The most important technology news, developments and trends with insightful analysis and commentary, coverage includes hardware, software, networking, wireless computing, personal technology, covering everything from ultra-books to servers, from windows 8 to visualization, delivers the information, latest technology news, technologytodayall is a leading technology media property, dedicated to obsessively profiling startups, reviewing new Internet products, and breaking tech news
We know why you're here: you want to find out the best smartphone
2015. Come on, it makes sense: we've all got at least one mobile phone,
right? We've probably got about three or four nowadays, and that counts
giving your old Nokia 3310 to your Mum a few years ago.
But now
the world has changed, and from Apple to Samsung to HTC to a host of
up-and-coming names, choosing your next greatest smartphone is a tricky
task.
This is where we make it easy: we thoroughly test hundreds
of top smartphones and have found the ten best you can spend your money
on. It needs to be good, after all, given it will reside in your pocket
for the next two years.
Our ranking of the best mobile phones
available in the UK today celebrates the brilliance of the smartphone.
We only feature the latest handsets available (unless an older model has
become hyper-cheap and still offers decent functionality) as the newer
models will stay serviced with software updates for longer, safeguarding
you from having a broken phone with no hope of updates in a year's
time.
We're just beginning 2015, and at the end of the year the Apple iPhone 6 and Apple iPhone 6 Plus challenged the heads of state in the smartphone world - namely the LG G3 and the HTC One M8.
But if you're currently considering your next mobile phone, don't forget we're not far away from the next crop: the HTC One M9 and Samsung Galaxy S6
are tipped to be coming at Mobile World Congress in March, so it might
be worth waiting to see what appears then before making your decision.
MWC 2015: What to expect
If that still doesn't help, well, there's always our extensive mobile phone reviews pages as well.
When you've decided which new phone to buy (and checked out the best mobile phone deal), why not cash in your old one with our phone recycling price comparison service?
Here are our rankings for the best mobile phones around, currently available in the UK.
You've
probably never heard of OnePlus... but if you have, you'll know why
this unknown brand is suddenly sitting in our list of best smartphones
in the world.
The reason is simple: it's a phone that has all the
power, specs and functionality of the top dogs, adds in
super-customisable software and does it at nearly half the price. We're
talking big savings on cost (£229 for the 16GB version and £269 for the 64GB variant) without much in the way of compromise.
In
fact, the only things it's really missing are a microSD slot and
removable battery, and those are elements more for the purists than
absolutely necessary.
If we're being super picky, it's not got the
greatest camera set up and the design is a bit... efficient, but at
this price point it really doesn't matter. And given the target audience
is those that care about raw power over style, it makes sense that this
is where the costs could be saved.
Quick verdict
We love
the fact that a new contender can maintain such a high place in the
ranking of the best phones in the world - it means that it's not just a
case of 'big budget means best phone'.
We were debating whether
the OnePlus One could even have gone higher, but there's one big problem
that you'll have if you want to get your hands on one: they're
impossible to find. Numbers won't ramp up for a while, and probably
never to the level of availability of the better-known names.
But
if you want a phone that offers supreme power at a really low cost: the
OnePlus One is it. It's what the Nexus range used to be, and if Google
ditches that program, then thankfully OnePlus has shown there will be
brands to pick up the slack.
The GoodThe Sony Alpha a99 SLT-A99V
has a lot going for it, including excellent photos and very good video,
a well-constructed and well-designed body, solid performance, and a
great feature set.
The Bad For
some folks, things like the lack of CompactFlash, poor battery life, and
compromises on video autofocus may not be reasonable trade-offs.
The Bottom LineThe Sony Alpha SLT-A99V is a generally great camera that's equally adept at both stills and video, but with a few caveats.
I admit, I really didn't like Sony's first full-frame cameras, the DSLR-A900 and its stripped-down sibling, the DSLR-A850.
I used to use them as examples of poor noise reduction and for
before-and-after examples for the virtues of third-party raw-processing
software. But that was almost four years ago, and just before Sony had
its "aha!" moment and started churning out excellent sensors, like the
one in the Alpha SLT-A99V. The company's flagship (and at least for now,
only) full-frame model delivers excellent photos and very good video,
and has a well-constructed and intelligently designed body, solid
performance, and a great feature set. Despite all the excellence,
though, there are some caveats to consider before shelling out the
not-inconsiderable amount of dough it costs. Image quality
The photo quality is great -- pretty much what you'd expect from a
full-frame camera -- with well-resolved detail, accurate color (as long
as you use the Neutral Creative Style setting), and a broad tonal range
with very good latitude in the highlights. Though it doesn't have an
antialiasing-filter-free model, the sensor in the A99V incorporates a
new selectively applied low-pass filter as a compromise for increased
ability to resolve detail.
According to Sony, the sensor also has new noise-reduction algorithms
designed to reduce noise only where you need it, but I still find that
(oddly) the Nikon D800 outperforms the A99V in this respect, especially
around ISO 1600 and above. For JPEGs, photos are extremely clean through
ISO 400, and you can start to see some slight edge artifacts appearing
at ISO 800. There's a noticeable jump in noise suppression between ISO
1600 and ISO 3200, regardless of how bright the scene is. But I couldn't
gain any better noise reduction below ISO 3200 by processing the raw;
at ISO 3200 and above I did manage to get some better results, enough to
gain about a stop of latitude. Overall, though, while the SLT-A99V is
extremely good at ISO 1600 and below, if you need the cleanest-possible
high-sensitivity results, the Nikon D800 and Canon EOS 5D Mark III are probably a bit better.
The camera also does an excellent job of preserving highlights in
seemingly blown-out areas. I was less impressed with recovering clipped
shadow detail, in part because it inevitably introduces a lot of color
noise, significantly more so than with the D800.
I was especially
impressed with the auto white balance. For one, it handled cloudy
shooting conditions properly; a lot of cameras I've tested recently have
not. Same goes for balance under our tungsten studio lights. Normally I
don't comment on the tungsten results because every camera handles it
miserably. On the flip side, though, Sony's default Standard Creative
Style pushes hues slightly, throwing off color accuracy. Switching to
the Neutral setting delivers the kind of results I expect from a pro
camera, though some people might want to tweak the sharpness (like most
manufacturers, Sony assumes if you want neutral colors you want no
processing at all).
The video quality is very good as well, though
here I admit I'm still partial to the warmer tonality delivered by the
Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 and the sharper, less noisy low-light
video of 5D Mark III. Performance
Most of the
time, the A99V feels responsive and fluid to shoot with. Yes, there's
the occasional bout of reluctant autofocus lock and battery death -- for
decent battery life you really need the multibattery grip, though that
kind of defeats the purpose of making the camera lighter -- and the
menus take just a hair longer to come up than I'd like while the
camera's processing images. But overall I was happy with the camera's
speed.
By the numbers, the A99V offers performance competitive
with other full-frame cameras. (Our benchmarks for the 5D Mark III and
D800 used different methodology, but our numbers for the Nikon D600 and Canon EOS 6D
are comparable.) It powers on and shoots in just under a second -- a
little on the slow side. In good light, it takes about 0.4 second to
focus, expose, and shoot, which rises to 0.5 second in dimmer
conditions; that's relatively good, and partly held back by the somewhat
slow-driving but optically excellent lens we used for performance
testing, the Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8. Two sequential shots run about 0.3 second for either raw or JPEG, also decent times.
The
camera excels at continuous shooting. Sony seems to have rated it
pretty conservatively; as long as you stay below the buffer threshold,
20 JPEG shots or 17 raw shots, it can maintain a clip of roughly 6.2
frames per second (at least with a 95MBps SD card). Once you've exceeded
the buffer, it slows considerably and erratically, below 3fps. In
practice, shooting raw+JPEG, the buffer was less than 10 shots but
overall adequate for small bursts.
Despite the tons of
technological R&D it sounds like Sony put into the autofocus system,
I didn't feel always feel the magic. It has a dual phase-detection AF
system, which the company claims improves tracking AF considerably, and a
new AF Range control that lets you specify near and far distance
limiters for the focus range. I really like the tracking AF interface,
with the big green box that follows your subject around the screen, but
found that the focus lock just didn't keep up with the promise during
continuous shooting, and even with the range limiter enabled I found
that tracking box a little too fickle, willing to hightail off after any
bigger object that enters the scene. Nonetheless, I had no issues with
the AF system that I haven't had with other cameras.
In fact, I think the camera has too many
autofocus options, making figuring out which settings you should use a
bit too complicated. There are four AF mode choices: single, continuous,
auto (which selects between single and continuous), and dynamic (Depth
Map Assist Continuous AF), which seems to fine-tune the continuous AF
phase-detection focus lock by expanding to the assist the areas. Then
there are four AF area options: wide, zone, spot, and local. But the
options or combinations that automatically choose the focus areas never
seem to choose the correct ones, making it difficult to select the
option with any confidence. This isn't a Sony- or A99V-specific issue;
it's a problem with most AF systems that still remains despite all the
effort.
I'm not sure if I've complained about this elsewhere, but every time
you stick a card in, Sony cameras check it for an "Image Database" (a
Sony-compatible file-system structure). But if it doesn't find the
database, it pops up a message asking if you want to create one. Now, I
don't know about you, but every time I stick a card in the first thing I
do is format it and Sony's, um, helpfulness gets between me and the
format operation, requiring an extra few button presses before I can
start working. So no, Sony, I never want to create an image database. Get out of my way!
I can sort of understand this on point-and-shoots where people might
not realize the need to format, or if they never remove the cards, but
on a pro camera it's intrusive and unnecessary.
Both the
viewfinder and back display work very well, with no visibility issues in
direct sunlight or refresh issues while shooting action, and though I
still think that OLED displays are a little too cool and contrasty for
cameras -- photos never look better than on those displays, and that's
not necessarily a good thing -- Sony lets you adjust the color
temperature of the viewfinder. Design and features
For the most part, the camera body is very well designed and built,
with a great grip -- one of the most comfortable I've used -- and an
intelligent control layout. It's weather-sealed, though keep in mind
that as far as I know Sony only offers two full-frame weather-sealed
lenses to match. Yes, the body is also lighter than the competition, but
I find once you stick a good lens on it that roughly 6-ounce advantage
becomes moot.
All the controls are easily accessible and
distinguishable by feel, the mode dial has a central lock button (not my
favorite place for it), and everything is as configurable as you'd
expect from a camera in its class. I don't think it's the snazziest
design -- I'm not crazy about the bulbous look of the buttons boiling up
from the surface on the back -- but it's effective and that's more
important.
While I think competitors produce better video quality than the A99V, this is my favorite camera for shooting
video. It's one respect in which the fixed-mirror SLT technology gains a
huge advantage over SLR. The articulated OLED display, great EVF, and
manual-focus peaking make it extremely easy and comfortable to shoot
without having to Frankenstein the camera out with a rig, loupe, and
other accoutrements. The one, somewhat huge, exception to the love: you
can't adjust shutter speed or aperture for video while autofocus is
enabled. A lot of videographers use manual focus exclusively, so it
won't faze them, but it irks me to no end. And if you don't know this up
front, you can spend hours trying to figure out why the camera won't
let you adjust those settings.
While
the Silent Controller is intended to allow you to avoid introducing
noise while changing settings during video shooting, it's also really
nice for simply changing settings without having to drop the camera from
your eye. It offers a lot of the same settings as the function menu,
but it has a different interface that takes up far less space in the
viewfinder.
Rated estimated max HD video length at best quality
29 minutes, 59 seconds
20 minutes
n/a
Audio
Mono; mic input; headphone jack
Mono; mic input; headphone jack
Stereo; mic input; headphone jack
LCD size
3.2 inches fixed
1.04 megadot
3.2 inches fixed
921,000 dots
3 inches articulated
921,600 dots
Memory slots
1 x CF (UDMA mode 7), 1 x SDXC
1 x CF (UDMA mode 7), 1 x SDXC
2 x SDXC
Wireless flash
No
Yes
No
Battery life viewfinder/Live View (CIPA rating)
950/200 shots
(1,800mAh)
900/
n/a shots
(1,800mAh)
410 shots
(1,650mAh)
Dimensions (inches, WHD)
6.1 x 4.6 x 3.0
5.7 x 4.8 x 3.2
5.9 x 4.5 x 3.1
Body operating weight (ounces)
33.5
35.1
29.2
Mfr. price
$3,499 (body only)
$2,999.95/ $3,299.95 (body only)
$2,799.99 (body only)
$4,299 (with 24-105mm lens)
n/a
n/a
Ship date
March 2012
March 2012/ April 2012
October 2012
In
addition to the complete set of essential features for a pro camera,
the A99V has a couple of unique features for this class, including
built-in GPS (which strains the already lackluster battery life a bit),
in-camera image stabilization (both Canon and Nikon use lens-based IS),
and a built-in stereo microphone (which is nice to have in a pinch). On
the downside, some folks may quibble with the decision to incorporate
two SD card slots instead of an SD and a CompactFlash; while it would
likely make little difference during shooting, CF is still the faster
technology for moving files to your computer in a time-sensitive
workflow.
If you're a Sony A series shooter disgruntled by the
company's lack of tethering support for most of its modern models, the
company has updated its Remote Camera Control software
to support the A99V. And one note about accessories: the A99V uses the
new Multi Interface Shoe, but ships with an adapter if you want to use
your old accessories.
For a complete account of the A99V's features and operation, download the PDF manual. Conclusion
The A99V is a powerful, complicated camera that may simply exceed the
needs (or budget) of most photographers, and since Sony doesn't offer a
cheaper full-frame model a la the Nikon D600 or Canon EOS 6D, the
company's missing out on an opportunity. If you need a single model that
can handle both stills and video with equal aplomb, and are willing to
make some trade-offs -- sacrificing a little on the video and high-ISO
quality as well as video AF -- it's a great choice.
The GoodThe
Nikon D750 delivers the best photo quality and continuous-shooting
performance in its price class, along with a nicely well-rounded feature
set.
The Bad Nikon's
Wi-Fi implementation is weak and some of the other features could be
executed a little better. Plus Live View performance is sad.
The Bottom LineIt's
not the cheapest camera in its class, but the Nikon D750 delivers an
excellent combination of quality, performance and features for its
price.
As the long-awaited sucessor to the six-year-old D700,
the Nikon D750 delivers admirably. While its $2,300 price tag
(£1,800/approximately AU$2,600) inhabits the upper reaches for many
enthusiasts, it's a perfect camera for people who are picky about their
photographs, who need better high-sensitivity quality than you can get
with one of the less-expensive full-frame options or an APS-C-based
dSLR, and who need speed for action shooting. Plus, it's a solid option
for pros looking for a good value.
The camera comes in a couple
of official kit configurations. The $3,000 bundle with the 24-120mm
f3.5-5.6 lens is the only Nikon-approved kit in the US, but a 24-85mm
f3.5-5.6 kit will also be available in the UK and possibly Australia (I
couldn't find any available options with prices at the time this review
was published, however).
Image quality
Nikon really does a nice job on photo quality. The D750 has an
excellent noise profile for both stills and video, and it produces
significantly cleaner raw images than the Sony A99
does as ISO sensitivity increases -- unsurprising, since the latter is
two years old and its image processing doesn't benefit from a couple
years of fine tuning. I like the more neutral white balance of the
Sony's default profile, though; Nikon's is just a hair shifted toward
red/blue. And while the D810 maintains sharpness and tonal range better
across the sensitivity range, for about $1,000 less the D750's photo
quality stands up pretty well against the D810's.
JPEGs from the D750 look exceptionally clean up through
ISO 1600, where a tiny bit of detail degradation begins in the in-focus
areas. At ISO 3200, you can start to see some mushiness develop in the
focused areas, and noise-reduction artifacts appear in the out-of-focus
areas. Dynamic range displays visible decreases around ISO 3200 as well,
with some clipping in low-key areas and loss of tonal distinctions in
high-key areas. There's also a slight color shift between ISO 50 (Low)
and ISO 100. However, I was happy with the JPEGs as high as ISO 6400 --
though that's dependent upon lighting and scene content -- and had ISO
12800 raw files that I could work with comfortably.
Movie
quality looks great, even in low light, though as with the stills you
start to lose tonal range about ISO 3200. Nevertheless, best quality
video looks sharp, with few visible artifacts, and up to ISO 3200
there's practically no noise sparkle. I suggest switching from the
default Picture Control for shooting video, though, unless you like your
blacks crushed and your whites blown, even in good light.
Performance
Note:
We recently updated our testing setup; though the methodology is
similar the lighting conditions are not, so the results aren't
comparable with previous testing. We're slowly retesting some important
older products, and until we have comparable results we will not be
posting performance charts.
In both lab and field testing,
the D750's shooting performance fared typically for this class of
camera; however, it's still really slow in Live View, and there are
annoying hitches when accessing some settings.
It takes less
than 0.2-second to power on, focus and shoot. Even then the bottleneck
is the power switch, since you have to turn it on and press the shutter
with the same finger. Single-shot performance is roughly what you'd
expect for the money. In both bright and dim conditions (down to about 3
EV), time to focus and shoot runs just under 0.4-second; actual speed
is a bit faster than that, since the kit lens tends to drive a little
slowly. And while I didn't time it, focus down to -1 EV was is
sufficiently fast and accurate as well. Both raw and JPEG take about
0.2-second between consecutive shots.
The camera excels when it
comes to continuous-shooting performance, however. It bursts about
6.6fps for highest-quality JPEGs (not even the default of Normal
quality) with a buffer well beyond my 30 test shots -- I got bored after
70. That sets a new high for its price class. While raw burst flies at
an even faster 7fps, that's only for about 15 shots. After that it
drops, though to a still-respectable 4.6fps. It manages about 10
raw+JPEG shots before slowing a lot.
Equally important, the
autofocus seems reasonably able to keep up with the continuous shooting;
my hit rate of usable shots using the new Group AF was significantly
better than Nikon's various tracking options, partly because in those
modes you have no real control over the actual focus points it uses.
(Your mileage may vary depending upon your personal shooting quirks, of
course.) I do miss an option for expanded-point AF, though, which
essentially uses a single focus point and only expands to a group of
points for support. The single-point autofocus mode is quite accurate
and quick.
Unfortunately, the D750's Live View performance
remains locked in the doldrums, taking about 1.5 seconds to focus and
shoot under optimal conditions.
There's also some sluggishness
bringing up screen-based options. For instance, using the back LCD view
to change the ISO sensitivity (the only way to see it when the camera's
set on a tripod at eye level), I frequently experienced long waits. This
is something that Nikon should be able to address in a firmware update,
though.
Design and features
With just a couple of
small exceptions, the design of the D750 has a streamlined shooting
design, a comfortable, high-quality build and an almost spot-on set of
features. The body incorporates magnesium alloy for the rear and top
cover, but uses lighter carbon fiber for the front chassis and cover.
Physically it bears a striking resemblance to the D610, with comparable weather sealing to the D810.
The design is a useful cross between the consumer and pro models. It
has a deep grip with a rubberized section on the back that is perfectly
sized for my hands, for whatever that's worth. In the front, accessible
via the fingers of your right hand, are two programmable buttons, while
the left side has the flash popup/compensation button, bracketing button
and manual focus/autofocus switch, with the button that brings up
autofocus mode selections. As you'd expect in this class of camera,
there are front and back adjustment dials.
On the top left sit a lockable mode and release-mode dials, similar to the D610. In addition to the usual manual, semimanual and automatic modes,
there's an Effects mode with a handful of basics: Night Vision (high
ISO sensitivity monochrome), Color Sketch, miniature, selective color,
silhouette, high key and low key. It also offers a pair of saved user
settings slots on the dial.
The release-mode dial contains a full set of choices: single,
continuous low and high, quiet single and continuous, mirror up, and a
self-timer with options for multiple shots at various intervals.
The left top includes the power switch around the shutter button, and
the metering and exposure compensation buttons. There's also a tiny,
hard-to-find-by-feel record button near the power switch and the usual
status LCD.
On the back you'll find the excellent viewfinder and
a large tilting LCD. While I prefer a fully articulated display, this
one does a full 90-degree angle facing both up and down. Down the left
side of the LCD are the menu, white balance, image quality, and ISO
sensitivity buttons, along with Nikon's i button. The latter provides access to context-sensitive semifrequently needed settings.
Don't confuse the i
button with the info button on the right, a non-interactive view of all
the current settings. A combo AE-L/AF-L button is reachable via your
right thumb. There's one big issue here: you have the ability to program
the function of the button as well as to assign the AF-L function to
another button on the camera, just like you can on higher-end models
like the D810. Unfortunately, if you reassign that button -- I like to
make it AE-L only -- then you lose the ability to focus via the shutter
button. That's how it works on the D810, but that camera has separate
AE-L and AF-L buttons so it's not as big an issue.
The camera
also has the same lockable multicontroller with center OK button as the
D610. I find it as uncomfortable to use on this camera as every other
Nikon that uses it. And at the bottom right is a Live View/Movie toggle
switch with a Live View button to initiate it.
You'll also find a
solid complement of ports on the left side: an accessory terminal for
remotes and Nikon GPS unit, HDMI (supporting clean output), mic and headphone jacks and a USB 3.0 port. And on the right there are two SD card slots, which are great to have.
As for features, the D750 provides all the essentials, plus highlights
like multiple exposure, intervalometer and time-lapse with exposure
smoothing; orientation-linked focus points; selectable spot size for
centerweighted metering plus the ability to set a permanent exposure
bias for each metering mode (matrix, center-weighted, spot and
highlight-weighted) in 1/6-stop steps up to 1; and 50/60Hz flicker
reduction.
In addition to clean HDMI out, the D750 includes the
same movie-shooting specific menu as the D810, where you can choose
default Picture Control, noise reduction and ISO sensitivity settings
for movies. I really wish it let you set a default shutter speed and
aperture as well; two custom settings slots aren't enough to handle both
still and video needs.
The camera also supports Nikon's power
aperture, which lets you change the aperture via the up/down buttons on
the multicontroller while recording. Power aperture does not mean silent
aperture, though. I also hate that you can't change other settings
while shooting. For instance, if I realize that I've got the wrong ISO
sensitivity set, I don't like having to stop and jump out, possibly
missing something; I'd rather change it while recording and toss the
transition portion of the clip later if necessary. I also miss an
autofocus sensitivity setting, a feature that Canon debuted with the 7D Mark II, to make the autofocus more usable in video.
The D750 incorporates Wi-Fi connectivity. Unfortunately, the Wi-Fi
implementation is pretty weak, at least until Nikon improves its app. In
its current incarnation, the app is basically a glorified remote
shutter -- effectively all you can do is press the capture icon -- and
utility to geotag and transfer photos to a mobile device or share them
via the connectors installed on the device. (While Canon's EOS Remote
software has more shooting flexibiility, at least Nikon's WMU can
directly upload via installed services.)
While the software
issue is resolvable, the hardware awkwardness isn't. There's no quick
way to enable Wi-Fi in the camera; you have to go into the setup menu to
do so, and you can't program another button as a shortcut.
Conclusion
Thus far, the D750 seems like the best overall value in the price
segment between $1,800 and $3,000 (£1,300 to £2,300/AU$2,000 to $3,400);
it's not cheap, but delivers the best combination of performance, image
quality, features for the money.
Compared to a more expensive
model like the D810, the D750 has only a few shortcomings. Its image
quality isn't quite as good and the resolution isn't as high, but both
may suffice for a lot of people. It also maxes out at one stop slower
shutter speed (1/4,000 sec. vs. 1/8,000 sec.), and it has a lower flash
sync of 1/200 vs. 1/250 sec.
But the D750 has advantages over
the D810, including an updated, more low-light sensitive autofocus
system (I haven't yet run performance tests on the D810) and slightly
better continuous-shooting performance; built-in Wi-Fi; a tilting LCD;
longer battery life; and it's smaller and lighter. It also has feature
advantages over the Canon 5D Mark III, like the tilting LCD, built-in
flash and Wi-Fi. (I haven't had a chance to retest the 5D Mark III for
performance and image-quality comparison, however.)
The D610
currently runs about $400 (£400/AU$300) less than the D750, but that
premium buys you better photo quality, newer autofocus and metering
systems, slightly faster continuous shooting, 1080/60p video and clean
HDMI out, a tilting LCD, built-in Wi-Fi, USB 3.0 support and better
battery life. And, in fact, with a few minor exceptions it has the same
body design as the D610. That's a lot more camera for a fairly modest
price differential.
The Sony A99 remains a compelling
alternative, especially at its lower price, but aside from being old, it
doesn't have the continuous-shooting performance, and some people
prefer an optical viewfinder to the Sony's electronic viewfinder. And
Sony's mirrorless full-frame alternatives -- the A7 series -- just don't
offer the performance of a dSLR.
Comparative specifications
Canon EOS 6D
Nikon D610
Nikon D750
Nikon D810
Sony Alpha SLT-A99
Sensor effective resolution
20.2MP CMOS
n/a
14-bit
24.3MP CMOS
n/a
14-bit
24.3MP CMOS
n/a
14-bit
36.3MP CMOS
12-channel readout
14-bit
24.3mp Exmor CMOS
n/a
14-bit
Sensor size
35.8 x 23.9mm
35.8 x 24mm
35.9 x 24mm
35.9 mm x 24mm
35.8 x 23.9mm
Focal-length multiplier
1.0x
1.0x
1.0x
1.0x
1.0x
OLPF
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Sensitivity range
ISO 100 - ISO 25600/102,400 (exp)
ISO 50 (exp)/100 - ISO 6400/ 25600 (exp)
ISO 50 (exp)/100 - ISO 12800/51200 (exp)
ISO 32 (exp)/64 - ISO 12800/51200 (exp)
ISO 50 (exp)/ISO 100 - ISO 51200/ISO 102400 (exp,
via multishot NR)
Burst shooting
4.5fps
15 raw/unlimited JPEG
6fps
n/a
6.5fps
n/a
5fps
n/a
(6fps in DX mode, 7fps with battery grip)
6fps
13 raw/14 JPEG
Viewfinder
(mag/ effective mag)
Optical
97% coverage
0.71x/0.71x
Optical
100% coverage
0.70x/0.7x
Optical
100% coverage
0.70x/0.70x
Optical
100% coverage
0.70x/0.70x
OLED EVF
0.5-inch
2.4 million dots
100% coverage
0.71x/0.71x
Hot shoe
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Autofocus
11-pt AF
1 center cross type
39-pt
9 cross type
(Multi-CAM 4800-FX)
51-pt
15 cross type
11 cross type to f8
(Multi-CAM 3500-FX II)
51-pt
15 cross type
11 cross type to f8
(Multi-CAM 3500-FX)
Dual phase-detection system
19pt
11 cross type;
102pt focal plane
CES 2015
is behind us, which means it's time to start looking forward to the
next technology smorgasbord: Mobile World Congress. New phones and tablets
make the rounds at the annual conference held in Spain, but Samsung has
yet to officially announce any word on its expected upcoming flagship
smartphone, the Samsung Galaxy S6.
So, what can we expect from a
Galaxy S6? All of this is conjecture, of course, but here's our best
educated guesses on the details of Samsung's next big phone. Announcement/release date: March
to April is the mostly likely option -- possibly at Mobile World
Congress, or maybe at a totally separate Samsung-only event. Both have
precedents: The Samsung Galaxy S5 was unveiled at Mobile World Congress 2014 in February; its predecessor, the Samsung Galaxy S4 got its own splashy (and unintentionally controversial) launch event at Radio City Music Hall weeks after MWC in March 2013. Availability for both phones was a few weeks later in both cases. CPU: Expect top-of-the-line guts for the GS6. Whether that's a Snapdragon 810 quad-core
processor from Qualcomm (as found in the upcoming LG G Flex 2) or
Samsung's own Exynos 7420 is anyone's guess. The company could also have
different CPUs in different territories -- something it's done with
past flagship phones. Screen: The well-regarded Samsung Galaxy Note 4
packs an attractive 2,560-by-1,440p AMOLED display, and it stands to
reason that the Galaxy S6 would follow suit. Rumors suggest that the
screen size will be around 5.5-inches. OS: Android
5.0 Lollipop will be the star of the show, coupled with Samsung's
TouchWiz Android skin. But there's a curious wrinkle here: some rumors
claim that Samsung is hoping to dial down TouchWiz on the new device,
with the aim of improving performance. Plastic or metal?: This is anyone's guess, though devices like the all-metal Samsung Galaxy A5 and Galaxy A3, as well as the Galaxy A7, suggest that Samsung might be looking to spruce up its image with premium metal designs. Camera and more: We can likely expect a beefy front-shooter, too. Like it or not, smartphones at CES 2015 were all about the selfie, so there's a good chance Samsung will pay close attention to the oft-ignored front-facing camera. The Samsung Galaxy S5 and Galaxy Note 4
both sported excellent cameras, though the former lacked optical image
stabilization. That's becoming increasingly prevalent on kitted-out
smartphones -- see the iPhone 6 Plus -- so it stands to reason Samsung would bake it into their latest phone's rear camera.
January 13, 2015
Samsung's User Interface TouchWiz to Become Less Featured in the Galaxy S6 -- Business Korea
Citing remarks from "industry sources," Business Korea notes that
Samsung is in the process of dialing down the TouchWiz experience for
its upcoming Galaxy S6. Samsung's TouchWiz interface all but takes over
the Android experience, and while it adds numerous features and
functionality I've always preferred a cleaner, stock experience. Citing
"a delay in responsiveness" from all of the added functionality TouchWiz
bakes in, the company will reportedly be streamlining things for future
devices. Whenever the Galaxy S6 is announced, there's a chance we'll be
treated to a leaner software experience.
January 12, 2015
Samsung reportedly to unveil two versions of Galaxy S6
CES 2015 was still fresh on our minds when a rumor surfaced that
Samsung might actually unveil two versions of its Galaxy S6. One would
mimic the curved display found on the Galaxy Note Edge, while the other would offer a metal design, as opposed to Samsung's generally plastic wares.
December 12, 2014
Could this be Samsung's Galaxy S6?
A picture is worth a thousand rumors: Dutch blog site Toptienmobiel
leaked this image of someone holding what's alleged to be the Galaxy S6,
with a big screen and a thin bezel. We'll take this image with a grain
of salt, of course.
December 5, 2014
Samsung Galaxy S6 already? Alleged specs pop up online
The rumors started to firm up in December, when benchmarking site
AnTuTu allegedly displayed some of the specs in its database. Those
details showed a device packing the octa-core Samsung Exynos 7420
processor and a 5.5-inch display with a 2,560 by 1,440 pixel resolution.
The device also reportedly has a 20-megapixel rear-shooter, a
5-megapixel front-facing camera, 3GB of RAM and a paltry 32GB of storage
-- you can expect that to be expanded with microSD cards.
November 4, 2014
First batch of Samsung Galaxy S6 rumors creep online
The rumors started, as always, with sources leaking specs. Samsung
is reportedly starting from scratch with the Galaxy S6, which is
reportedly codenamed "Project Zero." We learned that it might feature a
Quad HD display (2,560-by-1,440-pixel resolution), and pack a
5-megapixel front-facing camera, and a rear shooter offering between 16
and 20 megapixels. The device is also speculated to have a Qualcomm
Snapdragon 810 CPU in some markets, and a Samsung Exynos 7420 in others.
The GoodThe
second generation of Apple's Retina-screen MacBook Pro adds internal
upgrades to its Wi-Fi, Thunderbolt, SSD, graphics card and CPU. The
result is a faster laptop with better battery life and a lower starting
price.
The BadThe
changes are internal-only, and not significant enough to upgrade if you
have last year's version. At $1,999 to start, this is still a very
expensive laptop. Both the 13-inch MacBook Air and Pro have much better
battery life.
The Bottom LineThe
slimmer body and higher-res screen of the original Retina MacBook Pro
were a revolutionary leap. This revamp adds modest internal upgrades for
modest improvements, but price cuts to both the 13-inch and 15-inch
models sweeten the deal.
Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro, recently updated to current-generation
Intel CPUs (just in time for the holiday shopping season), retains its
position as a favorite premium laptop for power-users. But that
long-awaited upgrade, introduced at an Apple press event in October
2013, happened just in time.
The high-end, high-price Retina Display versions of the
previous MacBook Pro were stuck
in an unusual position. While other systems, from budget laptops
to premium hybrids, had all moved onto Intel's latest CPU platform,
known as either the fourth-generation Core i-series or by the code name
Haswell, the MacBook Pro used last year's processors, until now.
The first Mac systems to get Haswell were the 11- and 13-inch MacBook Air back in June 2013. The iMac all-in-one desktop
followed. That left the more expensive MacBook Pro a generation behind
its less expensive Air counterpart in CPU power and battery life. That's
important because our Labs testing has shown that Haswell offers
significant improvements to battery life in PC and Mac systems.
Note,
however, that this CPU update applies only to the thinner MacBook Pro
models with Retina Displays. Currently only the 13-inch version of the
"classic" MacBook Pro is still for sale. The 15-inch version is presumably relegated to the same lonely afterlife
as its long-gone 17-inch relative. For the sake of expediency, we'll
now refer to the current 13-inch and 15-inch Retina Display models
simply as the MacBook Pro.
Updated components and a lower price
The
flagship MacBook Pro retains its very high screen resolution, which
results in crisper text and clearer photos (2,560x1,600 pixels for the
13-inch model, 2,880x1,800 for the 15-inch model). Unlike some Windows
PCs with higher-res screens, OS X is more interested in scaling your
onscreen content to look its best (or what Apple thinks will look best),
rather than giving you full unfettered access to that very, very high
resolution. However, the tile interface view in Windows 8 does something similar with the handful of higher-res PCs now available.
Like
the recent MacBook Air and iMac updates, the new MacBook Pro models
also feature 802.11ac Wi-Fi, faster PCIe solid-state drive (SSD)
storage, and Thunderbolt 2 ports for data and video output.
We
were pleasantly surprised when the 13-inch MacBook Air saw its starting
price cut to $1,099 earlier this year. The MacBook Pro follows, with its
prices going from $2,199 down to $1,999 for the 15-inch version (and
from $1,499 for the 13-inch version down to $1,299). That's a break from
traditional Apple pricing, where prices would remain the same
generation over generation, with updated components adding value.
The
15-inch version defaults to 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD (which Apple
cheekily described as a "quarter terabyte"). Our review configuration of
the 15-inch MacBook Pro is the step-up model (and it's a big step) for
$2,599, with a faster 2.3GHZ Core i7, 16GB of RAM, a 512GB SSD, and the
Nvidia GeForce 750M GPU.
In our hands-on testing, these new
model looks and feels a lot like the previous generation, so if you
bought one last year, there's no need to reach for your wallet. However,
if you don't already own a Retina MacBook Pro, the promise of longer
battery life, somewhat improved performance, faster Wi-Fi, and lower
starting prices is enough to make this a significant overall update.
Apple MacBook Pro 15-inch (October 2013)
Apple MacBook Pro 15-inch with Retina Display (June 2012)
Alienware 14
Price
$2,599
$2,199
$1,799
Display size/resolution
15.4-inch, 2,880x1,800 pixels
15.4-inch, 2,880x1,800 pixels
14-inch, 1,920x1,080 pixels
PC CPU
2.3GHz Intel Core i7-4850HQ
2.3GHz Intel Core i7-3610QM
2.4GHz Intel Core i7 4700MQ
PC Memory
16GB DDR3 SDRAM
8GB DDR3 SDRAM
16GB DDR3 SDRAM
Graphics
2GB Nvidia GeForce GT 750M
1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 650M
2GB Nvidia Geforce GTX 765M
Storage
512GB SSD
256GB SSD
256GB SSD + 750GB
Optical drive
None
None
BD-ROM
Networking
802.11a/c wireless, Bluetooth 4.0
802.11a/b/g/n wireless, Bluetooth 4.0
Gigabit Ethernet, 802.11b/g/n wireless, Bluetooth 4.0
Operating system
OS X Mavericks 10.9
OS X Lion 10.7.4
Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit)
A power-packed thin design
As in the
first generation of these MacBook Pro models
from 2012, the current versions exist somewhere
between the chunkier idea of a "pro-level," power-user laptop and the
slim ultrabook ideal. Denser than it looks at first glance, the 15-inch
MacBook Pro isn't exactly a carry-all-day-every-day package, although
one could conceivably pull that off a few times per week.
The
15-inch MacBook Pro is more striking than the 13-inch, especially
considering that its slim chassis includes a decent discrete graphics
card. Still, from the outside at least, this is the same MacBook Pro as
last year. Like the 2013 MacBook Air and iMac updates, the new features
are internal in nature, or software-based, if you're considering OS X Mavericks to be part of the overall package.
The
keyboard and trackpad remain essentially the same as seen on the last
several generations of MacBook. Other laptops have matched, but not
surpassed, the backlit Apple keyboard, with the possible exception of
Lenovo, a company as involved with keyboard research and development as
any. The large glass trackpad, with its multifinger gestures, remains
the industry leader, even as Windows laptops move to more touch-screen
controls, at least partially to compensate for the hassle of using a
touch pad with Windows 8. The ability to do easy four-finger swipes, and
the no-lag scrolling in Web browsers, is something Mac users always
have trouble with when they switch back to a PC. That said, tap-to-click
really should be turned on by default. Instead, you'll have to go into
the settings menu to turn this obvious feature on.
The 15-inch
Retina Display remains a main selling point, and the Retina branding now
crosses over between the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pro. Some new and
upcoming Windows laptops go for even higher resolutions, and it's not
unreasonable to ask when we'll see this trickle down to the MacBook Air
line. The Retina screen is a 2,880x1,800 display, and is at its best
when displaying text or professional photography. Videos rarely go past
1080p, and most Mac games can't display higher resolutions to begin
with.
As
originally noted last year, the Retina Display looks great, although
you're more likely to notice it when comparing with a non-Retina laptop.
A great way to see the screen in action is to zoom in closely on plain
black text against a white background, as we did with the original
Retina MacBook Pro.
By going into the settings menu, you can
set the scaling so that onscreen text and icons appear as they would on a
number of common resolutions, although I would have liked the
opportunity to get the full unfettered 2,880 view.
Apple MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2013)
Video
HDMI, 2x Mini DisplayPort/Thunderbolt 2
Audio
Stereo speakers, combo headphone/microphone jack
Data
2 USB 3.0, 2 Thunderbolt 2, SD card reader
Networking
802.11ac Wi-Fi, Bluetooth
Optical drive
None
Connections, performance, and battery
Apple
can drive people a bit nuts when it comes to ports and connections, but
over the past few years, some semblance of universality has come to
many Macs, with the addition of SD card slots and HDMI ports to many
models. As in last year's model, you get two USB 3.0 ports, two
Thunderbolt ports (now Thunderbolt 2), which also double as Mini
DisplayPort outputs, an SD card slot, and Bluetooth and 802.11ac Wi-Fi.
The HDMI and Thunderbolt video outputs can drive two additional
external displays, at up to 2,560x1,600 pixels (I've set up a Retina
MacBook Pro with its Retina screen sandwiched by two high-resolution
external monitors, and it becomes quite the command center).
If you're looking for legacy items, such as Ethernet, an optical
drive, or FireWire, keep looking. And yes, Apple apparently considers
Ethernet to be a legacy port.
While our review unit is the (significantly) more expensive $2,599
model, you can quite easily trade down to the $1,999 model if you don't
need the extra storage space or discrete GPU. For a hair under 2 grand,
you get a 2.0GHz Core i7, and cut the RAM and SSD in half, to 8GB and
256GB. In the less-expensive version, you get Intel's Iris Pro graphics,
the higher-end version of the improved integrated graphics offered with
Intel's Haswell-generation processors.
In our benchmark testing,
you can rightly expect the high-end configuration supplied by Apple to
perform extraordinarily well. Some of our tests, including Photoshop and
iTunes,
display a natural OS X bias, but in each of the tests, it excelled,
with the exception of a single-app Photoshop test, which suggests that
program may not be fully optimized for Mavericks
yet. In hands-on use, it felt just as fast as the original model, which
is to say this is more than enough power for even heavy multitaskers,
video editors, and photographers. The scores reflect a modest to medium
jump in most cases over the 2012 version of this system, as seen in the
charts below. However, true power users are no doubt waiting for the
$2,999-and-up Mac Pro desktop, which will be available in December 2013.
Upgrading
from last year's Nvidia GeForce 650M to the newer 750M is a great
excuse to fire up a few games on the MacBook Pro, especially as it's
easier than ever to be a Mac gamer. Steam, GOG.com, and other game
distributors have robust Mac sections now, and Windows games are being
ported to OS X within months, not years.
Both BioShock Infinite
and Metro: Last Light, excellent 2013 PC games, are available on Macs
now, although in somewhat limited versions that cap the graphics options
and resolutions, preventing them from truly showing off what the
MacBook Pro can do. Diablo III allows you to fully crank up the
resolution to 2,880x1,800, and the game ran with settings maxed at about
23 frames per second. Dropping the resolution to 1,968x1,230 (a 16:10
resolution close to 1080p), the game ran at 44 frames per second.
Our old Mac standby, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, ran at 35 frames
per second at the highest detail settings and full 2,880x1,800
resolution. The game ran at 81.2 at a more reasonable 1,680x1,050
resolution. Last year's Retina MacBook Pro ran that test at 70.8 frames
per second (1,680x1,050) and crashed at the higher resolution.
One of the main reasons moving to the current generation of Intel CPUs
is important is because of the improvement to battery life, always a key
factor in a laptop. Apple promises 8 hours from this system, and last
year's model ran for a bit under 7 hours. The summer 2013 MacBook Air --
the first Haswell MacBook -- exceeded Apple's own estimates in our
tests, running for more than 12 hours. Our 15-inch 2013 MacBook Pro fell
right in between those two numbers, running for 9:52, which is
especially impressive for a 15-inch laptop.
Conclusion
If
you like the idea of investing in a higher-resolution laptop, and can
live without an optical drive (a concession that seems more reasonable
every day), the updated 2013 version of the Retina MacBook Pro,
especially in its 15-inch incarnation, remains an irresistibly powerful
yet reasonably portable laptop.
This has been a year of
incremental, and mostly internal, upgrades for Macs, from the Air to the
iMac, but a handful of price cuts to base models help the entire line
from feeling too stuck in time. The only really "new" Mac coming this
year is the Mac Pro desktop, which is far from a casual/consumer
machine, but will be idolized by anyone interested in technology design
and aesthetics.
Its $2,599 price is a major hurdle (as is the
$1,999 base model), but there is no other laptop this year (or last)
that combines powerful components, design, display, and flexibility
quite like the MacBook Pro.
System configurations
Apple MacBook Pro 15-inch (October 2013)
OSX 10.9 Mavericks; 2.3GHz Intel Core i7-4850HQ; 16GB DDR3 SDRAM; 2GB
Nvidia GeForce GT 750M + Intel Iris Pro Graphics; 512GB Apple SSD Apple MacBook Pro 13-inch (October 2013) OSX 10.9 Mavericks; 2.4GHz Intel Core i5-4258U; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM ; 1GB Intel Iris Graphics; 256GB Apple SSD Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display (15-inch, June 2012)
OSX 10.7.4 Lion; 2.3GHz Intel Core i7-3610QM; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz;
1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 650M + 512MB Intel HD 4000; 256GB Apple SSD Samsung Ativ Book 9 Plus Windows 8 (64-bit); 1.6GHz Intel Core i5 4200U; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 1,749MB (shared) Intel HD Graphics 4400: 128GB SSD Apple MacBook Air 13-inch (June 2013)
OSX 10.8.4 Mountain Lion; 1.3GHz Intel Core i5 4240U; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM
1,600MHz; 1,024MB (Shared) Intel HD Graphics 4000; 128GB Apple SSD Apple MacBook Pro 13-inch with Retina Display (October 2012) OSX 10.8.2 Mountain Lion 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 3210M, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz, 768MB (Shared) Intel HD 4000, 256GB Apple SSD Alienware 14
Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit); 2.4GHz Intel Core i7 4700MQ; 16GB DDR3
SDRAM 1600MHz; 2GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M; HDD#1 256MB Lite-On SSD
HDD#2 750GB, 7,200rpm Western Digital