Lytro never really explained (and I am afraid they never really figured out) who is the target audience for their camera. Kids would use Lytro instead of cell phones? Amateur photographers? People who have no idea about photography?
I can't find any of the commercial group who would get anything more from Lytro than from the cellphones, cameras that already exist.
In fact the only group where I would understand this is some scientific microphotography where a millimeter makes difference in OOF image - but the Lytro is definitely not build for them.
I had seen plenty of technology that claims to solve problem that bothers nobody.
wakaba: So here we have a camera that is really bad at taking pictures and uploads your picture, denies ownership and only lets you see trough a browser window.
What will happen to your pictures in 5 years? Kodak went bust...Flash is getting phased out...Firefox will change...
Raw and JPEG win. For the price of a Litro a very decent SLR can be had.
No go unless your a noveltyseeker drone.
I don't think people will be desperately seeking lytro viewers in 5 years, the lytro will simply endup on the bottom drawer or in the box in basement with all the other fantastic products that gave us some fun for a brief time then became obsolete.
TotallyFred: I think that the 3D aspect of it is the most compelling aspect for now -- at least it can be grasped by many and has more immediate applications the public/viewers could want to use.
The effect seems limited however.
It would be interesting to understand more about the "shifting" capability. Is it really shifting or rotating or a shift/rotate ?
3D cameras don't need to have 65mm base for a 3D effect. In fact very few do as they have much wider lengths than human eye , they can go with less than 30mm. If you put a wide lenses each with distance of 65mm the result will be unbearable - too much of separation.
Maybe someone knows, why the buildings looks like demolishd and everything is broken up - is it by weather or was there a vandalism?
Gothmoth: is there a reason why you only report updates and new versions of some software and ignore others?
there are hundreds of HDR apps... yet you report only updates for some... but then ALL updates for these apps.
also i reported that there is a great new RAW converter: PHOTO NINJA.
yet nothing in the news about it.
and PHOTO NINJA is really a APP that should be mentioned in the news....
I think it is may be true that they get paid for publishing the "reviews".
Dynamic Photo HDR and HDR in Sony cameras. All I need.
Hugo808: I just had a go on one of these lovely looking things. Having seen some pics I was hoping for a replacement for my 90% of SLR work, but the autofocus! It's awful, really slow and hunts around all over the place before settling.
I tried the Panny GX1 for comparison and it focuses like lightning. I can only assume Canon has deliberately hamstrung this camera so that people still buy the SLRs. Big shame.
PAMS and an input dial would have been nice too but that would make all of Canon's APS-C cameras obsolete. We really can't have everything it seems.
Canon usually needs some time to fine tune anything. The slow focus is very sad, even the fuji improved things on their x mount to fully usable speed now. Hopefully they will improve firmware, but releasing slow focus after all the users critique of older 43m and last year fujis...well this should tell that people do have very little patience with slow focusing now.
Interesting wording and I think a bit of hyperbole - huge leap ??? It is miniaturization at its best but where is the huge leap - it is still P&S camera with an improved sensor. There are similar cameras made for some time that offer great image quality in small size. Maybe not as good IQ, but again the IQ improves every year so RX100 is expected evolution. Next year the IQ will be again improved - another huge leap then? Soon we will be leaping at the edge of galaxy.
A bit unusual humpy design, but if the image is really that "incredible" as they say in the description, then ok. The V1 image quality was not that incredible, so hopefully they fixed it.
I see something alarming - 40 million in venture capital for... an app .. and surprise, surprise the company is in trouble! How did we get here?
AlanJones: IMHO:There is a sense of entitlement on this website. Please understand they probably have limited personnel to do a massive amount of projects. They probably also have timeframes that they are allowed certain cameras and have to work around that. The point I am making is there are so many things that take place in the background while preparing a review that the reader doesn't see. The wait might be stressful but the completed reviews are always technically always spot on and accurate. I think it's nice that other news fills the gaps between reviews.
Well, if you can't keep up with latest reviews of cameras does it mean you must fill the space with freelancer articles?
It is not like I can't stand occasional "additional related content", but lately this increased substantially while inserting a controversy between reviews and its consistency and the opinion of the freelancers articles.
One one hand you carefully list detailed flaws in a camera review and go into detailed pixel-peeping mode comparing extreme high ISO noise , but then suddenly turn around and have article how using iphone is all anybody ever need. (I am mocking it a bit)
Seriously, we are getting to the point when you start publishing "me too" articles that distract focus from the primary reason I go to this site... but then again I got this content for free and you did an amazing job with most of it. Just stay focused, forget about the "freelancer additional content". It wasn't needed before, why it is need now?
Pat Cullinan Jr: I'll pass until 8K 60p comes along. Things are too unsettled at this time.
A propos, I knew at the start that HD would quickly become obsolete in what would remain of my fizzling life. Hurry up, 8K.
But normal people can barely edit 1080p60 on their computers. 2K become uneditable for most folks at home hence the commercial toys should stay with the 1080 at least for now and focus on low light and quality.
makofoto: @pj ... have you looked at the amazing GoPro skiing and mountain biking videos!? Have you not seen their TV ads on a big screen! We use them in TV shows all of the time ... you probably haven't even noticed. :-)
GoPro has been used in limited way for advertisement work as a camera for special POV, like out of fridge or out of sink etc... and it can usually pass when you do a quick cut and have good light. But the main reason to have gopro is sports, it is a helmet cam that you can do a little bit more with but not that much.
The foldable lens is fantastic idea. I have xz-1 as a pocket camera but you really "feel" the lens all the time.
On one side it is sad dpreview loose its primary focus, on another it opens opportunity for someone else to build a new purely photography oriented site without all the gadget fluff that is so omnipresent on the interenet.
It is slippery slope, first phones, tabs and apps and soon you start see reviews for covers, pouches and "cool" stuff like lens attachments and mini tripods...
There is a limit how much you can keep beating around the "connected" photography with original articles which hans't already been done ad nauseam by engadget and other gadget sites.
I opened those 3 pictures in full size, a minute ago. Do the same and look at them. There is no sharpness nowhere in any of those shots, then, look at the darker parts of the shots, in black and dark brown, the usual NR artifacts show up everywhere. They look great in full size if you look at 5 meters distance, or if you reduce them in size that detail is not visible. For sure, RAW will do a better job, but at the price it costs, I await a better and sharper shot than those ones we have seen until now. The only correct ones I have seen where the ones from Sony.
All samples are pre production. I remember the x100 pre production samples how mediocre they were. and x100 is my fav. camera now.
wow, wasn't impressed with the price when they announced it but this thing is seriously impressive.not in a market for one, but it rocks.
wow, that is some 12800 iso!
LaFonte: Gets my vote for xz-1 replacement.
well, i actually never used the flash on xz-1 nor had any desire to use external flash, but the noisy ISO around 400-800 and the mushy greens kills my overall high impression of the xz-1.The xz-2 is heavier and seems to use more or less same sensor.by the x10 reviews, the xf-1 may be better in IQ and lighter and smaller, yet still keeps the good colors of fuji and olympus.I am definitely not going for xz-2 so if this xf1 is better than xz-1 in IQ, it is winner for me.