have to admit, if you're going out and you have "oh god I can't go out without a camera" anxiety, slipping your phone into a pocket is less obtrusive than most cameras. I mean, it's not often I want a camera in a grocery store, but I used to carry one before I got my iPhone.

Heh. The local grocery store had 3 or 4 song sparrows that made it their home. You would walk down an aisle and hear the singing. I took some shots with my phone but wished I had my long lens and K5 with me to get something interesting. There was a bit of a battle between the nature loving shopping public who liked the birds and the health authority who wanted them dead. As usual the government won in the end.

[Mistral75]

Sad story .

[philbaum]

I take your point, but I have taken many successful hand-held panoramas with my K-5. All one has to do is keep the camera reasonably level and ensure each image overlaps by an appropriate amount. This takes seconds. Granted, I then have to stitch the image, but in Photoshop CS5 this is just a matter of loading the raw files and letting the software do the necessary. Minutes, not hours, and very satisfactory too (I get half my fun from PP, though I may not be typical in that respect). And I bet my panoramas will contain far more detail than that from any iPhone. OK, with a tripod and pano head, I could do even better, but I can get really good results without them.

And for the record, cameras in phones are of no interest to me whatsoever, though I might conceivably use one if a UFO landed in front of me, and I didn't have a real camera with me (though, I'm more likely to have a camera than my mobile phone when I'm out and about, but that's another story)

My Sony Nex has a pretty good handheld panorama system. So i've taken some landscape panoramas with the Sony and then took some with my K5 and a tripod. In good conditions, the Sony ones aren't bad, but they are limited to a jpeg format only But in some high contrast situations, or low light, the Sony will give you an error message and not tell one what the problem is.. But the K5 ones with a tripod took a little more effort, but the results are better and with RAW files - enough said. So now I use the Sony Nex for trial purposes, and if i like the scene from the Sony, i go back and take it again with the Pentax and a tripod. Just saying...results count.

But i don't know what the future will bring, the camera world seems to be changing fast. I try to keep an open mind - but show me the results not just in ideal conditions.

[BrianR]

New iPhone does just that; it takes several shots, and then combines best parts from all images into a final one. Each photo you take with a new iPhone is a composite image. It's become totally bullet proof and Apple does all that to make people's photos as best looking as possible, and make iPhone most loved camera in the world. Real photographers may despise such a level of manipulation, but there you go ...

How well does it work on a fast moving object, like the jumping dog photo we were talking about? Great, you can take advantage of sampling multiple images for the more static things in the picture like the grass, but for the moving dog?

[jatrax]

Heh. The local grocery store had 3 or 4 song sparrows that made it their home. You would walk down an aisle and hear the singing. I took some shots with my phone but wished I had my long lens and K5 with me to get something interesting. There was a bit of a battle between the nature loving shopping public who liked the birds and the health authority who wanted them dead. As usual the government won in the end.

I took a few pictures in our local grocery once with the k-01, got spotted immediately and was politely told that pictures were not permitted and I could put the camera away or leave. Wonder if they would have been so cranky if it was just a cell phone?

[Uluru]

How well does it work on a fast moving object, like the jumping dog photo we were talking about? Great, you can take advantage of sampling multiple images for the more static things in the picture like the grass, but for the moving dog?

Look at Apple's new iPhone demo; they show how they minimise blur with multiple exposures, then deciding which part of which exposure goes in a final shot. It's real-time stitching, and they show how motion blur is addressed with it.

[BrianR]

Look at Apple's new iPhone demo; they show how they minimise blur with multiple exposures, then deciding which part of which exposure goes in a final shot. It's real-time stitching, and they show how motion blur is addressed with it.

I found a video consisting of grey haired Apple guy who was an endless fountain of buzzwords combined with pictures rapidly flashing across the screen of awesome people having even awesomer good times all with a soundtrack designed to evoke a sense of a brighter future and hope. It explained pretty much nothing about motion blur though. I may have found the wrong video?

[Clavius]

For Pete's sake, why does everybody care so much if this gimmick works on moving subjects or not? I think it's pretty obvious that it doesn't, and why should we care? Exposure stacking doesn't work on moving subjects either, nor do long exposures, that doesn't make them useless features at. It would just be another tool in the box, and a useful one too.

[timcatn]

Wouldn't something like this be perfect for photographers that do product shots for instance? Also architectural work? I can see a market for this.

[Clavius]

Wouldn't something like this be perfect for photographers that do product shots for instance? Also architectural work? I can see a market for this.

Truly truly perfect. I do a lot of product photography for a larger internetshop. They need very high resolution images because the website instantly enlarges the product many times as soon as you hover the mouse over it. It shows the smallest details. A camera with such a feature would probably do a much better then the 5DII and 6D that I use right now, even though it is "only" APS-C.

[Tesfaye]

Cool! The screen (internet or not) opens up new possibilities.
The print is fixed, and a certain number of megapixels may be enough. The screen, by the technique you outline, is insatiable.
Example: I made a landscape panorama of 12 frames from a lowly Canon G10. It was basically a test, since I was in front of a magnificent scenery on a trip in eastern Ethiopia and only had the G10. Just showing this off in Lightroom, when somebody clicks on it, they can zoom in, not to pixel-peep but to see incredible detail. It certainly has a wow factor. Seems like a technology for the future.
Megapixels: Never enough, but perhaps too expensive at a given state of development.

[Class A]

I do a lot of product photography for a larger internetshop. They need very high resolution images...

You could already use superresolution right now. For instance, by using Photo Acute.

[Clavius]

You could already use superresolution right now. For instance, by using Photo Acute.

I know, and I do. It's just a very fidgitty program. It would be so much better if with such a feature. Provided that the K-3 produces such imaging in RAW, of course.