Canon and their soft focus 135mm IMHO is a much better choice, lower cost, auto focus... and a switch that allow you to switch it off when you need to.
Lomo is basically using all the little faults that you used to scream and shout at Canon/Nikon/Pentax/etc, amplify them a thousand times, and call that style.
Oh, I just got a SONY APS-C 10-18mm lens on my A7, and I get a bit of dark corners... does that make my photo more stylish now?
zycamaniac: When they couldn't produce an amazing looking sample shot, I'd say this most likely is going to be a dud... Just like a lot of the older Live-MOS Olympic cameras' sample shot, showing significant shadow noise at 200ISO...
This one have sample shot that showed barely any detail, the image looked barely in focus...
When they introduced their first prototype as that MIT wonder camera, I'm interested, but the resolution is too low...
When they introduced their first production camera, I'm interested, but as before, the resolution is too low. The styling they are so proud of is looking a lot more like security camera than anything else, and the software, well, it was a MacOS only affair, and I don't like Apple... So that's a no go even if all other criteria fit my need.
Now this monstrosity is here, I'd say it is a no go again, the spec too low, the price too high...
However, I do encourage everyone with money burning a hole in their pocket get one, or even more than one. That's how they can kept development going, and how I'll be able to get a camera that will work for me in 10 years time... The concept is good, the execution and tech need some work, and I encourage everyone to fund further effort, I'll be back for the fruit of the effort in 10 years. :)
When they couldn't produce an amazing looking sample shot, I'd say this most likely is going to be a dud... Just like a lot of the older Live-MOS Olympic cameras' sample shot, showing significant shadow noise at 200ISO...
So this is like Maserati certifying a car engine back on the 80's, when they can't build a car worth a damn...
Not to be picky, but 2000 is the last year of 20th century...
Quite a self contradictory comparison table, either their math has gone haywire, or they are trying to spin this up to be something much bigger than it actually is.
How could a beyer pattern with half of the green pixel replaced have worse spatial color artifacts than ones with reference sample or ones with ALL the green pixel replaced.
This is just absurd...
rfsIII: What they're not telling you is that "organic" is just another word for "carbon-based life form." Bottom line: this sensor is alive; it's a creature that was either discovered or genetically engineered to live inside your camera and translate photons into images (remember the bird that lived inside Fred Flintstone's camera and chiseled pictures onto stone tablets? Same principle, different species). Nobody tell PETA or they'll put the kibosh on the whole thing.
Monster slime will ooze out of your camera if you do not regularly worship it. DO NOT WIPE SENSOR WITH HOLY WATER!!!
skimble: wait you get the same camera from Panasonic for 1500 bucks
Did they mean "Originally designed" then it got out of hand fast, then they have to phone Panasonic or some other electronic giants to put the rest together and make sure the electronics part work?
Greg Gebhardt: I love Leica but not going to do a f3.5 to 6.4 lens at this price.
Gimme that camera, I'd be happy as pie, do remember to pack the receipt with it, I'll be taking it back for return. I will be able to use the cash to buy something more useful.
starwolfy: The more I read the comments and the negativity, the more I want to buy this camera...
Cruise it is, don't mind me having my dinner in one of the lifeboats...
KHemmelman: I don't do street photography because I don't want the hassle of dealing with complete strangers who are most likely going to be suspicious of me and not want to sign a model release. I suspect this guy is the same way, so he took the easy way out and does it secretly without permission or approval. Basically a roving peeping-tom. I have to say, what he is doing is a real "cheap shot". (no pun intended)
Well said. Legal laws define the absolutely lowest standard, they define guilty or not. You can be an absolute anus and still be legal.
But it is nice to see a lot of people prefer to stay out of the anushole category by their own free will, instead of under legal threats.
Why, because you've been screamed at for taking photos without asking?
Or did you tried to blind them first with a few well aimed studio strobes?
franco montana: google street view does the same
No, Google blur out a lot of stuff, and they do not blind you with massive strobes.
Google would have lost quite a few streetview cars if they tried to add those stupid strobes on it.
zycamaniac: Yeah, zap people in the street for your own gain and call it art.
I can see that there will soon be a newspaper headline talking about an obnoxious camera car guy getting shot, with car set aflame via Molotov Cocktail.
I suppose those gangbangers might want to reuse it for their next crime...
ryansholl: In this day and age, I'm not certain that being intentionally flashed by high-powered strobes couldn't be passed as assault.
Sue him for irreparable retina, emotional and psychological damage.
calijente: Step 2: Bigger lights on a motorcycle, taking pictures from the sidewalk.
Step 3: Even bigger lights on a Segway, taking pictures in a shopping mall while being chased by security (also on Segways). Now THAT would impress me!
I'd love to see the Segway chase...
And if the shot is flattering with polite request, I think a lot of people would be glad to give the permission.
If not, it's their face, it's their body, who are we to force them to be in our pictures?
Yeah, zap people in the street for your own gain and call it art.