Jogger: At that price, might as well get one of the 1-inch sensor compacts. You get way more features and better/faster lens. The GM1 would have been more relevant 4 years ago.
Yeah, but if you want the better/faster lens there goes another $500, which makes the 1" sensor camera already equipped with a better/faster lens an even more attractive alternative.
Markol: Why would you buy this over the old model? Same sensor, still lousy movie specs, still not the 5 axis ois but of course a higher price. Will we have to wait again for 3 generations to get a new sensor? Well ok, it's still very good but the other things I mentioned are deal breakers for me. AAnd the biggest question of all: have they finally fixed their shutter shock problem?
The shutter shock problem caused me to return my E-PL5, so I also wonder if they've anything to fix this.
Mike FL: Guaranteed that the V3's IQ is NOTICEABLY worse than Olympus E-PM2 @ISO 3200 and up based on DPR's Low-light sample shots.
FWIW: The old Olympus E-PM2 has almost the same size as this V3, and it is little over $300 with 14-42mm Lens.
Yeah, but then you have the issue with shutter shock.
Well, it's good to hear Olympus got around to trying to fix this issue in the E-P5. I wonder if the same will happen for their other cameras. I got an E-PL5 around Christmas, but the image blur/shutter shock problem presented itself so frequently that I had to return the camera after a few weeks.
Bruce McL: "it is time to shine and buy one..."No it isn't. The camera does not exist.
"Does this use Polaroid's Zink print technology?"Note that Zink is just something Polaroid licenses, not something they developed. Polaroid is not a technology company anymore, it is a brand licensing company. The Polaroid cameras that do use Zink are much thicker than the mockup in the video.
"Socialmatic expects the camera will be available by the first quarter of 2014."Before or after the Polaroid brand removable lens Android camera? I think most announcements with the name Polaroid in them should go in the fantasy section of this website.
The one new product with the Polaroid name that actually exists didn't get any coverage here or in dpreview. It's a store called fotobar, if anybody is interested.
I'm hoping the thinner profile is a clue to it having a newer, better Zink printer, since the first gen prints were noted for their very low quality. What else might they use for their prints, if not Zink?
So does this use Polaroid's Zink print technology?
ybizzle: 20.1 MP!!!! I pre-ordered mine. ;)
I still use my 6mp Fuji F20, as it usually produces better pictures than the 12mp Canon SX130 that came after it. I can only imagine what a 20mp wonder is like. I'd be tickled pink if these small sensor cameras were no more than 10mp by now.
I didn't know Casio was still making cameras. I thought they'd sputtered out around the same time as Kodak.
Matthew Jardine Photography: Huh... seems way too early for an April Fool's joke.
But what other option did people have for taking naked pictures of their girlfriends except for Polaroid cameras and their instant prints?
Innocent question: Will lag time on these new generation electronic viewfinders be imperceptible? Are any out now that are there already?
I'm shocked. The iPhone5 has worse image quality than the 4s! Heavy-handed noise reduction smears away detail. What makes you shake your head is that it doesn't even have a higher MP count.
Charrick: There are so many people who hate more megapixels. I know that more megapixels decreases the size of each pixel (that is, image sensor element), thus allowing it to gather less light. I'm not disputing that.
But with the D800, I thought people would have learned that, at least in low to moderate ISO settings, more megapixels DOES translate into a sharper picture with more details. Some people are pretending that technological innovation with sensor sensitivity to light stopped in 2006. And if that were the case, then perhaps 6 megapixel sensors would be good enough.
I, for one, am glad that some companies are pushing the envelope. I don't like pixels just for their own sake, but it's clear that at the 24MP range, pictures taken in daytime will probably look better than with, say, a 12-16MP sensor of the same size. Then again, I take far more pictures in the daytime than in the middle of the night or in candle-lit rooms.
I'm by no means an expert and am following developments from my armchair along with almost everyone else, but isn't going from 16mp to 24mp a rather large jump? I'm not sure sensor technology has advanced quite THAT rapidly, and that's one of the major concerns I have over the D3200 (and perhaps other models that are soon to be released).
OldZorki: I believe there is still a market for product like this.Recently I was visiting my older relatives. 75+. They have NO IDEA about digital photography, Facebook and such. All they know are real prints.I brought Canon Selphy printer and decent supply of paper. I made bunch of pics and print them for everyone, overall probably around 60.. They absolutely loved it, and cherish now memories of the gathering.. Yes, it was bigger print size, and pics are made with fairly advanced Canon DSLR - but still, I am sure they will be happy with a small pics as well...So as a product for older folks it can succeed. I can see bying it for my mom.As for kids - I am not sure they will like the product, thay are soooo digital now..
Even I would get a lot of enjoyment out of something like this... cheap-o camera, weird colors, and all. The sticking point is the same as it was on the traditional Polaroid, which is the cost of the print cartridge.