It would also be incorrect. "Up to" doesn't mean any possible upper bound, it describes the top of a known range. I can't say a car I'm selling goes "up to" 900mph if it tops out at 120mph.
¹ drivers are responsible to get the car into a low earth orbit themselves and need to be familiar with the orbital maneuvers needed to accelerate the car to 900mph
New Tamron lenses have built-in usb-c port close to the lens mount. The utility just replicates what official Windows/Mac software does - not much, configuration of focus-by-wire, corrections, button functions.
Modern lenses are complex electronics now. They need to communicate with the camera about correction params, metadata, control algorithm for focusing and stabilization. Having a usbc port is a natural next step.
Lenses have energy budgets, responsiveness concerns and actuator/sensor pairings through embedded processing. Therefore they need firmware. Firmware goes out of date and has bugs and improvements. Having the ability to configure a lens beyond simply selecting firmware is an obvious second use of the required interface.
Firmware doesn't inherently have more bugs than hardware, in general that's a consequence of the ability to update it more than the other way around. Here the need for an update-able firmware comes more from implementation a reverse engineered interface which might need fixes for compatibility with future cameras or updated camera firmware that only care about official vendor approved lenses (which consequently don't have a need for an update interface). However that still doesn't explain who would want things like auto-focus fine tuning or assignable buttons in the lens rather than the camera body where it already exists. Just because the USB interface is there doesn't mean that this use of it is useful.
> However that still doesn't explain who would want things like auto-focus fine tuning or assignable buttons in the lens rather than the camera body where it already exists.
1) not all camera bodies include those fine tuning options in the camera firmware;
2) lenses that include additional buttons beyond that which the camera maker programmed the body to understand can't be tweaked by a body that was never programmed to know the button exists;
3) in the specific case of some Tamron zooms, the Tamron focus fine tuning is at up to five different distance figures, while most camera body focus fine tuning is a single global setting for that one lens;
4) for camera bodies that do include focus tuning in their firmware, they also usually have a limited number of slots for a limited number of lenses. For professionals they very well may own more lenses than the camera has slots, so being able to "tune the lens" via "the lens itself" means each can be fine tuned, even if the camera body cannot store that many different adjustments;
5) an adjustment the camera maker never thought to include (i.e., one example quoted in the repo where the focus ring direction can be reversed) can not be tweaked by the camera body. This is useful to photographers who mix lenses from different makers on the same body as Canon builds their focus rings to rotate one way when focusing towards infinity while Nikon builds their focus rings to rotate in the opposite direction towards infinity.
Modern DSLR camera lenses are full blown embedded computers controlling mechanical actuators (focus motor, aperture blades, etc.) and communicating lens information to the camera's CPU (aberration corrections, vignetting corrections, etc.). The days of lenses just being collections of mechanical cams for moving glass elements back and forth disappeared a great many years ago.
What is special about this? Does it cost $20? Is it a cheap smart phone (why do they call it a hybrid phone?) targetting India (mentioning of cricket)?
Apparently some other HMD devices (HMD 105, HMD 110) use "RTOS". Most likely their proprietary feature phone OS, don't expect it will provide an option for user-installable apps.
And it is indeed smaller than most smartphones. Apple never made a small smartphone, presumably because they need the big screen for their vending-machine-in-your-pocket to sell more content.
Apple struggles to sell budget models of their phones, everyone wants at least the standard version. Why would they try to sell an even tinier phone than the SE? No one will buy it. The Apple Watch is a tiny device with its own SIM but that's not a phone, it's a smartwatch so its really an accessory to your phone.
I mean, depending on what you mean by "small smartphone", the early models definitely count (3.5"-4" diagonal). They were huge screens for their time, but nowadays everything's a phablet so they look tiny by comparison.
Conversely, I am counting 6 persons (7 when including myself) in my direct close circle that do not upgrade because there is no Mini on the Apple lineup.
I'm not counting people that did upgrade but are spiteful of the forced size increase.
I'd have got one myself but iOS doesn't work for me.. I have several things I need on a mobile phone that are not available on iOS.
For me a phone is really an outside the house thing only. I don't use it at home to poke around on the internet etc, like most people do these days. I still have a real computer with a massive screen and keyboard. So a mini size is great for me.
On Android there's the ones from Unihertz but they take the "small" factor a little bit too far, and also their software support is absolutely terrible. And people often mention the zenPhone, I'm not sure why because it was never smaller than the Samsung S-series. It wasn't really a small phone anyway.
reply