Anastasiadis Lazaros Thessaloniki Wedding: I know most people here will dissagree but this kind of technology in my opinion is killing photography as an art and as a profession. There will be no pro photographers soon because everybody will be able to be an artist without really knowing much about art or photographic techiques. You will be able to achieve a near pro level outcome from your camera so 99% of people will like it sounds nice in the first place but in the future this will turn against humanity and a CPU will be programmed to mimic art while people will get dumb and lazy. Lazy to learn lazy to study photography, CPU will do everything for you even crop and synthesis a CPU can find the "best" and "weird" "low" angles based on the best algorythms. Humanity is on the path to lazyness and art is dying day by day. Mass produced art will never be appreceated and this is bad for humanity in the long run. What do you think about it?
Like whining that photography killed portrait paintings. Or the paper industry killed cave graffiti. "Paper might sound comfortable, but in the future this will turn against humanity and painters will sit still insead of walking around the cave to paint and people will get dumb and lazy"
rhurani: Sony san! for me please the same camera without EVF, without tilting of the LCD, without the filter, but with a built-in flash, a 24MP-only FF for 700$. Deal?
You'd better hope in Santa
fleetwoodjazz: If the lens is excellent then I'll buy in a heartbeat. My current set up is Mamiya RB67 and it is too cumbersome. Fujifilm instax cameras are portable but the optics quality isn't great.
Trust me, you can! I've taken Polaroids with both those big folding box cameras with plastic lens and sonar auto-focus glass lens, you can tell a first sight which is which.
Neez: I'd rather use a real camera, and just carry a portable dye sub printer.
I've hade Instax pics pinned auround my house for about 3 years, no noticeable fading yet. It stands better than Polaroid's taken at the same time (but of curse Pola ones where long expired even if cold stored)
cgarrard: Lets hear the price. I'm interested.
200 listed on Lomo's site... two times Fuji owns Wide. But Fuji one is UGLY! So if lens don't sucks, I think it's worth it.
JackM: Image 9: look at the size of that thing!!
still not bigger than Fuji Instax Wide I suppose
Zvonimir Tosic: It would require a power of a supercomputer to run even 4 lenses. Where all the data would be stored too? I had once drawn and planned a similar idea, but it had three lenses only, wide, normal and semi-tele, each had it's own focusing point fed by the data from the widest lens. Each lens could be used separately, or in concert with others. But when the computing power had to be calculated to make the thing work seamlessly, and still remain compact, it was enormous. It is much easier to create just one great lens, insert one great sensor with enough MPs, keep the temperature down of the camera, save on power, and do trimming as needed from the wide lens. Like the Leica Q.With an array of tiny lenses there is no DoF control, no aperture control, no shutter control for each, all is just "snapshot photography" which is no fun at all.
Moore's Law will prove you wrong. Maybe tecnology is not ready today and this camera will fail, but the concept is well-proven and a better one will come soon.And photography is not just "your" photography.
GodSpeaks: Rule #1: NEVER buy version 1.0 of anything. At $1700 a pop, that seems like a very good rule to obey.
When it goes for well under $500, I will think about it.
Rule 2: I cannot affoard a 1.7k camera, but if it works, I'll be happy to buy it when it falls under 500$
brycesteiner: Something like this could be very interesting if it gave a way to make an app that could control the camera. One such would be to be able to choose the focus after the picture. Or widen the field of view.
Well this is mostly the point of this camera...
technocamper: Pics are too small, and not square.
Wife use that, but is just... HUGE!
Yes, this is the main problem. Yet, larger and square photos actually costs 3x, so I pretty much only use Instax now...
Martian Keyboard: For all street photographers, this is an excellent way to breakthe ice with certain subjects. The Instax or this Polaroid Snapcam gives your subject a reward for a pose or inconvenience,or it just helps you make friends.
You can take a shot, then give a print to the subject(s).- It's being polite.The doors can open for more shots with your real camera.The subject is grateful, and you are happy too. So muchfun.
The Snap camera is a good idea, probably borrowed fromInstax success. - The Snap can be a useful photographers tool.
Did the same at my daughter birthday in July: I set a mermaid cutout to take pictures of the kids, parents loves this kind of things but it's really hard to make a child stop play with their friends to take a snap. So just took 2 pics, one with my digital and one with an Instax to be handed to the kids, you should have seen how happy they where to line up for the shot!
Laagwater: "We're slightly concerned that both these features rely on the use of Panasonic's own lenses, though. Much of the appeal of the Micro Four Thirds system would appear to be in the ability to choose lenses from more than one manufacturer, and this is undermined if one company starts building up walls around its part of the garden."
Hope the family will stay together...
Only Panasonic lenses have in-lens stabilization, so this could'n apply to Oly ones.
timo: Shame about the size, although I understand the reasons, and it's probably a worthwhile trade-off. I'll probably get one, but I'll keep the GX7, which works very well, for its compactness and lightness. I know that in marketing terms one is probably replacing the other. In reality I think one could consider them complementary.
More than hand size, I think is matter of how you use your camera... if you shoot all day long a beefier hand grip is certainly more comfortable, while a casual shooter will appreciate having less size and weight to carry around.
maxnimo: Duh! - Just cover the camera body with solar cells so it perpetually trickle-charges a battery or capacitor.
Even if the subject is illuminated, only the light reflected in camera lens direction would power it. It is matter of surface, so if you have, say, a 35mm sensor with an F2 lens, it will only collect the same energy a 2x2cm cell in front of the camera would.
D1N0: Did they 3-dprint that body? Those lenses don't seem to have enough angle of view to create a 360 dome (like the Ricoh Theta).
a 120 mm horizontal coverage is about a 20mm (FF equivalent) lens. But for the software to melt borders, some overlap is due.
In the Kickstarter page, there is no mention of lenses, electronics, sensor sizes, or software. Yet they promise to "finalize design and hardware" for... december? But they also say: "We have been working hard for the last few months preparing for our campaign". So, here is what this project is all about: marketing. There is no real product, just a vague idea and a 3d-printed empty toy. I just hope for the bakers this is not an intended scam, and the "team" will reject the founding explaining it was only a marketing stunt. This, or those people are totally clueless about what developing such a camera means .
I place my bet on 4 days before Kickstarter removes this project for being an obvious scam.
Haim Hadar: I'm going to follow this closely. If this is successful then anything will be, like getting people to pledge hundreds of thousands for an edible camera or something.
I'd fund and edible camera! For electronics with a short lifecycle and waste disposal problems, makes perfect sense.
Learned a lot from comments today:-Pro Photographer don't use wide angles-Pro Photographer don't use less than full frame-M43 is dead-People misses non micro 4/3 for some reason-You don't F4 if you can F2. NEVER
Everlast66: I think it is laughable to call anything associated with the M4/3 system "PRO"!!
Surely there would be one or two enthusiasts, but no normal professional will rely on a M4/3 sensor for their professional work.
Everybody knows PRO photographers only use large format film cameras with film plates the size of a baby's blanket. Digital is for sissies!