This camera plus the Sigma 35mm 1.4 would be an unbelievable combination for street shooting or events. Why would you need anything else
Alex Notpro: Lytro is making a huge marketing blunder. I hope they survive.
They need to drop the artsy-fartsy "living picture" talk and instead push the real practical benefit of this technology: enabling enthusiasts to produce photos with a perfectly focused subject while blurring out poorly chosen backgrounds, that are good enough for Facebook or standard prints.
Many people and possibly the company itself also fail to realize what is possible when you combine Light Field processing with an algorithm similar to that in the Canon S120 Background Defocus From Two Exposures feature: You can produce arbitrary amounts of background blur that are not limited by standard DOF tables.
Yes, you should be able to produce Facebook snaps that look like they were shot in a Large Format camera. I'll buy a Lytro as soon as they implement this capability.
Having to choose a focus point in Post sounds like a lot of work but I bet it's actually a lot quicker than manually cloning out background distractions.
Not people, businesses. Just about every company has a facebook presence and facebook thrives on pictures, so if lytro can prove that they'll improve your facebook pix, $1500 is something that they'll fund out of petty cash.
This is so awesome. Here in the United Snakes 25 sheets of 4x5 film is $30 or $40 plus $3 or $4 per sheet to process. If you have the time to shoot it beats the cost of buying a Hasselblad or a Phase digital. And the people here obsessed with shallow depth of field will love it because at normal apertures like f/5.6 your DOF is measured in fractions of an inch.
Simon97: What are the advantages of the larger sensor? Some I can think of:
Larger Pixels for low noise. The old 645D wasn't that impressive at high ISOs, but this new sensor sounds very interesting.
Smaller DOF for artistic effects. Hopefully Pentax designed the new lenses carefully concerning Bokeh quality.
Smaller apertures before diffraction blurring is noticeable.
Probably others I'm not thinking of.
Higher ISO means higher shutter speeds for portraits of animals, little squirmy kids, athletic events, fashion, lifestyle assignments...there's a world of assignments to shoot that require higher shutter speeds or that take place in lower-than-optimum light levels.
Wow. Didn't see that coming. This is an exciting camera for those of us who need high pixel counts but don't want to deal with the complications of buying from the other two MF manufacturers.But who let them name their wireless system after a sometimes-deadly infectious disease? Flucard is a hilarious name until Grandma contracts H1N1 and keels over dead.
Richard Franiec: It is really refreshing and encouraging to see the smaller player like Sigma to go toe to toe with the legend like Zeiss. For fraction of the price.I'm watching recent Sigma's unpretentious approach to their new product with awe.
This lens among the other Art Series lenses should serve as a bucket of an ice water on the heads of disillusioned profiteers from major brands.
I approve! From henceforth, all lenses should be sold by weight!
Denton Taylor: I don't get this. The 580EXii, to which this is compared, is a discontinued item. So you really have to compare it to the 600EX-RT. The 600EX-RT is currently selling for $550 USD, and has sold in the past for $500. So why would you even consider buying this thing with a radio control and all its failings for $400? If you insist on buying cheap sh*t, may as well buy the Yongnuo YN-E3-R controller for $130 and either buy Canon 600EX, or wait for the Yongnuo equivalents which should be out soon.
Or if you're a Strobist, you buy Nikon SB24s and 28s for $10 at garage sales and fill your world with light for less than $100....
xilvar: Why does this review not mention (and test) the guide number? Is guide number not a thing anymore or something? Not even a mention of it's specified guide number which could I suppose mean that it's the same as the 580? Or not??
Maybe it's because guide numbers, just like ISO numbers and f/stops, are slightly overstated by manufacturers?
Nick49: What I love about some of these comments is the conception that nearly three hundred dollars buys you a better 'light'. Yes, albeit it is also a sensitive technical instrument, but one that is a light. I lost two strobes on a shoot recently as they both blew over in a gust of wind. Why would I spend 600 dollars on something that might get blown over? This sounds great!
The difference between cars and cameras is that cameras don't have brakes. They're much more prone to accidents than cars. Photography out in the field is a contact sport in which equipment has to be expendable. Leicas fall overboard, light stands blow over, camera bags get stolen...each person has to decide for themselves how much of their working capital they want to put at risk.
But how does the IQ compare to 4x5 Fuji Provia shot with a Linhof Master Technika?
Could someone explain how the output from this camera will be this different from the output from the new Panasonic 4K camera? Isn't that 4:2:2 as well?
My main question is which camera's video will stand up better to grading (color correction/color timing)?
The 23rd rule of journalism is "Never make your readers do math." Would you please provide imperial equivalents if you insist on showing off your pretentious familiarity with metric measurements. Please try to remember that DPReview started as an English website and it is the English who formalized the Imperial system. And, in the future, please convert prices to proper English denominations: farthings, pence, crowns, and guineas.
rfsIII: God bless you DPR and thank you for using a tripod on your video shots! Finally we can see what the video really looks like.
I have a hunch that the DSLR judder problem may be unsolvable. Otherwise penny-pinching studios would never let their DPs use Reds and Alexas. Everything would be shot on Canons or Nikons.
peterwr: Little-known fact: the irridescent colours of butterfly wings are produced not by pigments, but by nanometric structures on the scales' surface that reflect different colours of light, much like the microscopic pits on a CD.
God, I love nature.
whawha: ..and it is, of course, a "residents of the US" only competition. Very silly and surprisingly narrow minded marketing from Ricoh.
For that you're going to have to wait until the world is united under a single global government.....I used to run contests and giveaways and you cannot imagine the complications of just complying with the laws of the 50 American states. Doing it internationally would be a nightmare.
What they need to do is combine this technology with the Lytro approach and then you would really have something—awesome color and adjustable focus....next step: the ability to take photos in any point along the temporal stream.
This sounds like the breakthrough we've been waiting for from the big camera companies.
God bless you DPR and thank you for using a tripod on your video shots! Finally we can see what the video really looks like.
Peiasdf: Not super expensive but 20 f/1.7 is likely a way better deal. If this is f/1.4 or f/1.2 then that's different.
How come m4/3 isn't making fast and super-fast normal wide? The smaller sensor size should make it easier than Fuji.
Shallow depth of field is for wannabes. Real photographers control their backgrounds so that there's either something interesting back there or a featureless expanse of nothing.