Triumph61

No, they have OSX for their laptops and iOS for their mobile devices. If you want a tablet, you have to buy an iPad which doesn't let you run any full featured apps like Photoshop, FCP, Premiere, etc. If you do want to use those programs though, you also have to buy either a MacBook, or a desktop machine. That's two devices, and to transfer app data from the tablet to computer can normally only be done via iTunes, which can be an extremely painful experience.
With a Surface Pro, or even a '2 in 1' like Lenovo's Yoga range, you get one machine that's a tablet and can still run the full featured apps. That's the advantage. And if you have one of their phones, it will be the same one OS again.
 
A laptop won't fit in your pocket. Seriously, think of your average consumer doesn't do any high end video editing, photography, music or whatever. They just browse facebook, Instagram, do a bit of book keeping or whatever. These kind of people will now no longer even need a computer. They could do everything on the phone while they're out. Then when they're home, all they need to do is hook the phone into a monitor or their tv, grab a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and with Continuum on the phone running the full desktop versions of their browser and office apps, their user experience would be exactly the same as if they were on a desktop or laptop. And that's huge. Less environmental waste if people are only using phones, and much less confusion for older people like my in laws, trying to familiarise themselves with multiple devices.
Why are Apple not doing this with the iPhone? If they're putting desktop performance A9 chips on their iPhones, why not let people connect them to monitor and run OSX? Possibly because they don't want to lose sales of their iPads and Macs? That's like Canon limiting the video features in their DSLR's so that people will still buy their C300 etc.  
I'm running iOS9 on my iPad, and apart from the different font they're using, the user interface is still the same as a 2007 iPhone. There's no way of putting a big slideshow gallery of my favourite photos on there like I can do with my Lumia, I can't put a big tile on there with a photo of my wife, or a Fitbit tile showing me how far I've walked and the number of steps, I can't put a big tile on there showing the latest posts in my blog reader app, such a new EOSHD post, or even a Flickr tile showing new photos my contacts have posted, and so on. You can't do any of this with iOS. All you get are boring icons, which if you're lucky, might have a number on them.
Even Android users can do a lot more with widgets and whatever else they have.

What's ironic here is that Apple are now the company with the monopoly in many markets who are no longer innovating. Look at what Microsoft are doing. They have one streamlined OS that works across all devices from phones, tablets to desktops. They've just released new phones (Lumia 950 & 950 XL) that you can connect a mouse, keyboard & monitor to, and use as a full functioning computer with desktop apps. Their Surface range also continues to get better and better. Of course, they also have that Hololens technology that looks quite impressive from the demos I've seen.
And what do Apple release? A big iPad with what is essentially the same OS as what the original iphone was running back when it was first released.
 

Yes, and I hear that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic collectively sighed,  in huge relief.   :-)    So if you use a NX1 suddenly your work becomes "imaginary"?  lol

Yes, and I hear that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic collectively sighed,  in huge relief.   :-)    So if you use a NX1 suddenly your work becomes "imaginary"?  lol

Yes, and I hear that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic collectively sighed,  in huge relief.   :-)    So if you use a NX1 suddenly your work becomes "imaginary"?  lol

FF tests are not Moot for me because it is the main feature that would attract me to the Sony for Video.  I was aware it was going to be not as good.  but it still surprised me by how bad it was.  So along comes the A7SII...woot woot...   except as a still photographer they leave out Phase detect AF?    It's called Sonyfication, the things that make your scratch your head about Sony :-)  So good and then the deal breaker.
Yes Ricardo,  I wanted it to be close,  but if you have owned the Samsung and you see the Jaw dropping shots in Andrew Reid's video that look like "moving stills" it's hard to go backwards.  

Lenses are listed in the post.  Samsung 16-50 F2  and Canon L 24-70 on the Sony,  Zero sharpening in post and minimum in camera on both.  First pair is NX1 vs FF Sony,  Second and Third image are NX1 versus Sony S35 and the forth image  is  NX1 versus Sony FF.  S35 is better but even in S35  grabs from the Sony, in resolving detail, the NX1 eats it.     Re Log exposure, no did not expose 1 stop over, so will retest for noise.  Sharpening is one thing but detail resolved is still significantly less.  For SUCH a high tech camera in S35 mode, I think Sony need to spend some time in Korea. :-) and learn how to get all the data of the chip and into the file.  If I didn't own the NX1 maybe I would be very happy with the Sony, but the NX1 has spoilt it's owners for 4K resolution.  IMHO

IMHO
So I own a NX1 and bought a A7RII.   I wanted a FF camera that straddled Video and Still.  One camera that was Good at both.  Most will say "buy the A7RII cause it does both well".  I disagree.  
I have now had a chance to try the A7SII, which I liked the specs on but was disappointed with the lack of Sony's new PD AF system which I really wanted for my stills.  Luckily,   I actually own some Minolta glass, a hang over from my days using a A900 which as a still camera I loved.  So I bought a second hand LA-E4 adaptor and tried it on the A7SII,
Now I remember why I loved those Minolta lenses,  They are small , sharp and really perform and with the LA-E4 they work really well.
The FF video output of the A7SII is ....Wow.....everthing the A7RII is not, and it is also betters the s35 output from the the A7RII.   Plus as a one camera shooter having to shoot FF for stills and S35 for video?  Not ideal for me.  Sure if you go out to shoot video and only video, but a mix of still and video? and the A7RII is a big compromise.
So how is the A7SII as a still camera?  Amazing.  I remember when I bought a D800E that after 6 months I realised I was just obsessing over my pixel peeping and to really impress anyone I would have had to have a small detail crop in a print to show the high res sensor, but in a normal print it was no advantage.  My computer would grind opening ever 36MP file, I eventually sold it for a 5DMKIII.   Canon and Nikons pro camera are around 16mp, So, is the A7SII such a "niche" camera?  I think not.  I would love them to put in the PD AF which obviously means a whole new sensor. But Legacy Glass and Minolta adapted lenses when I need (or want ) AF, is a perfectly fine compromise for me.  Plus the Minolta glass is so good and so well priced.
The 12 MP images off the A7SII are amazing, great latitude and great colour.   Cropping is the real advantage of the A7RII.  The quick video tests I have done with the A7SII are really impressive especially the dynamic range and "look"  and thats just using PP6 which is the Cine 2 (from memory) setting rather than Slog.   As a street shooter the PP6 setting really just seems to work.
There is no perfect camera that does everything, but i think I have found the best compromise by far.

IMHO
So I own a NX1 and bought a A7RII.   I wanted a FF camera that straddled Video and Still.  One camera that was Good at both.  Most will say "buy the A7RII cause it does both well".  I disagree.  
I have now had a chance to try the A7SII, which I liked the specs on but was disappointed with the lack of Sony's new PD AF system which I really wanted for my stills.  Luckily,   I actually own some Minolta glass, a hang over from my days using a A900 which as a still camera I loved.  So I bought a second hand LA-E4 adaptor and tried it on the A7SII,
Now I remember why I loved those Minolta lenses,  They are small , sharp and really perform and with the LA-E4 they work really well.
The FF video output of the A7SII is ....Wow.....everthing the A7RII is not, and it is also betters the s35 output from the the A7RII.   Plus as a one camera shooter having to shoot FF for stills and S35 for video?  Not ideal for me.  Sure if you go out to shoot video and only video, but a mix of still and video? and the A7RII is a big compromise.
So how is the A7SII as a still camera?  Amazing.  I remember when I bought a D800E that after 6 months I realised I was just obsessing over my pixel peeping and to really impress anyone I would have had to have a small detail crop in a print to show the high res sensor, but in a normal print it was no advantage.  My computer would grind opening ever 36MP file, I eventually sold it for a 5DMKIII.   Canon and Nikons pro camera are around 16mp, So, is the A7SII such a "niche" camera?  I think not.  I would love them to put in the PD AF which obviously means a whole new sensor. But Legacy Glass and Minolta adapted lenses when I need (or want ) AF, is a perfectly fine compromise for me.  Plus the Minolta glass is so good and so well priced.
The 12 MP images off the A7SII are amazing, great latitude and great colour.   Cropping is the real advantage of the A7RII.  The quick video tests I have done with the A7SII are really impressive especially the dynamic range and "look"  and thats just using PP6 which is the Cine 2 (from memory) setting rather than Slog.   As a street shooter the PP6 setting really just seems to work.
There is no perfect camera that does everything, but i think I have found the best compromise by far.

IMHO
So I own a NX1 and bought a A7RII.   I wanted a FF camera that straddled Video and Still.  One camera that was Good at both.  Most will say "buy the A7RII cause it does both well".  I disagree.  
I have now had a chance to try the A7SII, which I liked the specs on but was disappointed with the lack of Sony's new PD AF system which I really wanted for my stills.  Luckily,   I actually own some Minolta glass, a hang over from my days using a A900 which as a still camera I loved.  So I bought a second hand LA-E4 adaptor and tried it on the A7SII,
Now I remember why I loved those Minolta lenses,  They are small , sharp and really perform and with the LA-E4 they work really well.
The FF video output of the A7SII is ....Wow.....everthing the A7RII is not, and it is also betters the s35 output from the the A7RII.   Plus as a one camera shooter having to shoot FF for stills and S35 for video?  Not ideal for me.  Sure if you go out to shoot video and only video, but a mix of still and video? and the A7RII is a big compromise.
So how is the A7SII as a still camera?  Amazing.  I remember when I bought a D800E that after 6 months I realised I was just obsessing over my pixel peeping and to really impress anyone I would have had to have a small detail crop in a print to show the high res sensor, but in a normal print it was no advantage.  My computer would grind opening ever 36MP file, I eventually sold it for a 5DMKIII.   Canon and Nikons pro camera are around 16mp, So, is the A7SII such a "niche" camera?  I think not.  I would love them to put in the PD AF which obviously means a whole new sensor. But Legacy Glass and Minolta adapted lenses when I need (or want ) AF, is a perfectly fine compromise for me.  Plus the Minolta glass is so good and so well priced.
The 12 MP images off the A7SII are amazing, great latitude and great colour.   Cropping is the real advantage of the A7RII.  The quick video tests I have done with the A7SII are really impressive especially the dynamic range and "look"  and thats just using PP6 which is the Cine 2 (from memory) setting rather than Slog.   As a street shooter the PP6 setting really just seems to work.
There is no perfect camera that does everything, but i think I have found the best compromise by far.

IMHO
So I own a NX1 and bought a A7RII.   I wanted a FF camera that straddled Video and Still.  One camera that was Good at both.  Most will say "buy the A7RII cause it does both well".  I disagree.  
I have now had a chance to try the A7SII, which I liked the specs on but was disappointed with the lack of Sony's new PD AF system which I really wanted for my stills.  Luckily,   I actually own some Minolta glass, a hang over from my days using a A900 which as a still camera I loved.  So I bought a second hand LA-E4 adaptor and tried it on the A7SII,
Now I remember why I loved those Minolta lenses,  They are small , sharp and really perform and with the LA-E4 they work really well.
The FF video output of the A7SII is ....Wow.....everthing the A7RII is not, and it is also betters the s35 output from the the A7RII.   Plus as a one camera shooter having to shoot FF for stills and S35 for video?  Not ideal for me.  Sure if you go out to shoot video and only video, but a mix of still and video? and the A7RII is a big compromise.
So how is the A7SII as a still camera?  Amazing.  I remember when I bought a D800E that after 6 months I realised I was just obsessing over my pixel peeping and to really impress anyone I would have had to have a small detail crop in a print to show the high res sensor, but in a normal print it was no advantage.  My computer would grind opening ever 36MP file, I eventually sold it for a 5DMKIII.   Canon and Nikons pro camera are around 16mp, So, is the A7SII such a "niche" camera?  I think not.  I would love them to put in the PD AF which obviously means a whole new sensor. But Legacy Glass and Minolta adapted lenses when I need (or want ) AF, is a perfectly fine compromise for me.  Plus the Minolta glass is so good and so well priced.
The 12 MP images off the A7SII are amazing, great latitude and great colour.   Cropping is the real advantage of the A7RII.  The quick video tests I have done with the A7SII are really impressive especially the dynamic range and "look"  and thats just using PP6 which is the Cine 2 (from memory) setting rather than Slog.   As a street shooter the PP6 setting really just seems to work.
There is no perfect camera that does everything, but i think I have found the best compromise by far.

OK, Put on my Flame suit :-)  Actually I would LOVE the Sony to be the camera I keep, I just wish it didn't compromise so much in a few area's like FF 4K resolution and moreso the smearing of detail in FF.  Because of this and the cost ratio of lenses to kit out the A7 series is why I am tossing up to keep the NX1 and or Keep the A7RII and invest in more FF glass....Again :-)    Below are some samples, at 100% and then 200% from 4K still grabs.  From Sony A7RII and NX1  all shot with the same Nikon 35mm 2.8 prime at F5.6,   The order is A7RII  S35....A7RII FF.......NX1.     Before everyone replies yes I can see the NX1 is over sharpened, but it is also impossible to sharpen the Sony S35 to get the result the NX1 gives natively.  So my conclusion is that the S35 on the A7RII is pretty good but probably needs some post sharpening, The A7RII FF is not so good, and the NX1 has lots of resolution and is oversharpened in camera.  The last image is of the 5DMKIII  internal codec versus Magic Lantern Raw showing how the detail in far greater in her T-Shirt,  hat and skin (freckles) where the internal codec is destructive to such detail.  This has been what I have found with the A7RII in FF, the softness I can see and accept to a point,  but less so the smearing of texture and detail that is lost in open areas of detail (rather than edges) that results from this.

Yes the NX1 still over sharpens but it also does capture more detail as per the image below.
Has anyone got a A7SII, and can relay how well it focuses without Phase Detect AF?   I assume it crap with adapted lenses and OK with native?
 
 

The extra time spent pulling hair in every project grading the s-gamut could definitely be put to better use elsewhere. That's why recently I canceled the A7S II order for a Samsung NX1 (order placed already). For 1/3 the price, it's a much more capable machine (skin tone, battery, build). The major trade off being dynamic range. I'm fine with not having IBIS for 1/3 the price; I was already planning on a Nebula 4200lite, even if I had gotten an A7S II. 
But I am still rooting for Sony. Like Samsung, on a greater scale, they are kicking a lot of asses. I do hope Sony pulls through with future models. There's no excuse for getting the basics wrong (like poor battery life) on a $3000 dslr-sized camera from a company with such tremendous goals (like their possible 21-stop sensor.)

The NX1's iso performance is actually not that bad, only at extremes and I think this is overstated.  If you need it, sure high iso is important. Many have noted that the performance between 100 and 1600 is virtually the same, which is where many will live and shoot.  Latter firmware may have actually improved it according to some.
When I watch this below, I am seeing lots of resolution, not so much over sharpening.  That said I do believe the NX1 could do with lower sharpening levels.
Actually I know a lot about lenses, its been my life for 35 years,  But to satisfy some before I sell the A7RII I will shoot a comparison with the same lens,  It will have to be a Nikon because that's all I have that fits both.  Funny thing is the IR filter is there for Video and its still there for Stills and the 24-70 is razor sharp in stills?    Must be some voodoo magic happening? :-)
Saw the macro blocking n the NX1 and yes the Sony out performs in this area, but replaces it with outhr sensor based artefacts  like noise, so which is better?  I suppose it's up to the individual.
No Chance of Macro Blocking here :-)  The Samsung just recorded the detail while the Sony thought it was not important?  Or maybe you will say I misfocused?

So find me the sharp point?   They are different lenses so of course the depth  of field will differ. But I focused on the bottles. Better still I am  happy for you to prove me wrong ,  put  up your own findings?    The Samsung shows detail even with Legacy glass,   Don.  I own both, do you?
I am very aware of the Samsungs short comings, but resolution is not one of them and it is with the Sony.   Which is why I posted my findings.  people can make up there own minds or they can get offended that I have criticised their camera choice.   

The NX1's iso performance is actually not that bad, only at extremes and I think this is overstated.  If you need it, sure high iso is important. Many have noted that the performance between 100 and 1600 is virtually the same, which is where many will live and shoot.  Latter firmware may have actually improved it according to some.
When I watch this below, I am seeing lots of resolution, not so much over sharpening.  That said I do believe the NX1 could do with lower sharpening levels.
Actually I know a lot about lenses, its been my life for 35 years,  But to satisfy some before I sell the A7RII I will shoot a comparison with the same lens,  It will have to be a Nikon because that's all I have that fits both.  Funny thing is the IR filter is there for Video and its still there for Stills and the 24-70 is razor sharp in stills?    Must be some voodoo magic happening? :-)
Saw the macro blocking n the NX1 and yes the Sony out performs in this area, but replaces it with outhr sensor based artefacts  like noise, so which is better?  I suppose it's up to the individual.
No Chance of Macro Blocking here :-)  The Samsung just recorded the detail while the Sony thought it was not important?  Or maybe you will say I misfocused?

The NX1's iso performance is actually not that bad, only at extremes and I think this is overstated.  If you need it, sure high iso is important. Many have noted that the performance between 100 and 1600 is virtually the same, which is where many will live and shoot.  Latter firmware may have actually improved it according to some.
When I watch this below, I am seeing lots of resolution, not so much over sharpening.  That said I do believe the NX1 could do with lower sharpening levels.
Actually I know a lot about lenses, its been my life for 35 years,  But to satisfy some before I sell the A7RII I will shoot a comparison with the same lens,  It will have to be a Nikon because that's all I have that fits both.  Funny thing is the IR filter is there for Video and its still there for Stills and the 24-70 is razor sharp in stills?    Must be some voodoo magic happening? :-)
Saw the macro blocking n the NX1 and yes the Sony out performs in this area, but replaces it with outhr sensor based artefacts  like noise, so which is better?  I suppose it's up to the individual.
No Chance of Macro Blocking here :-)  The Samsung just recorded the detail while the Sony thought it was not important?  Or maybe you will say I misfocused?

Sorry Disagree,  If it was the lens, I would see it in stills, even cropped stills, and I do not.  The Canon 24-70 F4 L series is just as sharp even at APSC crops as the Samsung lens
This is no small difference you are seeing in these images
 

The Nx1 is an incredible piece of tech, an incredible camera (I keep telling this to everyone), its the most underated piece of gear in ages. I did think the a7rII would come close to it though, surprised to see its so far behind, this just confirms my opinion, the NX1 is the best 4k (and video) camera around up until the tens of thousands in price, and even then, it compares quite close.
 
Great test btw !

Hi Guys.
So I bought an A7RII for consideration to replace my NX1.  I am a still shooter by training, but moving more and more to video.  Thought the A7RII, which is obviously a very capable Still shooter, may handle my video well enough...but I am not so sure after testing.  Here are my results shot side by side with the NX1.  Sony all shot in SLog2 some FF and some super 35.  The Sony is far behind the NX1 in resolution, huge in FF and still significant in S35.  Also in SLog2 it has a fairly distinct noise pattern.  Images attached from full res 4K grabs. 1/ is Sony FF, 2,3/ are S35 and 4/ is FF   I was expecting some differences, but not as much as I did is S35 mode where the Sony is still showing a significantly less ability to resolve at the NX1 levels.  Can post FF 4K grabs of each if anyone is interested.  Lenses were 16-50 F2  and Canon 24-70 F4 L series.   In FF, I don't think the Sony is much better than my 5DIII was with Magic Lantern, certainly not any real world advantage to shoot at 4K?

Hi Guys.
So I bought an A7RII for consideration to replace my NX1.  I am a still shooter by training, but moving more and more to video.  Thought the A7RII, which is obviously a very capable Still shooter, may handle my video well enough...but I am not so sure after testing.  Here are my results shot side by side with the NX1.  Sony all shot in SLog2 some FF and some super 35.  The Sony is far behind the NX1 in resolution, huge in FF and still significant in S35.  Also in SLog2 it has a fairly distinct noise pattern.  Images attached from full res 4K grabs. 1/ is Sony FF, 2,3/ are S35 and 4/ is FF   I was expecting some differences, but not as much as I did is S35 mode where the Sony is still showing a significantly less ability to resolve at the NX1 levels.  Can post FF 4K grabs of each if anyone is interested.  Lenses were 16-50 F2  and Canon 24-70 F4 L series.   In FF, I don't think the Sony is much better than my 5DIII was with Magic Lantern, certainly not any real world advantage to shoot at 4K?

Hi Guys.
So I bought an A7RII for consideration to replace my NX1.  I am a still shooter by training, but moving more and more to video.  Thought the A7RII, which is obviously a very capable Still shooter, may handle my video well enough...but I am not so sure after testing.  Here are my results shot side by side with the NX1.  Sony all shot in SLog2 some FF and some super 35.  The Sony is far behind the NX1 in resolution, huge in FF and still significant in S35.  Also in SLog2 it has a fairly distinct noise pattern.  Images attached from full res 4K grabs. 1/ is Sony FF, 2,3/ are S35 and 4/ is FF   I was expecting some differences, but not as much as I did is S35 mode where the Sony is still showing a significantly less ability to resolve at the NX1 levels.  Can post FF 4K grabs of each if anyone is interested.  Lenses were 16-50 F2  and Canon 24-70 F4 L series.   In FF, I don't think the Sony is much better than my 5DIII was with Magic Lantern, certainly not any real world advantage to shoot at 4K?

So I will use my focus peaking on the D810 to focus…..what no focus peaking?  Ok I will magnify the image to focus…..Nope?  OK so I will shoot at waist level to not attract attention to my filming……I can't?   OK well at least I can use my Canon 50mm 1.2 on my D810 and some of my other legacy glass…..No again?    Yep, that D810 is looking like a cracking competitive option to the Sony,   OK OK  I will at least have IS on all my lenses….Nope?   4k?….Nope…hmmmm,   Log options?    That D810 is looking like the obvious option  :-)

So I will use my focus peaking on the D810 to focus…..what no focus peaking?  Ok I will magnify the image to focus…..Nope?  OK so I will shoot at waist level to not attract attention to my filming……I can't?   OK well at least I can use my Canon 50mm 1.2 on my D810 and some of my other legacy glass…..No again?    Yep, that D810 is looking like a cracking competitive option to the Sony,   OK OK  I will at least have IS on all my lenses….Nope?   4k?….Nope…hmmmm,   Log options?    That D810 is looking like the obvious option  :-)