Michael MacGillivray: This article and the comments that follow are why today’s quality assurance is less than stellar. In the 1970’s, I was in my 20’s and purchased a number of different cameras. They were built like tanks and none of them were sent in for repairs. We didn’t have a “… hope I get a good copy” mentality, or a wait for firmware to correct design flaws. That was taken care of by camera companies BEFORE they shipped product.
It’s time to put the fan boy mentality in the trash when it comes to consumer electronics. Nikon has had a number of defective releases and should hardly be cheered for removing the D750 from shelves. Of course, this issue isn’t unique to Nikon, though they seem to have moved to the head of the ‘issues’ pack. Articles like this -- that put a “what’s the big deal?” handle on the thing, should be called on it. I appreciate the fact that DP Review, no doubt, was embarrassed by their initial rating after another botched launch.
Yes. The complexity of the device is not a valid excuse. They should be in control of complexity, otherwise they should hold back and stick to the tested and tried technology.The cameras of the 70ies, which were (I read) "built like tanks" were themselves greatly more complex than what came before. Yet they most probably exhibited less, not more quality problems then what came before.I am, in general, tired and disgusted of botched products which look good on paper, then exhibit all kind of surprises. I would rather have something simpler which works as expected and is well thought, tested, reliable and solid. Yet most producers seem to be terrified (whether justifiably or not) that if they "stick to basics", then they will be quickly outsold, and we consumers end up paying the price for that.We are experiencing advances in performance, sensors and image quality, but stagnation or even regression in many other things such as build quality and ergonomics. How is that a good thing?
At this price it better be a great camera.Well I'm relieved to learn that you can at least get some really great features and performance (not just marketing stuff but really great) if you have enough money for it.
KZMike: This 'box' camera has/could have many applications that some posting here just don't get, though it must be cost effective to be in the mix ► astronomy, time lapse [surprising how few really good-quality set ups are out there], drones, nature photography. . . any thing where a 'static' camera can be utilized.
I think this cameras success or lack there of, will be determined by 3rd party apps or some software where some one with a basic understanding of PC work place programs could be able to 'program' this camera to do what is required by the 'project' along will some in puts that would allow external power-timer-sensor [motion/light], etc.
Give it a chance. . . its new and has tons of potential. . . hopefully there is some good support and interest from Oly and photo hackers to move this new concept forward.
These are all specialized applications. It is exciting. But clipping it on your smartphone is not one of the exciting applications, yet it seems that's what they're marking it for. Anyway, the more the merrier :)
Pixel Pooper: This is basically a camera with no grip and no display. Why so thick? It doesn't look like it even has a size advantage compared to a small M43 camera.
Might be a development box. Maybe they want to hide the final look from the public. It's not much more than a proof of concept, I guess.
joe6pack: Maybe it is just me. I didn't realize Olympus has made a pancake 14-42mm.
It seems to me many M43 cameras are not much larger, and certainly thinner, than this box. Including those with hotshoe, wi-fi too.
Olympus make a lot of pancakes but I don't like how they taste.
grasscatcher: This might help usher in an era of high-quality user-friendly security cameras. Even the "HD-quality" security cams I've seen look pretty horrible compared to modern smartphone video. Make this thing weatherproof (or at least run cool enough to stick inside a jar) for outdoor use, add a wired connection for power, add the option of Bluetooth Class 1 for 100m+ connections without need for wi-fi (but also leave in Bluetooth2wifi option, so you can check your high-quality security camera images at your house while you are on the road for business, using your smartphone)...
You will have to cage it to make sure nobody steals your $400 "security cam". Would that not be ironic.You'd also have to modify it for infrared night-vision. That would cost you another couple hundred bucks, or you can hope for them to offer an infrared-sensitive version.
dr.noise: I already have this with my Panasonic G6 and an Android smartphone. What's the big deal.
Really, the LCD screen is one of the cheapest components of the camera. This does not bring great price reduction, at the expense of much lost functionality (you can't really use that thing without a smartphone). So i'm not sure it is a big innovation compared to what we have now. I suspect it will be a flop, but I have to confess that it is one step closer to my utopic fully modular camera.PS: except maybe for special applications where such a system is needed.
Mike FL: So it is just another Sony's QX, but M43 lens. No?
@Tre Ridings , and which one would be the Ferrari?
It seems to have been released and is available for sale, finally. I am looking for a hands on review.
godwit: The Kodak Brownie 127 film camera from the 50's did just the same. In plan view the camera is elliptical (looked rather trendy in 1953!) and the film was supported at the back in the curved bakelite film guide. That allowed Kodak to use a cheap single-element plastic lens. They were very popular. I have one in my collection. It has only taken 60 years for this to come around again!Of course the ideal shape for the new sensor would be spherical, not cylindrical. That was tricky with roll film but possible with electronics?
@Richard the sensor itself needen't be curved, only the position of the photo cells. So it could maybe be made in a rectangular block of translucent silicone (if it that exists) ...
Adrian Harris: The real problem with curved sensors is that if anyone dares introduce them, their customers current lens line-up will be obsolete overnight. Which company would dare do that??? ...well Sony already have about 4 different lens systems, so what the heck, here we go for a 5th lens line-up!!!
Would Canon or Nikon dare do that? ...which is maybe why it hasn't been done before.
One more reason why it would be used for non-interchangable, fixed focal length cameras.
feraudy: I actually thought of this a year ago, but then I wondered if the curvature would not need to change according to the lens. So it might work very well in a compact camera with a fixed focal length lens. In any case technology always involves tradeoffs.Maybe Ricoh's idea of changing the sensor with the lens would be the rihgt thing here.I hope they cant patent the very idea of a curved sensor.
Thought about this months ago :) I didn't think about variable focal lenses, but then since we're into mimicking the human eye, we might as well skip that. Anyway with a very high res sensor and lens resolution, and also a big aperture - and this technology might make that possible, they is less need for variable focal length - you can just crop.Anyway I figured that what was holding back curved sensors was just the legacy inherited from film, which doesn't really lend itself to curving.Glad this is happening.
Lawrencew: Next step is to dynamically adjust the curvature in camera, so that it is optimised for the focal length chosen by the photographer.
If they can do in body stabilization by moving the sensor, and now build curved TVs where the curvature can be altered, then it wont be long before they can alter the curvature of the sensor in camera too...
(where's the Patent Office btw :-) )
I don't think so, but some curvature, even fixed, will make the lens design much simpler anyway.
Yes definitely "tricky" with film, and when digital cameras started to be produced they just took film camera bodies and replaced the film with the sensor, basically, that is why we don't have spherical sensors yet.
I think the real point of this camera, what makes it interesting is that it runs android and therefore could in theory offer more then one camera interface apps, including 3rd parties. Everyone seems to have missed that.Im not sure of how it is currently implemented and how feasable a custom camera app is, but its surely a step in the right direction and better than most cameras in that aspect.As for 3g/4g I can see that being interesting for professionals in journalism and such. I think the Facebook crowd, at least the majority of them, wont be in such huge hurry to upload their shots.So yeah its all bundled in a weird package, but pushes interesting technologies. Maybe we'll be seeing more of these technologies in the future, but in more coherent packages.
Are the travel photo samples above taken with a Fuji camera?
WalPhoto: The information is partially incorrect - you can NOT create "a general" profile for all lightening situations combining the ICC profiles! This is not "my opinion", this is the fact color correction works. The ICC includes a mathematical matrix transformation from one color space (the concrete colors, how they came) to another color space (how they should have come). So, let's say you light a scene with a strong blueish light, e.g. flash, say with a blueish filter, to have the example even better understandable. Now you create the ICC: it will transform all the blue-cast colors to be more yellowish. This will DESTROY any image when applied to a total different lightening, say yellowish (candle light)! And interpolating those 2 extremes cancels their original reason for creation. I was running an ICC profiling service a few years ago, so I understand it a bit. Peace, Andrej
Isnt that the purpose of wb?Lets say you calibrate your camera using the light of the flash. Cant you then just apply white balance corrections when shooting in a different light?
rgiddings: What WB do you use to shoot the Checker? Auto? Daylight for outdoors? I know most people are going to say it doesn’t matter in RAW, but that can’t be true. If I shoot the same scene twice in Daylight and Tungsten and white-balance in post (in ACR, for instance), I get similar looking images, but surely must be losing some info in the incorrectly set version. In B&W photography shooting through a yellow/red filter makes for darker skies. Does WB not affect what goes into a RAW file?
wb doesnt affect raw directly. But it can cause u to change exposure due to the preview, it also can affect the histogram. Maybe it can affect exposure, but i am speculating here.I shoot auto wb because i can use it as reference in post and i can also use it to quickly produce jpegs if needed.
Kodachrome200: I find this obsessing over exact color to be a bit odd. I will say i find alot of the adobe standard profiles un appealing they make peoples skin pinkish. But color does not need to be this exact a science. we never worried about this in the film days. You could compare four different film stocks and theyd all have widely different colors . perfection wasnt possible and we didnt seek it. We just wanted pleasing color. I actually like the uncalibrated color of the portrait image better than the calibrated
What obsession? Besides, I find lack of interest in accurate colors to be odd. What exactly is a camera and a photography? Isnt it supposed to capure a visual image of the scene? Cameras dont always achieve accurate colors. If they did we wouldnt need to discuss that topic. Many cameras tend to oversaturate colors. I prefer to do any image improvements myself.
Higuel: What a royal CRAP!!!To think i come to dpreview thinking about learning something about a camera (like for instance... let's say... Oh! a REVIEW!) or at least some (INTERESTING!) article about photography! and i almost lost 4minutes of my life watching this...I cannot help but feel a bit sorry for whoever thought that «the resulting video is surprisingly entertaining»?!?!Man, maybe you need to start thinking about better uses of your time, but FOR SURE YOU CAN start right now thinking better about better things to show on dpreview, last time i checked, it was (still) not just one more personal blog in the vast Internet!!
Yadda yadda I didn't even bother reading your second post I have better to do. The level of your rhethoric is going down with every post. If you keep posting you'll end up reduced to writing stuff like "Arrrr! Arrr!" so yeah it might be in everyone's best interest that you stop. Althought that would be more entertaining than watching a video of a dishwasher cycle, if it ever happens.You can go around ranting and caps-locking as much as you want; maybe I'll read your "#2" post when you bother using quotes when quoting me, for example.I hope you feel better after all you cathartic crapping in dpreview comments.