ProfHankD: Hmm. Sounds like a nice implementation of a computational multi-camera, with a lot of compute inside. Oh, and the MIT review says the mirrors in the folded optical paths move to keep cameras pointing at the target? Buried in the specs they say 4K video with zoom... that's a heck of a lot of processing to do in real time! The package is also very small -- not much space for battery and "guts"... so perhaps they're doing a lot of the processing in the camera modules themselves?
In sum, nothing really new, but one heck of a job of miniaturization if they can really pack everything (including processing) into that form factor. I didn't see any sample images posted nor any detailed specs, but they have some serious capital and maybe....
Aren't smartphones already capable of 4K? This is a dedicated package of about the same form factor running Android. So perhaps they took all the processing power of current top end smartphones and channelled it exclusively to image processing?
Looking forward to real world test samples of this, and to buying Mark III.
I wonder, if it works out esp for consumer / prosumer level imaging, whether we'll see a new race in number of compound eyes/cameras rather than megapixels.
Is there a physical limit to how many lenses can be used for this? Can it scale up?
memau: while some orthodoxy folks may feel disappointed, and yes it's not a full improvement over previous Foveon X3 sensor, it's still better than a mosaic sensor ( fujifilm's X-trans also included) , because it captured whole luminance details, but quarter color details, so it's basically like a yuv4:2:0 conversion(and so original Foveon X3 is 4:4:4), if you try compress a jpg both in 4:4:4 and 4:2:0, you'll find the difference is not that huge,
which one is 4:4:4 ??
Perhaps an image that would show the strength of 4:4:4: vs 4:2:0? Moire on textile, skin tones etc?
Mike7500: Is it worth the extra $150 to buy the II instead of the I?
I will be using it mainly for low light indoor and outdoor concerts.
Get the II so you can add a stereo mic. Really makes a difference for concerts.
Michael Z Houston: I really like the fact that the hotshoe allows me to attach the small Sony bounce flash to the camera when taking photographs of friends in unlighted spaces. I am pleased I traded up from the RX 100. Of all my cameras this is the one I use the most because I always have it with me.
Agree. This is a Gold camera for its class.
About time! Works like a charm for my RX-100. No more converting to DNG.
technic: lots of new products from Canon lately and mostly very, very incremental upgrades. Is the whole R&D department in winter sleep or are they making so much money that the beancounters think they can get away with warmed up versions of the cameras from a few years ago?
Or, they got completely blindsided by the competition and are scrambling to catch up (in the meantime, here are some minor distractions while we R&D something else!)
Sadly, an incremental update (mostly auxiliary functions and software?!) that doesn't come close to catching up with the RX-100 or even Fuji's natty new compact.
I'm a long-standing Canon fun, and hung on to my S95 for years (briefly flirted w the S100 and then returned it). Just switched to the RX-100 this past weekend. Looks like it'll take a while for Canon to catch up again.
(I do miss Canon's IS and manual mode tho.)
What I need to know is whether the supposedly improved low light performance actually pans out in real world use.
There aren't any samples, which worries me (surely they'd show it off if it were really an impressive buff over previous phones).
So much sharpening in the gallery images.... and where are the low light images?
(looks like I'll stick to my 4S and not sell/upgrade for the first time in 4 years)
panpen: I have a DP2 and it is as good as my M8 with 28mm Elmarit third version at iso 100 and 200. Anything above 400 is for black and white as color is completely lost. While the DP2 is an amazing camera that replaced my $4k M8 with a manual lens, I would never pay $1k for the Merill version. If iso 400 and 800 were good I would have given it a second thought. In the last two months Adorama had tons of DP1 and DP2 demos or E+ for less than $300. $1000 is a stretch even for a great camera like Sigma DP
Foveon sensors outresolve APS-C by quite a bit. This is a specialised piece of kit, for those who want unique and unmatched colour reproduction at DLSR resolution in a mid-sized compact body.
It's almost like comparing slide film to print film...
Been waiting for a high IQ, handy and affordable Foveon camera for ages. (Film-like digital capture ftw!)
Bumping it up to APC-S does it for me. I'm on the hunt for a unit of this.
It's still not clear how the 808 stacks up against compact cameras (although the comparison test looks decent vs the Canon S95)
At any rate, I think I've just found my answer to what spare phone to buy when I travel (and need a 2nd phone to roam with)
D1N0: too bad decent camera's dont run on iOs or Android (and no the iPhone is not a decent camera you morons!)
A decent camera is a well-utilised camera.
Luke Kaven: I'm having a hard time understanding how one can market a set of tools for "photojournalism" that surely renders all of your work unpublishable by journalistic standards.
Hipstamatic isn't Photoshop (half the tools of which are digital analogues of traditional darkroom post-processing techniques)
sean000: Interesting story to juxtapose with Kate Bevan's anti-Instagram rant. It's a wonderful photograph. But does the art filter make the photograph better or worse? I like the photo and I like the look and mood the filter creates. I would probably like the photo without the filter effect as well. Any time you use effects like these you run the risk of alienating some viewers who find it gimmicky, but you may also wow some viewers who think it is really cool. Either way the photograph needs to be a good one, and this one definitely is in my opinion.
But as Luke Kaven commented, I would think that most journalistic photo editors would reject this shot because of the filter. New York Times Magazine is of course a features publication, so it can get away with obviously manipulated images. For straight news reporting, the audience might wonder if the contents have been altered as well as the colors. Was that kit really there, or did the photographer add it?
hmmm... slapping a glass filter on one's lens might give a similar effect no?
szlevi: Apple's whole implementation sucks, big time. The iPhone 4S employs the same Sony EXMOR R sensor like my year-old Xperia arc yet my phone blows it out of the water...Old but representative: http://www.xperiablog.net/2011/10/16/camera-shootout-iphone-4s-versus-xperia-arc/
erm... isn't the Xperia the one on the right in your link (washed out colours on the pink flowers, serious purple haze on the fold-table)?
Win some, lose some from shot to shot, but it doesn't seem superior to the 4S by any means.
alfpang: Just tried on my 4S--Worth the price for night mode alone (true slow shutter up to 1 sec exposure).
The ability to take useable pics in a dark room w live preview was quite impressive, but it does chew up battery life (fair trade off for a serious functionality boost).
Lossless jpegs are about 10mb each. Haven't tried downloading the TIFFs
Apparently it's a bug - it is supposed to work w the iPad 3, and hard-installing the app via iTunes works. Makes sense since Nightcap works w the iPad.
645 Pro's creator is apparently working on a patch.
Just tried on my 4S--Worth the price for night mode alone (true slow shutter up to 1 sec exposure).
migus: It's still far from 'retina' (326dpi) but much improved display. I hoped for AMOLED w/ deeper black than the typical milky-gray IPS... Not convinced yet that i ever need an iPad, though one could use it for photos - as an expensive digital frame :-).
My main interest for such toys would be in maps/GPS and PDF papers/magazines... basically a hi-res reader. Again, i'd rather save my eyes w/ e-ink or a friendlier display (not backlit). Mitch
"Retina" is just a marketing label for "pixels invisible to the naked eye during normal use"