How can such a thin lens assembly support a 1-inch sensor? I just don't believe it - it seems to defy physics.
Now if that lens can telescope out at least 16 inches it would look truly impressive.
Well, if you resize these images down to about 1000 x 800 they look almost excellent.
At this rate we might all live long enough to actually see a 24 to 2400 mm superzoom. Now that would be super-duper exciting and groovy.
martindpr: Great quality, though great pictures are not made by great cameras, but by great photographers. The DR is good enough to very good, the resolution is way more then you need, noise levels and sharpness are excellent, but there's one thought that comes to my mind: Why read Dostoevsky, when you can watch a movie, say Django Unchained? I don't remember any of Dostoevsky's points, but I well remember Django's. Epic IQ is a purpose of its own, but there isn't any essence to it, and the essence of photography is the message which the photo carries.
"... and wasting lot of LR time and a lot of HD space..."
If I still used my first HD, just four photos would fill it up. Lucky for me HD capacity has increased 20 thousand fold since then. I sure hope you're not still using your original HD.
"Maxnemo, which moments of history have you been freezing?"
I freeze and preserve all kinds of history, from family stuff to life of strangers, from nature to civilization, and the more detail I capture the better. That's what photography is to me, and if I want art, I'll get out my canvas, paint and brushes.
No need to explain anything. I have been freezing moments of history onto photographs before your grandmother was born, and I know what I need and desire.If humanity didn't strive for something better we'd all still have washboards, horse carts, wood cooking stoves and pinhole cameras.
It still boggles my mind how sharp this lens is. Just amazing.
"Btw, why 50MP is not enough for you? "
I shoot a lot of landscapes and in my landscapes I like to see every tiny leaf and grass blade, and rabbit, and bird, and the fur on a mouse - therefore I could use 500 MP, but 5GP would be even better.Hope that answers your question.
"the resolution is way more then you need"
Were you that guy that once said 4 MBytes of ram was more than anyone will need?
And by the way, to correct you, I need way, way more resolution than this camera.
maxnimo: I have always eliminated this problem by placing the lens right up to the glass.
"what if you can't put your camera on the glass but still would like to take the picture?".
Then wear a black hooded cape and have someone hold a black cloth behind you, and turn off all the lights, and paint your silver camera black.
My 2 cents: If the working class keeps getting squeezed and pushed into poverty, prostitution will be the least thing we'll all be concerned about.
I have always eliminated this problem by placing the lens right up to the glass.
This sort of device could someday become a crime deterrent. As soon as you leave your home it records everything near and around you - like a robotic eyewitness.
Any chance Olympus will offer a super-limited edition made of yellow pine? I love yellow pine.
maxnimo: From what I can tell this Instagram is basically a site where you can dump your photos, and it only works with iPhone and Android phones. Is that about right? ... or am I missing something?
Oh. I'm very serious. And I don't shoot photos with my phone either. And I still don't know why serious photographers would use this site at all.
maxnimo: What's interesting is that this moon photo looks much worse overall than the moon photo I took 11 years ago with a 70-300 zoom on an ancient DSLR. Very interesting indeed.
Yes, moon shots can easily be taken with ISO 200 or less. Even my moon shot taken with the Panasonic FZ10 was better looking!
I also found that a moon shot is a very quick, simple and reliable way to test the overall quality of a telephoto camera system.
From what I can tell this Instagram is basically a site where you can dump your photos, and it only works with iPhone and Android phones. Is that about right? ... or am I missing something?
What's interesting is that this moon photo looks much worse overall than the moon photo I took 11 years ago with a 70-300 zoom on an ancient DSLR. Very interesting indeed.
I bet a lot of consumers will be flocking to this camera like children to candy, but I won't be one of them.