Developers who pre-ordered Google’s Project Glass glasses for $1,500 won’t be receiving them until early 2013, but a number of lucky journalists were recently given the opportunity to take the camera-equipped, augmented reality eye-piece for a test drive. The New York Times’ gadget kingmaker David Pogue writes that the device has the potential to be one of the rare devices that introduces a whole new gadget category to the world,
[...] a few things are clear. The speed and power, the tiny size and weight, the clarity and effectiveness of the audio and video, are beyond anything I could have imagined. The company is expending a lot of effort on design — hardware and software — which is absolutely the right approach for something as personal as a wearable gadget
[...] it’s much too soon to predict Google Glass’s success or failure. But it’s easy to see that it has potential no other machine has ever had before — and that Google is shepherding its development in exactly the right way.
Remember the mysterious camera NYTimes columnist David Pogue was gushing over earlier this month? Turns out it’s the Sony RX100. In his review of the camera published yesterday, Pogue calls it “best pocket camera ever made” and writes,
It will be sold out everywhere. I’ll skip to the punch line: No photos this good have ever come from a camera this small.
[...] the RX100 has single-handedly smashed the rule that said, “You need a big camera for pro-quality photos.”
And if you care at all about your photography, you’ll thank Sony for giving the camera industry a good hard shove into the future.
Tiny Camera to Rival the Pros [New York Times]
New York Times gadget columnist David Pogue knows something we don’t. In this year’s list of personal electronic recommendations, he has some glowing words for a soon-to-be-announced digital camera:
I bought the amazing Canon S100, a tiny pocket camera with the biggest sensor on the market. I wrote about my reasons here. But in two weeks, I’ll be switching my allegiance. You cannot believe what’s about to come down the photographic pike. Trust me: If you’re in the market for a small camera with astonishing photographic results, hold off for a few weeks.
Could he be talking about the Canon mirrorless camera that will reportedly be announced later this month?
What Pogue Actually Bought [NYT]
Image credit: David Pogue by eschipul
A camera’s sensor size is a very good predictor of how good its image quality is, but understanding and comparing the sensors sizes isn’t very easy. While televisions and computer monitors are usually measured by diagonal length, sensors sizes are listed with its two dimensions in millimeters. Back in 2008, David Pogue of the New York Times wrote an article about this issue, calling for someone to develop an online tool for converting confusing sensor measurements into the diagonal length of the sensor in inches. Within three hours two new websites were born: Sensor-Size and Sensor Size Calculator.
Sensor-Size | Sensor Size Calculator (via Lifehacker)
If you’ve been out of the loop when it comes to emergence of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC, AKA EVIL), David Pogue over at the New York Times has an interesting article introducing them:
That’s why, for years, there were two kinds of cameras: pocket models, with tiny sensors that produce blurry or grainy photos in low light and S.L.R. cameras, those big-sensor, big-body, heavy black beasts used by professionals.
In the last couple of years, though, things have changed. There’s a new class of camera whose size (both body and sensor) falls in between those two time-honored extremes. They represent a rethinking of every single design element, a jettisoning of every nonessential component, in pursuit of a tiny, big-sensor camera. Because that, after all, is what the world really wants.
Do you think these cameras are “what the world really wants”?
The Holy Grail: Small Cameras, Big Sensors [NYTimes]
Image credit: Sony NEX-5 w/ Minolta 55mm f/1.7 by pabuk
Here’s an interesting snippet from an article published today by David Pogue of the New York Times that describes a trick one photographer uses to overcome the megapixel myth:
A few years back, one of his clients, a stock-photo company, rejected his submissions because they didn’t meet the company’s minimum-resolution requirements. All photos had to be, for example, 10 megapixels or higher.
Tom knew that his five-megapixel photos (or whatever they were) would print perfectly well; he knew that the megapixel myth was at play. But he couldn’t convince the stock agency that its megapixel requirement was based on mythology.
So he took a photo file from a buddy who owned a fancy high-end Canon SLR, pasted in his low-res photo, and dragged it out bigger, so that it filled the full area of the higher-resolution photo. (Why did he start with his buddy’s file? So that the metadata—the invisible information about the photographic settings embedded in every digital photo—would indicate to the stock agency that the picture was taken with that high-end camera.)
Not only was the stock agency fooled, but to this day, many of its customers have used Tom’s phony high-megapixel photos in professional publications. They’ve all been delighted by the quality.
It would be interesting to find out how widespread this kind of fakery is in the photo industry.
Image credit: exif data by jbylund