Kinematic Digit: Did Hasselblad hire Kodak's management team?
More likely they formed a joint venture with IKEA; another sweedish manufacturer...
Looks like a perfect design for a .... decorative cigarette lighter ;)
Does it come with a lens cover? ;)
I think I have DPRAS - DPR Adddiction Syndrome; come to site waaaay more often than necessary.
Truelight: A generation of kids are growing up who will have no baby albums, no printed photos, and will be lucky if they even have any pictures at all to look back on because their parents only took smartphone photos and uploaded them to Facebook. In 20 years (probably less) they will be gone forever. Even shoul their parents have been smart enough to save the images to some storage medium, they will be poor, low resolution, and unsuitable for any serious use. How sad!
This is true for every camera, not just smartphones. When screen resolution will hit 100MP+, every photo from today will look poor and low rez (even if it was taken with D800).
VadymA: Nowadays the price should be no more than $1.99/month with occasional promo offers of $0.99 and a free monthly trial.
Scrup: I would love working for peanuts if I get millions of peanuts a month. Don't you think that at $1.99/month they might get ten times bigger customer base? I think it's quite possible.GrayBal: I am no saying the entire CS should be 1.99/month; but maybe this should be a starting point with the ability to buy adds-on for extra. Maybe that's what they will do eventually; which only proves my point.
Nowadays the price should be no more than $1.99/month with occasional promo offers of $0.99 and a free monthly trial.
This thing looks more like it was made by IKEA than Hasselblad.
Amazing! Would be even more cool if they add it to Google glasses or something; then one could change viewing ange by simply turning his/her head. That would be one sweet ride; at high speed might feel better than a rollercoaster.
This twisted cheerleading of smart phones is really annoying. The only things that made this photo worthy NYT's front page were the Subject and the Skills and Status of a Photographer.
Sure the technology is making it easier for the masses to sing without voice, play music without knowing notes, make pictures without understanding light and composition. But without true skills and talent the outcome will always look comical, grotesque, amateurish, cheap, fake, 3rd grade-ish, etc, etc.
That's why I find such articles really annoying. They give too much credit to technology without any analysis of real factors of success of certain photographs.
Yes!!! I think this will be a cool birthday present for my 7 year old daughter this year.
Shouldn't the title really be " Another professional photographer joined Apple marketing team"?
VadymA: Ok, some snob eventually discovered something that millions of ordinary people do everyday, that is taking good pictures with a cellphone. How is that a big news?
I still think he is a little bit a snob. Compact p&s cameras with identical specs existed for almost a decade now. But they weren't inspirational enough for him. Yet, I've seen thousands of brilliant photos taken by those uninspiring cameras. And now, all of the sudden, he is the big news like he is a pioneer who made a great discovery or something. I just don't think he deserved a credit for it, that's it. I certainly respect him as a photographer, just don't like the tone of some superiority in this article and wanted to point that what he discovered is rather old news for many of us ordinary folks.
Ok, some snob eventually discovered something that millions of ordinary people do everyday, that is taking good pictures with a cellphone. How is that a big news?
For "artistic" photography, which I do purely as a hobby, I resorted to my phone quite some time ago and didn't want anything more ever since.
But for a family archive I still prefer my D300 as I find phones are not very good in most situations except for some static scenes on a bright sunny day. Things like indoor light, large distance, fast speed, video, and yes sometimes creamy bokeh still require a better tool than a cell phone IMO.
Is this Sigma marketing idea to boost their sales? In order to get DPM system one would need to purchase three lenses, three bodies, three sensors, three batteries, not to mention accessories like three fast memory cards, three grips, etc, etc. All for over $3,000. And in addition you would need something else for sports and low light photography (maybe there will be DPM4 and DPM5 for that). And with every new model you would have to start from scratch all over again. Interchangeable lens approach sounds much more economical from consumer stand point IMO.
Interesting, but I think the true "companion" to a smartphone would be a module that snaps directly on the body of a smartphone and uses the smartphone screen as a camera display and special apps for direct image processing.
DPR, please change the title to "The Most Interesting Camera of 2012", because this is what this poll is really about. I don't have any of the listed cameras but I voted OM-D because to me it was rather a head turned in 2012 and I think it deserved its place fair and square. Is it the Best Camera out there? Probably not. But we are just DPR Readers, not the camera experts. This is Our poll, Our opinion, Our fun way to pick "The Camera of 2012". Those who believe otherwise and come here with angry comments only make fools of themselves.
The description is quite misleading as in reality you can only shift the background by a couple of millimetres; so it's not very useful at all. And with the focus shift, is there any way to see everything in focus on the picture? I find the out-of-focus area on Lytro samples rather flat and unpleasing (no fall off at all) and noticed that I would rather prefer everything in focus, especially on their macro shots. I could not find how to do that, so another disappointment.
In general, they might be just slightly ahead of time with this invention. I am guessing this technology could be much more suitable for 3D screens...
Mobile site and no App? That's not how Steve Jobs would launch it...