I don't reply to private messages.
MDwebpro: Product sales is all about marketing and advertising.
The intended point of this exercise is not "swaying other pros," but to send a message to serious amateurs: "These are the kind of shots that are possible with this camera. Buy one and you, too, might produce photos like these."
I suspect a TV commercial and magazine ad campaign featuring Dean is also in the works.
It's all about people on DPR forums who bought G5, so they might have some bragging rights, otherwise they feel bad about OM-D urinating on G5 on every occasion marking its territory :-)
If that is true, and this adapter supports EF functionality well, it just made Canon EF-M system irrelevant. Who needs an overpriced P&S Canon body when much better choices like m4/3 and NEX are available.
JohnFredC: The description of the touch screen UI is particularly encouraging. It's about time the camera guys took a hint from the smart phone guys, don't you think?
Enthusiasts' cameras of the future will have form factors and behaviors similar to small touchscreen tablets (5"-7") but with lens mounts like the EF-M.
The EOS M is Canon's big step in that direction (already taken by Sony et al), and at first glance a positive one...
...but I'll wait for the EVF and tilt-screen model.
After using two cameras (Panasonic, Sony) with touch screen I am a firm believer in separate mechanical buttons and dials. Touch screen is good for one thing only -- choosing a focus point, - mechanical controls are better for everything else.
And the question is who's gonna buy this Canon if far better APS-C mirrorless are available for less (Sony, Samsung)? -- Probably people with EF lenses, but why do they need a simplistic camera with an expensive crutch (adapter) to attach those big lenses, which won't even work well, if cheaper and better DSLRs already work with them a lot better?
Canon is afraid to miss the mirrorless camera boat on one hand, on the other hand they don't dare to create a competitor to their low end DSLR cash cow. Thus a P&S camera with a high sticker price -- planned failure?There is a moment in every successful company history when they have to kill their cash cow and risk doing something new or face inevitable technological death. The longer Canikons keep defending their DSLR market the more difficult it will be for them to compete in the mirrorless future.
I wish Instagram came up with only one filter - a black filter, which makes pictures completely black. That would make all those phone pictures look a lot better.
I wouldn't say it's destroying Photography, the latter requires good taste. Instagram is not for creative people, it's for masses of people with cameras who can't distinguish a dung from a Turkish Delight. Uglification is easy and for many people it's a synonym for creativity, but it's most definitely not.
samhain: Who's to say a certain look or style to photography(or art) is detrimental or wrong? Apperantly Kate..
How about art galleries, they are exactly in a business of separating good pictures from dung ... so despite of different tastes people might have, it's not completely arbitrary.
samhain: I'm guessing Kate doesn't like converting digital photos to b/w either? Because that would be faux b/w...
And she would have been right, because 99.9(9)% of user pictures posted on DPR which were converted to B/W look worse than the originals, and the only reasons people doing that 1) lack of taste; 2) herd mentality
jdrx2012: After consuming many of the messages here I can take comfort in the fact that the detractors of Instagram and all things that are claimed to "debase real photography" comprise only a small segment of the imaging taking forum participants who weighed in on the matter.
Kudos to Dan Wagner who posed a pretty good case for continuance of old school photography. If you haven't seen his work you should go to link he provides, good stuff. Dan is a real photographer for sure; others are evolving their craft, or lack thereof, by adding layers of effects on their image captures.
Sure, a million flies can't be wrong :-)
Nate21: Item would work well with better marketing the lytro concept should work well for security systems and ac drones. Only time will tell.
Yes, they should release half-litra for $200 and quarter-litra $100 for all those security blurry cams. Oh, wait, it looks like the existing low res cams have almost infinite DOF and cost less than quarter-litra. Tough!
solarsky: Sigma should buy out Lytro and team them up with Foveon for the development of Sigma's sensor- & camera technology. Perhaps they'll both get their respective breakthroughs that way... defenitely up for a few milestones though ;-)
That's right, Sigma has a good track record of burrying non-viable ideas.
tinternaut: This is perfectly normal for a tech company. Geek starts up tech company, investors invest in tech company and investors oust geek for someone with an MBA. Nothing to see here.
It doesn't work that way. Geeks with pitching skills find investors with no clue. The latter seek the opinions of the "experts" with experience. As it often happens the "experts" miss something important or investors neglect their advice and take too large a risk. Somebody with bad judgement but a lot of power can override any technical decisions. The result is a company with no chances to succeed. It's rare for investors to remove the founder, they either set the CEO from the beginning, or let the founder run the company. I don't think the Ng failed the company, it's the product idea that failed the company. What happened now means that the company is probably has less than a year to live, after which investors will sell the assets and take the losses.
chadley_chad: There were rumours Steve Jobs was keen to get involved. I think this brand needs someone like Apple to make it succeed. Anyone else will just f**k it up (IMO) - only Apple have the vision and capability to take this thing and create the defining camera ... as they did with the iPod, iMac, iPad etc. As much as you might hate Apple, you have to admit, they know how to make a product! Lets hope soon they turn their hand to the camera market (and what better start than Lytro!)
NB if the Lytro was half the price I'd buy one despite the limitations ... you know us camera buffs, we'll try most new photographic technologies just for the hell of it!
Even with the help of Apple hype machine this stupid thing would never fly.
forpetessake: Despite the belief that Lytro sensor captures everything in focus, it captures practically nothing in focus. Anybody who used manual focusing knows that to achieve critical focus one has to be precise within millimeters from the target, or microns from the sensor. With crude system of microlenses it would be impossible to have anything useful in focus only a handful of focal planes. What saves the camera is that its resolution is so low that the lack of focus isn't noticed. That means that even if the camera used gigapixel sensor, it would still had to keep resolution low and instead increase the number of focal planes or face the lack of focus practically everywhere. This idea cannot become practical no matter what.
Nope, everything is correct, and that article only confirms it. People expect around 5 micron circle of confusion in their APS-C cameras for what is in focus, and with that nothing ever can be made in focus by litra camera. Low resolution toy is what they got and that's what it will always be.
Despite the belief that Lytro sensor captures everything in focus, it captures practically nothing in focus. Anybody who used manual focusing knows that to achieve critical focus one has to be precise within millimeters from the target, or microns from the sensor. With crude system of microlenses it would be impossible to have anything useful in focus only a handful of focal planes. What saves the camera is that its resolution is so low that the lack of focus isn't noticed. That means that even if the camera used gigapixel sensor, it would still had to keep resolution low and instead increase the number of focal planes or face the lack of focus practically everywhere. This idea cannot become practical no matter what.
Looks like investors are getting nervous. I think their fears are justified, the ROI with this company might end up be negative. On the other hand they deserve what they got, who in his sober mind would invest in a $400 toy camera idea with no perspectives of making it significantly cheaper or better?
This is not the first time Fujifilm releases a new intriguing camera with some unique features, which still suffers from serious problems, like those mentioned in the review. It's kinda almost there, but no sigar.
DPR aliasing explaination is incomplete/incorrect. It's true that film didn't create moire patterns due to random distribution of silver halide particles. But Fujiflm design is not random, it has a spatial pattern 6 times lower than Bayer. While Bayer sensor has aliasing above Nyquist, the Fujifilm sensor has aliasing at frequencies 6 times lower and more harmonics after that. And there is no way to suppress that with AA filter, neither the camera has one. That is a disadvantage, because lower spacial frequencies are more visible and more likely to occur. But this pattern also means the amplitude of moire is much lower, so the at the end it's not clear how much this pattern is an improvement. I think DPR or others should actually test moire patterns on different targets and compare it with Bayer.
Yet another hype oriented product. Will people pay that much money for it? As P.T.Barnum put it: "There's a sucker born every minute"