A hardware mute button is desperately needed.
R Thornton: One more product nobody called for. Like the shape though. Now, Nikon, put something spectacular in it for the price already!
Waterproof cameras are one of the few differentiators left for a traditional camera over a smartphone.
Smartphones have cannibalized the digital camera market, so being able to use it in harsh environments / underwater is a major differentiator.
I hope it's more waterproof than the AW110 ... AW110 has horrible reviews of it leaking like a siv.
RogerCooke: All well and good, but I miss the LX7. I am a very satisfied user, and its cratering price should have earned it a spot in the line-up
Yes and considering it is on sale at B&H for $299.99... The LX7 is a HOT deal right now.
Where is the Lumix DMC-LX7?
OpticsEngineer: I had my company buy a Lytro to evaluate for metrology uses. So I have used one quite a bit. For the first two months I agreed with all the comments about too low a resolution, just a toy. But then I had a strange experience. After reviewing my test shots, I went to the Lytro website and played with varying the focus on some of the winning photos in their contest. That was fun. I spent about an hour on that. Then I came over to Dpreview and looked at normal photos I knew were well composed and good. But somehow, all of a sudden, they all seemed dull. Flat. Lifeless. All you could do was look at them.
It is quite challenge to create a photograph where you plan ways the user can interact with it. It opens up entirely new ways to be creative.
On the technical side, I can share that when you zoom in, the range of refocusability becomes much less. The Lytro is best used zoomed out. Then you have about 9 diopters range of refocusability within a single photo.
Nice way of getting a free toy.
RX100 is a good camera, but with no hotshoe ... I'm actually leaning towards the LX7. Also, doesn't the LX7 have a faster lens?
I think they forgot to hire a designer, this camera is pretty ugly.
GMack: An 82mm filter is going to mean this thing is huge! Don't know if I'm willing to buy another round of B+W filters for an 82mm lens when most of the Nikkor f/2.8 lenses are 77mm filter sizes. Have to wait for the IQ tests to show too.
However, another nice thing going for it is that Tamron USA has a 6 year warranty on their lenses over the 5 year Nikon USA versions. Good luck with the gray market on either as neither will get fixed by the US importer now under warranty. Sadly, Canon lenses are only one year still which is screwy on some $10,000 lens of theirs. Not much faith in them it appears. I would expect more out of Canon by now.
Still need ND filters, UV filter, and Polarizing filter. A hundred bucks or two if you need to buy everything.
genxseven: $1299 seems expensive. Even with image stabilization, I'd rather buy a Canon 24-70 for basically the same price.
IS adds weight and cost to the lens; Canon probably did not add it due to those factors.
Tamron on the other hand needed something to one-up Canon (otherwise why buy Tamron)? Therefore they included IS.
shakabra: One thing that I never ever understand in these camera reviews.....is that no one ever talks about PRINTING. I mean, you don't even need more than a 1 megapixel camera if all you do is post photos on the internet. All this tech talk and stupid arguing... and not one mention of the final output: THE PHOTOGRAPH!!! 10 years ago, no one ever argued about which film or chemicals were superior. Now look at you. You are all tech geeks yet you have all lost sight of what photography is all about. the D800 has 36 megapixels and not one mention of what the prints look like.
Seems like printing is still one of the weak areas of digital photography, at least printing in the home. I have yet to find a reasonable inkjet that won't clog on me after a year or two of service.
Maybe it has to do with the poor quality printers Canon seems to dump on the market year after year? If Canon made more reliable inkjets, perhaps people would equate their cameras with quality as well?
Would expect more for 29.99... Maybe 9.99 w/ free ship?
5inchfloppy: Finally a camera that lets me concentrate on framing without worrying about focus. Isn't that what photography is about? Taking pictures of what you see (frame) so that you can show others what you see?
Haters gonna hate, and this is a great breakthrough (not the plenoptic tech, but the fact that they make this tech easily available).
This will indeed change photography as we know it. I want in!
Eriq, I know the current implementation is flawed, I'm just saying the ability to adjust focus AFTER the fact is a huge boom for photographers. Setting DOF after taking a shot seems like a a good progression for photography... Not everything needs to be the way it is now to be considered photography.
Cy Cheze, no some cameras have horrible focusing systems... Lytro would save a lot of badly focused images! :-)
roblarosa: I like the tech, I don't like the implementation or the form factor.-No swappable battery-No swappable memory- LCD too small- Not pocketable (at least in a pants or shirt pocket)- Square format only!- Proprietary software needed, so toss your existing workflow out the door.- The requirement to share photos on their site too limiting.- From the photos I've seen, you can't really call any of them sharp.
I think the tech definitely be around in the future, but this form factor and implementation have a lot to be desired. It seems more like a gimmick than a serious product.
My thoughts exactly... maybe they're aiming for the grass roots first? The point and shooter before moving into higher end markets?
Strange camera shape, no user replaceable battery / memory, no local, offline processing, I think this first batch of Lytro cameras maybe a niche product? Cool technology, but sounds like the execution maybe wrong?