iPhone 8 replacement will probably be available in spring 2020

As with me, a smaller group of people have been uncomfortable with larger and larger phones.  Years ago, the phablet was an unusual item--a phone too big to be considered a phone.  Now, it's commonplace, especially since iPhone X.  Samsung's Galaxy Note has been around for a while, but it still seemed a niche product.

The iPhone 8 has continued but has not truly been updated and of course, there would not be an iPhone 9.  As of the next spring (March/April 2020), there should be a replacement that could be called iPhone SE 2.  Given that the iPhone SE was based on the iPhone 5, but with more advanced internal hardware, it's easy to predict a similar treatment for the iPhone 8.  Whether the name will be used or not doesn't matter.  They could call it the iPhone 11 mini, for all I care.  Having the A13 processor and 3 GB of RAM seems worth the price of US$399/US$499 for 64 GB or 128 GB of storage.

I told Apple that, without a successor to the iPhone 8, I would consider switching back to Android.  There aren't many Android-based phones I like but Razer and Asus have phones strong enough to get my attention.  Whether I'll grind my teeth every time I read some security glitch or not, who knows?  After my Asus/Google Nexus 7 tablet never really was in sync with Android, I didn't feel great about using it and gave it to someone who clamored for a tablet.  He lost it within a month.  I've looked at the Razer Phone 2 for an alternative, if the iPhone 8 replacement doesn't happen.  Of all the Android-based phones, this one seems to come from a company that is enthusiastic about making something interesting.

It's been suggested that the iPhone 8 replacement will not be named SE 2 but iPhone 9.  That would suggest an end to the 4.7 inch display phones.

Update 2020.02.17: My iPhone 8 battery has been beaten regularly by iOS 13--lately 13.1.1--and it isn't recovering.  The battery health states that it the battery is at 83% of new capacity.  That's close to replacement time.  After nearly 2 years, that is understandable. I'm considering a replacement for the battery in my 256 GB over a new, more powerful phone with a new battery.  If they're still US$79, isn't worth the money, especially when no phone payments (one time or monthly) would be necessary for a while.  US$27.09 each month would be good to save.

Hopefully, the rumors are true and that there will be a media event on 31 March and the actual launch on the 3rd of April.

I've seen another rumor that it won't be a 4.7 inch display but a bigger display of over 5 inches.  That might suggest an edge-to-edge display, which isn't likely in a budget phone.

Update 2020.04.15: Tax Day is here and so is the iPhone 8 replacement, the iPhone SE.

US$399, $449, and $549 for 64 GB, 128 GB, and 256 GB isn't too bad, especially since it's got the same processing unit as the iPhone 11.  The camera is somewhat different with some depth (of field) control.  How much is optical and how much is digital remains to be seen.

Considering how warn my battery is, better with 13.4.1 than earlier releases, but losing power quickly, it's probably better to put US$79 toward the $549 model, so I don't have to give up capacity.

Update 2020.05.22: Sprint just offered me a 18 month lease with $0.00 payments.  I ended up with the 256 GB model since I already have an iPhone 8 like that, and it cost me US$150 + tax up front.

This is possibly the first time since September 2000, when I wasn't with Sprint, that they offered me something better than expected.  That time, I got a Motorola StarTac for $9.99.

Not only was the monthly lease payment waived, but so was the $30 upgrade/activation fee.  We'll see what happens when I get the phone.  Still, it's a great deal compared to paying $79 for a battery swap on a two year old phone.  The latest reviews show that the processing power is better than most anything else on the market, expensive or inexpensive.

I posted something on Instagram and someone complained about my buying so much storage, saying that Apple should allow removable storage.  If there was a possibility of that working as well as internal storage, it would be expensive.  I've worked on a number of big iron systems that had something called Single Level Store--every drive was meant to work together as one.  That was the only time I saw a system work well with multiple, different kinds of drives, but they were all similar with a certain hardware interface, and there was no inbuilt, dedicated storage, so everything had to work together well.

I think I will be surprised at how good the new phone will be.

Update 2020.08.05: My iPhone 8 replacement, iPhone SE 2020, has been very good, just like the iPhone 8.  There isn't much difference, except for the processing power.  That is a good thing, and it was also good that I didn't have to replace a battery.  The price made it extra wonderful.

Buying enough RAM to make the i7 7700HQ happy

Okay, I've had this 2017 Omen (by HP) 15t for around six months.  It's decent at most everything, making it a good successor to the mid-2012 MacBook Pro quad core i7 with 16 GB of RAM and 480 GB SSD.

When things get tough, it shows how slow it is.  The 8 GB of RAM shows up as about half in use when doing simple things.  When I go to edit photos, I'm in trouble, with RAM generally full and virtual memory has to resort to the 7200 rpm hard drive.  Intolerably slow would be the key phrase but it's possible to remember with 4 MB of RAM was a full set and my Atari 1040 ST (with modification) would fly at 8 MHz.  That was a monochrome system with a 640x400 display.

The MacBook Pro supported 1440x900 and this Omen has a 1920x1080 display--the not so good display, that is standard.  Hey, if I can edit from lesser displays in the past, can I work with lesser displays in the present?  Of course, I can.

However, using Phase One Capture One Pro has been a bit tedious, especially if I'm using Luminar 2018 at the same time.  If I try to also use Magix Movie Edit Pro and/or Xara Designer Pro, things might grind to a halt.

I just ordered 32 GB, in two RAM sticks, with sales tax, etc. for just a bit less than the two pieces were by themselves just a few weeks ago.  G.Skill RAM works well and is trusted.  My needs may not be as specific or hard core as the gamers who would also buy products from the brand, but high performance, reliable products are necessary.

I considered 16 GB but half of my 8 GB is in use doing almost nothing.  Trying to make video with 16 GB might leave me with almost nothing and virtual memory will ruin the performance and I'd be back to intolerably slow performance, plus I'd spent money to arrive there.  Considering the drop in price, it didn't make sense to go with the lower capacity.

I also ordered a toolkit from iFixit, so I should be able to open the machine and put things right easily.  Previously, I had two Husky drivers (from Home Depot) and two Kobalt drivers (from Lowes), which helped quite a lot.  I made the modifications to the MacBook Pro quickly and easily, while being watched, just in case.  It helped train them, also.  I've watched the video reviews of this machine and they opened it fairly easily.  It's just a matter of remembering which screws go where, just like always.

I will have to wait for drive improvements.  The machine has an M.2 slot, so it's perfect for a Samsung 970 EVO drive.  1 TB is much more affordable than the 6 Gbps 480 GB drive I put into the MacBook Pro in 2013. I'm just wondering if I happen to have a Samsung 2.5 inch 512 GB SSD drive that I bought a few years ago.  If I can transfer everything to a 1 TB M.2 drive and switch the 1 TB hard disk drive for an SSD drive, also, things will improve.  However, saving money takes time.

Wish me luck!

Update 2019.01.08: I've got the RAM, but couldn't install it, due to a plastic plug covering one screw.  I'm still working on solutions, but I'm about to have someone else install it, and the HP EX920 M.2 1TB I bought for very little.  Hopefully, the cost of installation won't break the bank.  I've had some noise lately, and I'm not sure whether it's one of the fans or the hard drive.  In either case, a gaming laptop computer needs everything working at full throttle.

Update 2019.02.15: It's done.  Both have been installed for US$30 and another US$35 covered cloning the drive data.  That's actually less than I spent on tools to do the work myself.

The machine still doesn't feel faster than the mid-2012 MacBook Pro.

Nikon has bought (a license to) Samsung's NX technology?

This is a strange rumor, which could explain Samsung's quick exit from several markets.

After years of producing half-baked, mediocre photographic equipment, Samsung has produced desirable equipment, precisely, the NX1.

It has a 28 MP sensor, which is a new density for APS-C, which has been held to 24 MP for a while, equivalent to the 16 MP for (micro) Four-Thirds.  Apparently, the image quality has been impressive and the video is equally impressive, using H.265, rather than H.264.

I don't care for Samsung.  For years, they have produced products that were not complete.  They left buggy firmware in place while introducing products to replace those unfinished products.  This NX1 wasn't so different.  They introduced the body in almost a beta test state.  Almost daily, they were providing firmware updates and now, it's very, very good--desirable.

Unfortunately, the rest of the NX-system is not worthy, which is why this rumor is so interesting.

Obviously, Nikon has a great APS-C presence in the industry.  I even bought a D7200 recently.  What if the emotional successor to the D300 could be based on the technology of the NX1?  I keep seeing the D400 pop up in rumors but no body.

If Nikon called for third parties to supply lenses for APS-C mirror-less bodies, they could certainly move the market more than FujiFilm, even though FujiFilm is very dedicated.  Sony barely has had an impact and Samsung seemed to drag down the market.

What would be even more interesting is a 135 Format/FX sized sensor based on Samsung's technology.  Could the D810 suddenly be supplanted?  Could Sony be removed as a sensor supplier to Nikon?

I wonder if the sensor technology is a one-hit-wonder type of success.  If it moves Nikon into the mirror-less market, it could really change the market and scare the stuffing out of Canon.

Update 2015.12.04: The denial from Samsung tends to dismiss a full sale but seems to suggest that a cooperative use of the technology is possible.  I still don't believe that Samsung's NX mount would be used, even though this would provide a few lenses.  It is more likely that Nikon would want to create a mount, so that they can control everything about it.  Obviously, if they're interesting in APS-C, they've run out of room between CX and DX but they're likely more interested in pushing Sony out of the market than handling the markets of micro Four-Thirds or FujiFilm.

I'm thinking that this move is similar to the move where Apple meant to split their relationship with Samsung, as they didn't trust Samsung not to use their processor design enhancements and went to TSMC for manufacturing.

2015.12.13: You have to wonder if the D610 could be the first to be replaced and there is no D300/D300s replacement at all, but a Sony A7 Mk II-type 135 Format body.

Mirror-less, interchangeable lens cameras have been mainstreamed for around 6 years

It was late in 2008 when Panasonic and Olympus announced micro Four-Thirds and when Panasonic quickly introduced the DMC-G1.

Panasonic had very little success with the DMC-L1 or the DMC-L10 and partner Leica didn't really do much with the Digilux 3 dSLR.  Olympus had more like with the E-330 (like the DMC-L1 or Digilux 3) from that time, bringing Live View to the masses.

However, Panasonic, by itself with the G1, made people think.  It was a dSLR-style camera body and the controls were similar enough that it didn't confuse.  It was just that there wasn't much available, especially since Olympus didn't have anything ready.  If not for the Four-Thirds lens adapter, there would not have been much available at all.

Those lenses have helped me transition from Four-Thirds to micro Four-Thirds, though I'm still skeptical about the system, even though I own the Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and 4 native micro Four-Thirds lenses.

If my skepticism was strong for micro Four-Thirds, it was impossible to break concerning Sony's NEX-system.  It still doesn't have very good support since 2009 when it arrived.  FujiFilm has certainly surpassed Sony in many ways, most prominently in lenses.

Samsung has once again come with something, and it's not a Sony clone this time.  The NX1 and the NX500 actually seem useful.  It took them several generations of crap, and they barely have any lenses or industry support.  I wondered if they would have transitioned their name to Beta, to match Sony's change to differentiate themselves from the copier.  It might be interesting to see if Samsung could manufacture (micro) Four-Thirds sensors for Panasonic, Olympus, and those hiding behind the Kodak name.

Sony has recently shown that they have created a 20 MP sensor for (micro) Four-Thirds, which is interesting, if it can improve only low light photography.  ISO 3200 seems my reasonable limit.  However, seeing the Pentax K-50 with a lower pixel density at ISO 3200, it seems APS-C is not really better, even though the high limit of the K-50 is ISO 51,200.  Perhaps, with a higher resolution lens, it would be better.

Of course, Sony's 135 Format A7-series is much more interesting, as far as technology goes.  As far as lenses go, my skepticism is very high.  Adapters are much more necessary than they are with micro Four-Thirds.  For my use, a dSLR is still better but for those who don't photograph sports, the A7 Mk II looks a treat.  For people who don't mind huge lenses, and back-breaking backpacks, 135 Format is great, mirror-less or otherwise.

I've been looking at old lenses recently and it's amusing to see the old crap that I used to have to sell because there were so few great lenses.  I'm so thankful for the digital revolution, especially since Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses made things so much better.

The company has been making headway with their "PRO" series lenses, despite the silly name.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 is quite good, especially for just under $1000.  I wish they could have put a bit more of the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 goodness into it, but it would have raised the price, and increased the size and weight to where the lightweights would have complained.  However, a 67mm filter size might have allowed an f/2.5 maximum aperture instead of f/2.8.  I've used the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 with the Panasonic GH3, so a 67mm or 72mm filter size wouldn't have bothered me--the closer to f/2.0 the better.

Third party lenses are few, and I'm not sure any of the lenses from Tamron or Sigma are worth it.  Does Tokina even make lenses for mirror-less?  Voigtländer has made some good lenses for micro Four-Thirds, and Zeiss has native lenses for Sony, and adapted cinema lenses for micro Four-Thirds.  I'm sure if I wanted a US$20,000 lens for my Panasonic GH4, a Zeiss lens would be my first choice.

Thankfully, Veydra, a crowdsourced startup is working on making affordable cine lenses of a uniform size for micro Four-Thirds.  Competing with Zeiss' Compact Prime series will be difficult, but does everyone need Zeiss?  With a lack of electronic connections, these are for the serious users who want to control their imagery, just as those from Zeiss are.  The prices are quite different between the two lines.

While Canon, Nikon, and Pentax have all created mirror-less models, they seem afraid to encroach on their dSLRs, and have given somewhat too interesting alternatives.

FujiFilm has been the most exciting company in the market, with some interesting choices.  They have the best selection of lenses for any APS-C sized sensor camera bodies.  While they've been stuck at 16MP, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering the lower pixel density.  The X-T1 is a valuable body with a great EVF and enough dials to make enthusiasts' eyes spin in their sockets.

The company continues to update the firmware with fixes and new additions.  It almost seems as they've kicked Panasonic and Olympus into update mode, also.  For me, the X-T1 could have more of a grip and since there would be more room, a bigger battery.  I haven't tried the X-T1 since the 50-140mm f/2.8 lens has become available, but I wonder about the balance.  There are many times when a dSLR still feels just right for shooting sports.  However, I rarely pull out a dSLR these days.

For the majority of camera users, mirror-less models make sense, especially for those who buy a base dSLR and only use the kit lens and set everything to Auto.  Sure, you can take good photos with those, but the same can be said for cameras without the mirror slap.

One thing about mirror-less camera bodies remain--the many acronyms.  MILC seems to fit best because they are indeed Mirror-less, Interchangeable Lens Cameras.  ILC could include dSLRs and rangefinders.  CSC (Compact System Cameras) wouldn't have to have interchangeable lenses.  EVIL doesn't seem to fit as things have progressed since the original Panasonic DMC-G1.

MILCs haven't taken control of the market, but I can see when the crowd is better informed, that they could.

Update 2015.11.06: I just noticed that DPReview wanted the world to see Ming Thein's article on mirror-less cameras.  The backlash was mean.  Of course, this just means that people didn't agree with his assessment--or that he stepped on their toes, rejecting their choices.  A certain Sony user was particularly aggressive.  I think I've met that user online a time or two.

I agree with most of his assessments.  He apparently had not used the Panasonic GH4, which for me, is as close to the perfect mirror-less body as is possible from one company.  He is working from the point of view, like mine, about getting things done.  I want to get the shots I need (accurately) and get to the next job without the camera getting in the way.

Cameras for photographers, please, not just electronic devices taking photos

I've written a few times about checklist engineering.  It's popular with electronics companies such as Sony and Samsung.  It's generally popular with car companies like Chevrolet, Hyundai, and Honda.  It's about building devices with the personality of a toaster.

For the longest time, great cameras were designed by photographers.  A company would look at what worked for a person who didn't just snap photos, but wanted the camera to work each time, every time with consistency.

I never found rangefinders to be this kind of camera but people adored them.  Although the old medium format viewfinders were rather odd with the upside-down image (so were twin lens reflex), looking down from the top of the camera, you were engaged in the process.  Your imagination worked with reality.

Then, with the SLR, imagination wasn't quite as necessary.  You could see almost how the final image would be, as you looked through the lens with which the image would be captured.  Then, if you used the correct film and processed it well, you'd end up with an image that came close to your vision, your imagination of the scene.

Today, cameras are easy.  You don't have to think at all.  Auto-this, Auto-that are available.  You can even set the camera to take photos at intervals and just leave the camera doing its own thing, so you don't have to be bothered.

What camera engages you?  What equipment says "come out, and let's hear and see and find a story to re-tell people."?

For me, the Fujica series of 135 format SLRs from FujiFilm and the OM-series from Olympus were those kinds of equipment.  The Olympus E-1 was another, more specific, more modern model, and certainly now, the FujiFilm X-T1 seems to pull at me that same way, even though I've yet to buy one.

Intuitive controls are important and the camera body has to feel like an extension of the arm (for me, at least).  That sort of design doesn't come by starting by specifying internal components and working toward the outside eventually.

Look at the Sony A7/A7R duo.  They might as well be called "The Committee" because that's who designed them.  There was so little thought to the exterior that a 10 year old could have done it (with Lego?).  It's a brilliant combination of parts inside but who but Sony fanatics will want to use it?

The FujiFilm X-T1 has the controls all over it, much like the Fujica ST801 that was so dear, or the Olympus OM-1, if they had been designed for the digital age.  When the controls are where you want them to be and you don't have to access a display to make changes, you can be part of the process.

What I photograph with sports doesn't happen twice.  There are no second chances.  The camera body and lens have to work with me at all times.  I don't need to go back to a photo and find that my nose touched the rear display (Why Olympus with the E-M1 and FujiFilm with the X-T1 think I want those displays out in the open, I don't know.  The E-1 display was out in the open but it was off most of the time and had no touch capabilities.)  I keep the rear display hidden usually.  I don't need to find that a dial moves too easily, either.

The Nikon Df was made for people who care about such things, though I don't think it's for me.  I've had enough experience with heavy, slippery Nikon equipment from way back when.  The D800 (and the legendary, mythical D400) is better for me.

I've thought several times about gutting my Olympus E-1 and finding a way to put the Olympus E-5 or Panasonic GH3 equipment into it.  The E-5 innards might be a bit overwhelming for it, but the GH3's insides might just fit.  Matching the controls would be the problem, since I'm hardly a hardware engineer.  Of course, doing video on a 1.8 inch rear display might be a problem, though I rarely mess with video--so far.  However, getting photos in an intuitive environment would be wonderful again.

Mind, the Panasonic GH3 isn't a bad camera body.  It was my first encounter with an electronic viewfinder and it wasn't a very good encounter and they've re-worked the viewfinder for the GH4.  The problem is that it's not intuitive.  They seemed to look at the Olympus E-5, miniaturised various aspects of the design, gave it some Canon appeal, and moved a lot of control to the rear display.  Given what I've just written, you know that I don't have much love for the Olympus E-5 either.

The E-5 is a great tool.  You could use it to pound nails into the wall.  Like the E-1, it's possibly one of the strongest camera bodies from any dSLR maker.  It ignores intuitive design, unlike the E-1.  There is no mode dial, to provide space for a huge top display.  What it has over the E-1 is a higher resolution, better balance with larger lenses, and image stabilization but it never feels quite right in my hands.

So, I ask again, what camera engages you to go out to re-tell a story?

Update 2014.02.20: I was in a camera store yesterday talking to a salesperson I've met in the past.  I mentioned to him about the camera being an extension of the body and he just didn't get it.  I guess people growing up in a world where electronics were everyday devices has changed the thinking.  He suggested the Sony A7, but image quality alone isn't everything for me.  It has to be a good shooter and the A7 is an ergonomic disaster, as are most of Sony's serious camera bodies, unfortunately.  Apparently, the A7 is somewhat of a disaster to use, but is quite great at image quality.  Landscape photographers are more likely to take the time, as are rangefinder users, that Sony is giving them.

Update 2014.04.10: I'm not sure exactly why but the FujiFilm X-T1 has become a big hit for the company.  I think it's the overwhelming effect of all the dials.  Yes, the image quality is quite good, but I'm not sure that's the driving force, as it's much the same inside as the X-E2.  Is it a state of mind?  The camera body, like the Olympus E-M1 is just a bit small and uncomfortable for me, but with smaller lenses, it would be a great casual body with enough physical controls to delight the best perfectionist.

FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens, a reason to switch camps?

There are occasions where I need wide angle photography and given that I'm using Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds at the moment,  wide angle photography is limited to 14mm at the moment with native lenses.  Something more might be achieved with one of the wider-faster adapters, but it seems that it would be less of a compromise to just buy into a new system.

The widest native lenses are the Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 or the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 but I'm not sure if I want to dig deeper into micro Four-Thirds.  There are the Olympus 9-18mm lenses but I'm not really sure about the optics and f/4.0-5.6 tends to be darker quickly.  The Olympus 7-14mm is the only one that really fits, as I can use it on my Four-Thirds bodies as well as micro Four-Thirds bodies and it is weather-sealed, but then, maybe I don't really need such a feature.

This new FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens seems appealing, especially with the X-E2 (or X-T1) body.  (The X-Pro1 could use an update, don't you think?)

FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0

If the image quality is a match for the sensor, it should be a potent combination, more than a match for a dSLR using a same-sized sensor.  How big does a 135 format lens have to be to cover 15-36mm at a constant f/4.0?  Will a filter size of 67mm cover it?  It's not likely.

The FujiFilm lens has to be slightly larger than the Panasonic 7-14mm and it's definitely heavier at 410 grams over the 300 grams for the Panasonic lens.  I wanted to compare by filter size but the Panasonic lens, like the Olympus lens has a convex front element and therefore, doesn't allow filters.  The filter size of the 10-24mm lens is 72mm, which seems large for an f/4.0 lens, but it really is (ultra-)wide at 10mm.  The Olympus lens is substantially heavier at 780 grams but the image quality is what you'd expect for a premium, weather-sealed lens.  Strangely, the Olympus lens seems to have been removed from the company's web site.

Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0

Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0

The built-in lens hood is both brilliant and frustrating because the whole front of both lenses precludes the use of filters, and there is no rear drop-in slot.  Why Panasonic chose to duplicate the lens in such detail is beyond me, except that at 7mm, you need to take rather extreme measures to counteract distortion.  Unfortunately, they duplicated the lens without the weather-sealing.  The lack of weather-seals would also be a problem for me with the FujiFilm lens.  I might do better to buy a cheaper dSLR and wide angle lens for as little as I might use it.

FujiFilm, with their great sensor are breaking boundaries again.  I liked what they were doing when they were still doing dSLRs in Nikon bodies.  However, at those speeds, the dSLRs were better in the studio than out in the world where speed would be an issue.  They seem to be finding themselves right now, as Olympus and Panasonic did with their first few generations of mirror-less system cameras.  Once FujiFilm finds their way, I suspect that Samsung and Sony won't have a chance in the APS-C market.  If FujiFilm would put together a dSLR-shaped model, it would likely boost sales and cut into Panasonic's market, also, except for video.

In any case, the 10-24mm f/4.0 isn't due until March and I doubt we'll see any previews until just before it's ready, so it will be difficult to judge the image quality.  I'm looking forward to it.

Update 2014.01.06: FujiFilm's 56mm f/1.2 lens has been announced with a price of US$999.99 and that's also compelling, if the lens is great.  The company seems to be building a great reason to switch, and in a short time, is ahead of Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax in mirror-less offerings.

Update 2014.01.15: The company has brought out some new grips and DPReview has taken a look at them here.  They look a bit ridiculous, as they don't fit into the design smoothly, but I'm sure they do the job, as well as take a chunk from your wallet.

Update 2014.01.31 Happy Chinese (Lunar) New Year! I've been looking at the X-T1 and, while it's rather small, I think I could live with the X-T1 and three lenses, for quite a while:

18-135mm, 16-55mm f/2.8, and 50-140mm f/2.8

• XF 16-55mm f/2.8 OIS
• XF 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS
• XF 10-24mm f/4.0 OIS

(I couldn't care less about the 18-135mm in the photo.  It's over 4x zoom and that's more than I will use.  Why?  Image quality will suffer.)

Of course, these are rather expensive and in sports photography, the 50-140mm f/2.8 is the only one that will bring me money.  My serious question is: Will FujiFilm continue or will it be as it was with Olympus?  Olympus was brilliant in 2003 with the E-1 and the great lenses were coming quickly.  There was quite a following, and then, Nikon and Canon became good with digital photography and Olympus slowed.  Ten years later, I'm thinking about options, even though the equipment works quite well still.

I suppose I could eliminate the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens at first and continue to use my current equipment (especially the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8) for a normal view.  Still, I don't believe any of these lenses are available until later in the year, so it's not a real concern yet--just thinking.

Update 2014.02.12: I just saw something about Olympus producing a micro Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 lens, expected in 2015.  That has a lot of possibilities, and it's certainly a low light opportunist, compared to the current f/4.0 lenses, including the 10-24mm f/4.0 from FujiFilm.  If it will be priced at US$999.99 (the Four-Thirds f/4.0 lens is US$1799.99, a bargain of sorts), it will make me more indecisive about where I'm going.  Having a 135 format effective 14mm available at f/2.8 (over 15mm at f/4.0) says a lot about getting the shot, even in dim lighting.  We still have to take into account how well each sensor and processor handle the image quality at higher sensitivities.  Minimizing electronic and electrical noise from the image path is most important to ensure a clean image.  Obviously, the X-Trans II sensor has the edge, but Olympus has achieved quite a lot of success, despite the hurdles of the sensor size.  I wonder how different the image quality would be if the FujiFilm sensor had 24.x MP, so that the pixel density would be roughly equal.

Update 2014.03.03: I've really been thinking about the X-T1 body quite a bit, mainly because of the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8 weather-sealed lenses.  I held the X-T1 body and found it to be sturdy but a little small, similar to the Olympus E-M1.  Of course, the X-T1 has no need to mount huge lenses, as the E-M1 may, since there is no Four-Thirds equivalent, and the Pentax K-mount lenses for the Fujica AZ-1 from the late 1970s are likely in short supply, though there is no official adapter anyway.

The drawbacks of the X-T1 for someone like me, photographing sports, may be too much.  Since the initial announcements, Olympus and Panasonic have really given me too many solutions.  The GH4 has doubled the GH3's burst rate to 12 frames per second and 7.2 frames per second in tracking mode.  If a familiar, comfortable Panasonic body is much better, why not stick with it, especially when Olympus is bringing great lenses, even without image stabilization?

Update 2014.03.05: I was looking at this article about photos of the real FujiFilm weather-sealed lenses.  I could see that the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens seems to have a 77mm filter size and the 50-140mm f/2.8 seems to have a 67mm filter size.   I'm surprised that the 50-140mm isn't bigger round the barrel.  Both my 14-35mm f/2.0 and my 35-100mm f/2.0 have the 77mm filter size and, while they're heavy, they're manageable on a dSLR the size of the Nikon D7100, the E-5.  I wonder what sort of balance (or imbalance) will be there with these lenses and the X-T1 since it's more the size of the E-M1.  I found it a bit too small, similar to how I feel about the E-M1.

Update 2014.03.31: Reviews have been very positive for the 10-24mm lens.  I'm not surprised.  I still wish that it was weather-sealed, since you could be photographing a landscape and it might start to rain.  Use an umbrella?  What's that?  I've never, ever used an umbrella for photography, especially since I don't have three hands.

Will a Chinese company's smartphone be your next?

CNBC was mentioning the other day that they believe Chinese smartphone makers will start making inroads with markets outside China.  South America is supposedly a growing area of sales for them.

Xiaomi, ZTE, BLU, Oppo, Huawei, and others are out there, although I've only handled BLU and ZTE equipment so far.  Oppo is known for its higher end DVD and Blu-Ray players, along with some odd-named phones like Find.

A lot of these phones use MediaTek processors, which I've been lead to believe were so terrible that the phones were unusable, but that was not my experience. A BLU Studio phablet I used early in the year was good and much cheaper than the unlocked version of the Samsung phablet (bigger than a phone, smaller than a tablet) it was copying.

Having had experience with the LG Optimus One variant Optimus S, it's just a matter of finding the correct storage/RAM/processor combination.  I know that companies have to work from a cost standpoint, but how much does a bad report (or millions of them) cost?

As has been my experience, developing a product only using a checklist doesn't produce a product people really want to use.  You have to make it work smoothly, and assure that the rough edges aren't there, or at least, they don't annoy.  Right now, I'm still annoyed by both iOS and Android.  I'd like to see Firefox OS but being in its infancy, I know that I couldn't be happy, unless I lowered my expectations of what a phone should be.  Phones based on Firefox OS are being sold in countries that are especially price conscious.

Of course, if you're in a price sensitive area, a checklist may be all that's necessary.  Having the luxury of luxury may not be possible, nor would be taking the time to sort the phone's software properly.  I have my doubts about whether Apple or Google properly test their software, so maybe, it doesn't matter how much the operating system is worth if no one cares to do the job correctly.

Along with BLU products, I've handled a couple ZTE products and use one of them for two weeks.  They were sufficient and just as capable as similar devices, but with a lower quality build, unlike BLU products.

At this moment, the only Chinese brand I've seen on the market, Haier, has been selling refrigerators, although they make a variety of products.

I know that other products are coming.  I doubt I'll be on the leading edge for them.  I eat Korean food, but I've barely warmed to Korean electronics.  I'm trusting of food from Taiwan and Hong Kong, but not Mainland China.  Of course, a lot of products I have were likely made in Mainland China, under the supervision of a company elsewhere in the world.  I have no doubt that, like the Japanese factories of the 1950s, that China's current labor force will become better.

It took quite a while for Japanese products to be great, and similarly as long for South Korea's products.  It will be a while for China's products, even though they're making products every day for people all over the world.  Twenty or thirty years into the future, we'll likely see plenty of Chinese names in regular use outside of China.

Update 2014.01.29: According to the numbers this week, Xiaomi has been doing a number on Samsung in China.  Samsung is probably feeling a lot of pressure in the midrange, especially since that's where this Chinese makers' phones reside and where Apple's iPhone 5c is placed, since it's finally on the world's largest carrier, which happens to be in China.

Chinese companies are still trying to market their phones in the U.S.A. but the government is skeptical about their governmental ties and isn't likely to approve any of them for purchase, and they clearly don't want the networking equipment installed anywhere.  Of course, who would spy on the American people besides the NSA?  :-D  The Chinese government seems skeptical of using Cisco products in China, conversely.

Microsoft is advertising for Google, by accident: Chromebooks

I was watching a Microsoft advertisement a bit ago, belittling Google Chromebooks for not having Windows or Microsoft Office.  I think it was a huge mistake.

Why would it be a mistake since Microsoft makes their money from Windows and Office?  The general public didn't know anything about Chromebooks previously.

If Google has bought TV advertising time, I haven't seen any results of it.  So, here we are with ridiculous advertising berating Chromebooks (You're not going to get to Hollywood with that!) simply because they don't have Microsoft products on them.

It might start people thinking.  (I know it's a long shot but it could happen.)  I tried to give away a computer with Ubuntu on it.  The person I was asking said that people "needed" Windows.  When I asked further, they didn't play games.  I'm just not sure what's so necessary about Windows, if you're doing e-mail, writing a document of some sort, or browsing the web.  A five year old machine running a Linux-based distribution should be able to do that just fine--without Windows.

Microsoft has been diminished in so many ways.  While Windows 7 signalled an upswing in software quality, finally, they haven't had much success since then.  Windows 8.1 should be the operating system all current Windows users (with capable machines) should be using, but I don't see that happening so quickly.  Their tablets' prices had to be cut drastically, and the company initiated some acerbic advertising against Apple to help them.  It's not necessarily witless but I can't see that it's helping.  Having Nokia in their pocket has stemmed their losses in Windows Phone operating system, as Samsung and HTC recoil.

If schools would accept Linux-based operating systems, instead of Windows, Microsoft might lose its grip forever.  Competition is always a good thing, though Monopoly should only be a game.  Now that Microsoft has informed us about Google Chromebooks, they might have people asking "Why, Windows?"

Sales to Stores

Apparently, quite a few Chromebooks are making their ways into stores, even if they aren't making it into people's hands.   When I saw the article on MacRumors, i had to take a look at the comments because the fanatics can often be so ridiculous, and so they were: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1689854

One person actually made sense about recommending a computer for the person who mostly does web browsing and e-mail.  It is difficult to recommend a US$1000 computer for that when a US$300 Chromebook will work nearly as well for those things, and you don't have to worry about Windows malware, either.  Is the US$999 MacBook Air a well-designed computer, similarly priced to computers based on Intel's Ultrabook classification?  Absolutely.  It even has a slight graphics hardware boost over them.  Could a high school or university student simply wanting to do work do well with a Chromebook?  Absolutely.

Update 2014.02.07: I saw another Microsoft advertisement targeting Chromebooks, though they didn't show one this time, which is smarter for them.  They discussed how you couldn't load MS Office.  Seriously, though, that's a plus to me.  By now, we should have intermediate (non-proprietary) file formats that don't require Microsoft at all.   There was an Open Document Format, as I recall, but can it be forced to be the standard output, so that it can used in schools and offices without having to jump through hoops?

A lot of the reason people are using Microsoft products in schools is because Microsoft gave the schools so many free licenses to "freeze out" any other software supplier.  It's a good deal, but isn't it underhanded, and shouldn't it be against the law?  If it's a gift, should there be strings attached?

Fixing the 2013 iPad mini price problem

Those who have read about my reaction to the higher than expected price for the 2013 iPad mini, or those who have talked to me about it, may be able to sense how ridiculous I felt for waiting for the updated tablet as I saw the announcement.  While the display density increased greatly and the performance is much, much, much better, the display quality is lacking, and the price is rather high when you consider the size and the display quality.

As an alternative, I thought about waiting for a refurbished unit or buying a refurbished iPad Air or 4th generation full sized iPad.

Last week, I looked a bit and thought about every opportunity to make the wrong decision.  This week, I went out to take a look at several tablets, including the following:

• Amazon Fire HDX
• Barnes & Noble Nook HD+
• EVGA Tegra Note 7
• 2013 Google Nexus 7
• Lenovo IdeaTab/IdeaPad
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 7

First, Windows RT was low on my list.  I have a good feeling about Android and iOS.  There may come a day when I warm to Windows RT but that was not today.  Being comfortable is a great thing, and knowing that Google and Apple are willing to update their products within a certain range of time gives me a good feeling.  I'm still uncomfortable with all of the WP7 phones that were pushed to extinction by Microsoft.

Second, the display had to be better than average.  You can have a high density display that looks terrible, just ask 2013 iPad mini (Retina) owners.  That display covers only something like 66% of the sRGB gamut, which is quite low, especially when the cost of the whole product jumped US$70.  I need to be able to read Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and legal-ese--that fine print you can't normally see clearly.  Western languages are fairly easy to read on most displays.  We used to use a 7x9 print matrix to printer western characters in the 1980s.  If not for Japanese and Chinese, we may never have pushed past that "spray painting" type of printing.

Amazon has done a great job with their tablets in order to sell media.  Each tablet is a winner.  I'm even thrilled with their execution of the walled garden to take care of the customer experience.  I could live with it, much the way I live with Apple's way.  No fuss, no muss.

Barnes & Noble is leaving the hardware business.  They have exceptional prices on their equipment.  Their largest tablet was US$179, which had an 8 inch display.  However, while I was listening to the Barnes & Noble people having trouble with the tablet they were using to show someone, I was concerned that there were issues other than the speed of the internet connection.  1 + 1 = 2, does it not?  Being twice as nervous is not good.

EVGA Tegra Note 7 looks like a good tablet at a good price.  However, I can't get the notion out of my head that an nVidia Tegra processor is going to be a problem again, as it was with the 2012 Google Nexus 7.

Once bitten, twice shy?  Given that I had two of the 2012 Google Nexus 7 models, and wasn't happy with either, I had cause to be concerned.  However, a lot of the same concerns were boldly announced in reviews for the 2012 model and were not to be found in the 2013 models.  I tried the 2013 model at a couple of stores and found it to be strong and quick with a better than average display.  The number one item to Google's favor was that they would provide system updates faithfully where the others might not, especially for the bargain tablets.

Speaking of bargain tablets, I saw a couple of Lenovo IdeaTab (Android, right?) tablets at discount at Best Buy.  One was US$119, like one of those cheapo tablets that never gets an update and you wonder where the company went with your money three months later.  Lenovo does a great job with premium products, but I rarely hear great things about their bargains.

Samsung, oh, Samsung, how you make me wish you'd stayed just a component supplier.  You provided everyone with great components and let them do the user experience work and it was a great combination.  Then, you decided that you could make more money by competing with them, and you developed the whole product, except that you always shortchange on the development.  You leave bugs in the software, and the user experience is less than ideal.  Your checklist formula is great for you but it's not great for the consumer.

After all that, I ended up with a 16 GB 2013 Google Nexus 7 at a US$30 discount.  I bought a US$20 travel case and the US$30 protection plan that was reduced in price because of the discount on the tablet.  It still came to quite a bit but the difference between everything I bought and the price of an Apple iPad mini was still over US$125.

I hope my experience is good.  Android 4.3 is on the device (and supposedly 4.4 is getting to everyone slowly).  It's been doing a lot of updates, as you could expect from a new product.  It's still amazing to me how many things are not really good on a tablet.  It's been 3 years since my Android-based phone and Android 2.2, so what's the problem?  Why are they having to code individual fixes for several devices instead of providing one application for tablets and another for phones?  Google has recently implemented "Designed for phones" to let tablet owners know that an application won't utilize the extra space so well.  Wasn't it CEO Eric Schmidt who said that they didn't need separate layouts for tablets and phones?

I look forward to finding what works well.  As I use a certain filling station chain for diesel fuel, I've accumulated quite a few points and used 10,000 of those points to buy a US$10 Google Play gift card.  It's not a lot but it should get me started without emptying my wallet of real money.

I wonder how many others are thinking similarly.  Apple have opened a huge hole between them and the less expensive competition.  Will people buy the iPad mini?  Undoubtedly, there will be many buying it.  The iOS ecosystem is wonderful.  The Android ecosystem is coming along, but I'm still seeing far too many copyright violations where people use well-known characters in copies of their games.  However, they are fewer than in 2011.  If Google can abstract the hardware well enough that a developer can develop for two layouts, instead of focusing on hundreds of individual devices, the software problem will vanish.  Since Ubuntu and Firefox are new names to mobile devices, it gives Google incentive to fix their problems NOW.  Oh well, my tablet is working well, so far.  Hopefully, it stays that way.

I hope Apple is as happy with my solution as I am.

Update 2015.04.08: There are rumors about the iPad mini 4.  Nothing has really been said about the processor, and that is what has to be the best to generate real excitement and sales.

Now, the tablet market is fairly stagnant.  My 2013 Google Nexus 7 tablet hasn't been replaced by Google yet.  It could probably use a stronger processor, but I suspect that they're trying to make up for losses they took on the front end that made it such a great bargain.  Apple seems to be making their money all along.

I really believe that for a tablet to be portable, it needs to be 7-8 inches diagonally across the display.  I've seen plenty of people trying to take photos of video with ~10 inch tablets and it's just silly, especially when you consider the cameras are not very good.

nVidia Shield is the only really new tablet but it's rather special purpose.  Samsung continues to update their tablets and generate new model names and numbers, but is anyone buying them or do they only get them for free, as part of a data plan?

Who will buy the Samsung Galaxy NX camera?

I've read recently that the Galaxy NX camera is available in the U.S.A. for about US$1600.

Make no mistake, I'm not a fan of Samsung products.  I think the company leaves a lot to be desired in the operation of their products.  It's as though they have a checklist of features and as soon as they add a feature, working correctly or not, they check that line as completed.

They've become better since Google takes care of the backend of a lot of their products.  Without Android, they'd be as craptacular as they were the last time I owned one of their products.  They had indicated a desire to do things on their own with Bada but that failed, although it's probably being fed some money to keep the project alive.  From my viewpoint, they're just trying to keep the overall business in line with Sony and Panasonic and of course, to crush LG at home.

I've seen in the past that a few people went with their re-branding of Pentax dSLRs to make their own GX line.  They did okay because Pentax gave them some base code and the hardware.  There wasn't much to go wrong with doing some tweaks.  When I would say something about the GX line, someone would raucously defend their purchase, as if it was a life-or-death situation.  I've recently seen the same thing with their NX line.

NX--like Sony's NEX--they couldn't even come up with a series name on their own it seems.  However, they went on their own because Pentax wasn't going to mirror-less system cameras yet.  They filled out their mighty checklist and added features one-by-one until they had the perfect specification for a camera.  It's not that unusual in the electronics industry, and even related more specifically to computers and tablets, it's not unusual.  Sony obviously works from a checklist.

Samsung has created NX-series cameras in several generations, but they don't have much in the way of sales compared to Olympus, Panasonic, or Sony.  I'm guessing that the majority of their buyers have Samsung phones, tablets, and phablets like the Galaxy Note series.

That makes the Galaxy NX camera all the more appealing to that group.  They can use the connectivity in the camera to avoid depleting the battery life on their phones, tablets, and phablets.

However, is US$1600 too dear for the ability to take a photo and massage it using some Android-based app and upload it using another app?  Is it so convenient that the extra cost doesn't matter?  I've recently seen the NX300 for US$700-$800, which seems consistent with other brands with more lenses and accessories.  It's odd to think that Sony's NEX line has more support, given that they have churned out body after body but still have few lenses.  The only mirror-less system camera with fewer lenses is the Canon EOS-M with two lenses.

The only thing that would make this situation more strange would be for LG to make an alliance with a camera maker and start producing an Android-based camera of its own.

Choosing a phone by repair cost

The first day of July this year, I can get a new phone at discount.  I may not jump on that opportunity right away.  I have an iPhone 4S and Applecare + doesn't expire until the 24 months are up, which should be finished around October.

In the last few months, I've been associated with a computer and phone repair shop.  I help them with some odd iPhone/iPod touch and Mac problems.

The phone technician is impressive.  Apple will sometime say that an iPad or iPhone can't be repaired but he repairs them.  I believe what they really mean is that it's not worth their time.  What I've read is that they replace the product right away and then send it to a designated repair facility.  Often, those repairs end up with the product being returned in worse shape than the shape in which it was received.  This also applies to Apple computer repair.

I was having a problem with the backlight of a late 2004 Apple PowerBook.  I discussed the problem with the owner of the shop, who does the computer repair.  We agreed that it was the backlight.  When I checked it 2008, an Apple retailer gave me a guesstimate of US$400, because they would replace the whole rear panel, as Apple does, which includes the backlight.

The owner of this local shop quoted me a price of something like US$90 for labour + US$20 for the part, and he would order an extra part or two, just to have it.  Being that it was late 2012, Apple didn't even have parts available, so getting the whole panel would have required a deal on eBay for a used part, even a whole computer.  I believe that soldering the new backlight in place took minimal time.  It was the disassembly and re-assembly that took the most time.

So it is with phones.  They have a large display, one or more slabs of batteries, and a tiny circuit board.  Often, they're held together with a lot of glue, which makes disassembly almost impossible.  Certain generations of the iPod touch are a pain and the Samsung Galaxy S III is nearly impossible.  (This just in--the Galaxy S 4 is apparently just the opposite.)  If you damage the display on the Samsung GS3, and you don't have at least US$300 for the display, you're in trouble.  Replacing the display could be a mess because of all the glue and the tight fit.

On the other hand, I see iPhone 4, 4S and 5 repaired regularly although the iPhone 5 isn't nearly as fragile.  It's fairly simple to take those three phones apart, as long as you remember where you put the extra pieces.  One of the biggest problems they see is that someone decided to help their friend avoid a major repair cost and forget to finish the job, which in turn, costs more time and energy--and diagnostic and repair costs.

I'm fairly shocked that Apple made it easy to service the phones.  I needed to replace the battery in my 4th generation iPod (the original white model with the monochrome display) and I couldn't open it.  That's rather different with the 4200rpm hard drive, but the case was not meant to be opened by just anyone.  I've been replacing computer parts since the time of the original IBM PC in 1981, so I have a clue, but I don't mess with miniature parts.

This brings me back to the thought of a new phone.  These high resolution and large displays cost a lot of money to replace.  I was considering the LG Optimus G with the 1280x800 (or is it 1280x768?) display.  Now, they've announced the Optimus G Pro with the 1920x1080 display that's even larger.  Even if the phone is US$299 with a contract, the display replacement might be US$400 or more.  Obviously, if you're paying US$10 per month insurance, it's not a bad thing at all.  I suspect Asurion will charge more than US$10 per month for such a phone.  It's good to know that Apple only charge US$99 for two years.  My buddy replaced the display on an Optimus G a few days ago, and he said that there was so much adhesive that it took a lot of time to remove the shards of glass before he could install anything.

I think I'll hold onto my phone another year and see what happens.  After all, I know someone who can repair it quickly.

Google Nexus 7...in my house [and gone, twice]

A few things changed and I drove to Sam's Club and picked up a Google Nexus 7 tablet.  Unfortunately, they didn't have a case or sleeve for them, but they're still relatively new and they also didn't have cases or sleeves for the Samsung Galaxy tablets.


I sat down with a slice of pizza, a drink, and proceeded to start the tablet.  It was easy to set up, and I was in business quickly.  It remembered part of what was me, from the Android-based phone, but because they don't store apps information for deleted but still wanted apps, it couldn't tell me which apps to download or otherwise, help me decide.  (Surprise! They saved my history in the web/desktop version of Google Play and I was able to initiate downloads to the Nexus 7 from there! Well done!)

I went over to Target, thinking that they try to cover all bases (what an idiom!) but they had nothing relevant, either.

The tablet was charging on the way home.  My microUSB-based charger from my Android-based phone (and the previous phone) worked just fine, although it heated up more than usual.  I noticed that the battery has a similar mAh rating as the battery in my MacBook.  That's a lot for such a small device.

After I arrived home, I started downloading some apps, including Galaxy on Fire 2 THD (Total Harmonic Distortion came to mind immediately), which is apparently the nVidia Tegra version.  It must be just me, but it seems strange that you download a tiny (4 MB?) app, and after you start it, it wants to download another 507 MB, I believe.  This was priced as "Free" in the Google Play store but once you get to a certain point in the story, they want payment.

I thought back for a minute to the point where I added my card to Google Checkout about the time I got the Android-based phone.  A week or so later, I received charges on my Visa Check Card, directly affecting my checking account.  I really didn't want to repeat that with Google Wallet or whatever mechanism they're now using.  I'm not sure whether it's safe or not.  I'll likely succumb to the demand, but I won't be comfortable for a while.

The tablet performs admirably and the display is wonderful.  Japanese and Chinese are clearly rendered, which is generally difficult.  The Tegra 3 4+1 core CPU seems to keep things flowing smoothly and I'm sure that Jelly Bean (4.1.2) adds to the favourable experience.  However, I find that Android still seems put together by a committee.  It looks as though they've massaged it here and there and refined it otherwise, but it still seems such a beta test release of software.

Apps work smoothly and are launched quickly, which is a huge difference from my previous Android experience.  As I've thought in the past, version 4 is a good starting point for Android--what should have been the 1.0 release.  Where is the !@#$ screenshot combination?  I use the Power button and the Home button on iOS and I have a screenshot, but nothing on Android but getting a separate app.  Another thing that's bugging me: if they want to get rid of the menu button, why is the menu button still used so frequently, though it's just hidden to the side?

I'm sure it will be interesting in the future, but it's still going to take time to learn to work it correctly and well.  Google and ASUS, you did a good job.

Update: Wouldn't you know it, there are rumors that Google and ASUS will release a 32 GB model for a similar price in the next few days.  That kind of thing has happened more than once.  When I bought a Nintendo Wii, for instance, it was reduced in price 8 days from then.  I returned the Nexus 7 to Sam's Club and the associate asked me if there was something wrong with all of them because they were getting a lot of returns.  I doubt it would be because of the price/new configurations since they have a time window for returns.  They have great hardware but they're just not great with Jelly Bean (Android 4.1.x) so far.  Let's see what happens on the 29th.

Update 2: I returned the 16 GB version, with much trouble, to Sam's Club and they had it a few days later (around the 29th) for $199.99. I later bought the 32 GB version at Staples with their accidental protection plan.  Given that cases are almost non-existent at the moment, anything could happen.  Staples had both the 16 GB and 32 GB versions at $249.99, and the protection plan was not yet priced, so it had a placeholder of $9999.99, a bit much.  The second tablet is a bit creaky, as if it was put together more hastily than the previous tablet I had.  Still, it seems to fit my hand better than the new iPad mini.  I'm sure the iPad mini is a better experience overall, but I'm not expecting revelations with any tablet.  For most of what I'm expecting, the Nexus 7 tablet fits me.

The sad thing is that I returned the second tablet.  It thought I was in Cisco, Texas for some reason, several hundred miles from my actual location.  There were other minor issues with it, but it never worked all that well.  For what it's worth, I still believe it showed a lot of promise and I still have $9.99 in it for a game that was tied to the nVidia Tegra architecture, but oh well.

All of the mirror-less entries have arrived for now

Now that Canon has introduced their mirror-less camera system, we have entries from each major brand:

Canon are the newest with their EOS-M.

Pentax have their K-01 and Q-system bodies; one huge, one tiny.

Nikon have a small format with the distinction of phase detection auto focus.

Samsung have had multiple models but not much success.

Sony have had multiple models and some success but lack good lenses, or many lenses of any quality.

Panasonic and Olympus originated the idea and have a diverse selection with some excellent fixed focal length lenses, but they're struggling with size and weight to bring excellent zoom lenses to the market.

Comparing them casually

To me, Canon's entry is only adequate.  They're coming to market with a mediocre set of specifications and features.  The image quality is quite nice, but they waited so long that you're paying a premium price for performance that's already been done.

Pentax have the most bizarre ideas for mirror-less cameras.  The K-01 is about the same size as their dSLRs and mounts the same lenses, but it also has all the disadvantages of mirror-less cameras with slow operation, and of course, the most unusual designer design.  The Q-system isn't really winning any friends.  It's small but it's not cute.  They could have designed it to match the old Auto 110 SLR (they had a point-and-shoot like that) and it would give people a fond memory on which to purchase the system.  Instead, they gave it a blocky design that looks uncomfortable to hold and use.  Supposedly, it doesn't work all that well, either.

Nikon have done well in selling their 1-system.  I suspect it's mostly their dSLR customers buying into the system but it's small and pocketable and cute.  They're on their second generation, and it's not as bad as it might seem from the specification.

What happened with Samsung?  They couldn't get along with Pentax?  They had worked together as Samsung got into the dSLR field but they just couldn't find common ground?  It seems as though they copied Sony style and specifications (and name, NX vs. NEX?), but came up with something almost no one really wanted.  I've been told that their dSLRs were better than the Pentax branded dSLRs from which they were originated, so why couldn't they work with Pentax so both companies would avoid embarrassment?

Sony keeps coming up with clever bodies to match their electronics focus.  Unfortunately, they made most of the bodies so compact that you need proprietary accessories.  Besides that, the lenses required by the image circle or the APS-C sized sensor have to be rather big and appear huge on the smallest bodies.  Image quality is generally good, but the compromises are high for what they're asking of the user, especially since they have few good lenses and no spectacular lenses.

I'm more inclined to believe in Panasonic and Olympus since I'm a Four-Thirds user, having two high end Olympus dSLR bodies.  They have a number of fixed focal length (prime) lenses that are quite great.  I keep reading that they're even better than those on 135 format camera bodies.  It wouldn't surprise me since Olympus has a history of great lenses.  The zoom lenses are the problem.  Both companies have chosen small and light over excellent image quality.  Panasonic often corrects lens problems in the camera's firmware and Olympus has begun to do this also.  This still doesn't excuse poor designs but for hobbyists, does it matter?  I see a lot who want a US$5000 lens for US$100 but I suppose that's always the case.  What's sadly humorous is that I cannot nitpick the others like this--they don't have the products to nitpick.  The micro Four-Thirds image quality has improved so much that many reviews of the Olympus E-M5 suggest that you need to move to 135 format (full frame, as they mistakenly call it) to see an appreciable difference.

In 10 years, will there even be a dSLR market?

Samsung lost to Apple in various ways but...

I don't agree with lawsuits, in general.  I think there are better ways to resolve situations, unless the two sides just can't meet in the middle.  What's happened here should have been clear: Samsung copied Apple user interface elements and animation to replicate Apple's device experience.

Does it matter?  I'm just not certain.  I think it's annoying that they would copy.  My Samsung SPH-A900/Blade was a copy of a Motorola RAZR, and the name was obviously a rip-off.  If Motorola had patented the design, would they have been in court to stop Samsung?  Probably.

In fact, HandSpring/Palm, Nokia, and Motorola all had designs and design elements lifted by Samsung and added to Samsung's devices.  For that alone, Samsung should be sitting alone in the corner thinking about what they had done, just as school children who copy are set aside.

This is where I differ from the jury.  I don't see $1.05 billion in damages.  They should each pay their court-related costs and shut up.

As much as I don't like Samsung and I like Apple equipment (but not their legal department), both companies act like spoiled children and should be punished accordingly.  We need a global government to address these situations.

Samsung, the copier

Years ago, I bought a Samsung phone, the SPH-A900 otherwise known as Blade.  That name may make you think that it had something to do with the Motorola RAZR.  It was in many aspects, a copy.

The phone was rather broken, software-wise.  It didn't work well as a phone, but became my first 3G data modem, where the power-hungry display didn't kill the extended life battery I bought at extra cost.  Where I couldn't get 3 hours in typical phone/internet use, I would get around 6 hours of modem use.

I'd always hoped that Samsung would come to their senses and provide good software updates, but what they provided made the phone worse and the people at the Sprint store, weren't able to take the phone back to an earlier level of firmware, though they charged me for it.

At that time, multiple people I knew were angry about their !@#$ Samsung phones, each one a bit more vehement, it seemed.

I'd see the phones at the store, wondering why they looked like other phones in the store made by other companies.  If Samsung was a big player, why did they copy?

I thought back to Mazda's 1974 RX-3, which looked like AMC's Hornet hatchback or the 1975 Toyota Corolla SR 5 hatchback that looked like a 1970 Ford Mustang.  Pontiac made a habit of driving excitement by copying BMW.

I look at Apple's Macintosh and Digital Research's GEM from the mid-1980s.  They both used elements that had been presented in the Xerox Alto machine.  Of course, Apple hired Bill Atkinson and Susan Kare to do some of this work.  Many people from Xerox' Palo Alto Research Center went elsewhere to market their ideas when Xerox would not.

In art, taking inspiration from the greats is a given.  You learn from those who did something wonderful, and you create something of your own that is also quite wonderful, hopefully.  If you copy it, they call you a forger.

I'm unclear as to how Samsung has copied HandSpring/Palm, Nokia, and Motorola designs and no one noticed all this time.  Had those four companies filed design patents, would Samsung be in the business now?

I'm not saying that you should patent a rectangle, a simple button, or other unremarkable details; however, there is a point where the imitation is no longer flattering.

What saved HandSpring/Palm, Nokia, and Motorola in the old days was the Samsung was so terribly bad at software.  They couldn't care less about the software because they would have new phones to sell in the next 6 months.  Now that Android is their main base software, they care even less, but Google help a lot to keep customers able to use their phones.

It was sadly amusing this week when Susan Kare admitted to the court that she had inadvertently picked up a Samsung product, thinking that it was an iPhone.  The Samsung attorneys wanted her to describe in detail the differences, but the point was made.  Most people would never notice the differences.

I look at what HTC, LG, Nokia, Motorola and others are doing and their designs are unique.  Why can't Samsung do their own designs?  Mind you, I don't agree with Apple filing lawsuits but Samsung should do their own work, not copy others.

Schneider-Kreuznach and micro Four-Thirds

Supposedly, an announcement is coming in the next week from Schneider-Kreuznach about lenses they're making available for the micro Four-Thirds format.

I have a few questions about this like:

Will these be electronically compatible, fully usable with auto exposure and auto focus?
What happens to Samsung's NX-system, if Schneider-Kreuznach adds to micro Four-Thirds?

When Panasonic added a low end (micro Four-Thirds) professional video camera, which is high above the micro Four-Thirds still camera bodies, to their line, it set a new tone for the format.  Suddenly, a number of cine lenses became available, even to those using the DMC-GH1 and DMC-GH2 bodies for video recording.

Now, the sense of putting a US$3000 lens on a US$800 body may not seem reasonable but given what you can do with a properly-hacked GH2, it's not completely insane.  It's also not completely different than taking a US$3000 body and adding an US$8000 lens and professionals do that all the time, don't they?

I still don't see me getting into the video business, though trying video may give me a better, more flexible perspective on still images.  I've barely experimented with the Live View functionality, even though I can see limited use for it for photographing animals or shooting over a crowd.  (Should you be hovering a heavy dSLR and heavy lens over someone's head, trying to get a shot into the crowd?  Justin Bieber might hit you, if he doesn't like it.)

In any case, Schneider-Kreuznach could really change the balance of things if they offer lenses that are fully compatible with micro Four-Thirds, so that they work with auto focus and auto exposure.  Their lenses have been Samsung's only hope to get more serious users buying their NX-system.  If they lose that exclusivity, it would doom the mostly-sinking ship, and provide micro Four-Thirds a new boost against Sony's NEX-system, if Sony's format isn't included in their plans or the announcement.

They made their announcement and I wrote about it in this post.

!@#$ Patents and Copying

How many times are consumers hurt by copying?

There was an episode of All in the Family where Archie Bunker was gloating about his new watch.  He was going on and on about this Omega brand watch he bought for almost nothing.  Then, it's revealed "Oh, no, that's not an Omega.  It's an Onega."

Are consumers always fooled so easily?

A co-worker more than 10 years ago was shocked to learn that her new Lexus E300 was a Toyota Windom.  "Toyota?"  As though the Lexus dealer randomly appeared by the Toyota dealership out of convenience and nothing else.  Then again, people were shocked that the Cadillac Seville started as a Chevrolet Nova.  Would those driving an Escalade be driving the Chevrolet version?

I was reading that the HTC One series phones due to be sold this week are held up in U.S. customs, due to the patent issues between HTC and Apple.  While I understands Apple's frustration, the consumer is losing some great phones, especially those who have pre-paid for those phones.  HTC really haven't done anything to Apple but because they were the vanguard of Android, starting with the T-Mobile G1, they were selected, which is a horrible strategy.  They have made some admirable designs without copying Apple.

The patent war between Samsung and Apple is more realistic.  Samsung copies practically everything Apple have done in the mobile space.  Supposedly, they're planning queues/lines to make it appear their phones are more lust-worthy than they might be otherwise.  However, they made advertising about such lines, and made fun of people standing in line for products.  It looks as though Samsung is Samsung-ing itself.

I read elsewhere that the company is all but stopping production of their point-and-shoot cameras, in order to boost production of their mirror-less system cameras.  I doubt that the few thousand who buy the mirror-less models are going to suddenly want new versions, or that throwing more money at them will make them popular.

Their struggle to overtake Sony may be working but it's going to take a long time.  It's more likely that Panasonic will be there first.  It's amazing to me that Panasonic have gone from household items like rice cookers to high end televisions, phones, and computers in the last 30+ years, and that Sony have diminished.

One last thing about patents and copying: why is it that IBM's laptop computer line never had to look like anyone else's (save my sad L40SX), and they've been such a hit, even now that they're coming from Lenovo?  When most of the Ultrabooks look a lot like Apple's MacBook Air, Lenovo's products don't.  They're stylish in an industrial way and get respect from just about anyone.

Update: In the U.K., a judge has decided that Samsung didn't copy iPad to create their own tablet and has ordered Apple to tell everyone this.  When I was in primary school (as it feels this punishment resembles), the copier was punished, not the person being copied.

If I look at practically every mobile device that Samsung has done in the last 2 years, they look remarkably like Apple devices, so much that I noticed one and wondered what Apple had done to their hardware.  Add to this the rather obvious software tweaks to Android to make it look more like iOS, I can't imagine what the judge is thinking.  The only reasonable explanation I can find is that he was annoyed and decided to fix it since they were acting like school children.

Besides, if Nokia and HTC and Motorola can design devices that don't look much like Apple's, why can't Samsung?

Update 2014.01.10: Apple and Samsung have agreed to another round of arbitration, in order to agree on something, anything.  I don't really understand why the FRAND patents weren't settled already since every other FRAND patent gets very little, unlike what Samsung wants.