On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:11:38 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 15:49:27 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 13:45:56 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 5:06:24 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 8 June 2017 23:15:23 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 02:14:19 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 8 June 2017 00:02:39 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 17:35:03 +0200, android wrote:

In article , PAS wrote:

On 6/6/2017 1:03 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Many photos are blown out and it's nowhere near to compete with a full
format
sensor when it comes to dynamic range or ISO
No surprise there. Get a better phone next time you're to renew your
contract:

No, nothing wrong with the performance of the iPhone 7 at all. dxomark
scores don't tell the entire story but the score of the iPhone 7 is so
close to the top score that I defy you to tell the difference with your
eye between the same photo from an iPhone 7 and any Xperia.

perhaps if you into SOOC only... If you BSI and such then that is
something that APPL can't offer and that gives you more to work with in
post.

Wanna have an one inch sensor "in" your iPhone? Then get one of these:

http://www.dxo.com/us/dxo-one

Samples galore he

https://www.flickr.com/groups/dxoone/pool/

THey are quite impressive but, I would like to see some failures also.

Why ?, when you by a camera do you lok at the failure shots taken with that camera or of course lens ?

Because I would like to know what the camera can't do, as well as what
it can do.

Do canon and nikon and others show you things their cameras can't do ?

Seems a strange request.

YMMV, but it is spot-on AFAIC.

For example, I've talked before about the assessment of dSLR's
for use in underwater photography and how there was a lot of
discussion & hands-on experimentation by the Pros for each
major new product, to learn what worked / what didn't. The
primary example of which (and which motivated me to delay
changing over from film for ~5 years) was how they did poorly
(vs film) in capturing "sunballs" in CFWA compositions.


But not from the manufacters that is the point and they don't
show how they fail either, it just doesn't happen.

Fair enough that an OEM will avoid admitting to a weakness,

It's hardly a weakness.


but that's also the consumer-centric power of the Internet:
more opportunities to hear from (hopefully) less biased
independent third parties.

You mean like when they put an iphone in a vice to bend it ?


With sufficient public awareness/pressure, OEMs are confronted
with the dilemma of better-informed customers, which can lead
to relevant improvements getting to market (hopefully) sooner.

but that isn't the situation.


For example, Canon got a black eye with one of the versions
of the 5D when a bunch of them crapped out on customers in
Antarctica ... Nikons in literally the same boat didn't fail.

That's a manufactuing issue not a performacne one.

Subsequent versions of Canon dSLR's in that class ended up
having more/better waterproofing and Canon's literature made
very deliberate notation of same: it had become harder for
them to try to ignore such design features (shortcomings).

-hh

That's nothing like what eric was asking for.

Because I would like to know what the camera can't do, as well as what
it can do.

No show me any OEM canera maker that shows what their cameras can't do.

You notice that they only normally show things they can do, not what they can't

I said I would like to see some failures. I *didn't* say I would like
the manufacturer to show some failures.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens