Random Asian Guy: Has something different happened to dpreview recently? I already follow sonyalpharumors and LensRentals and 2 out of the 3 latest posts I've already read about.
Is dpreview really running out of their own articles?
This generates more clicks. Look at the phrasing about it being crucial to click through before commenting -- clicks are ads, and ads are money. Content is irrelevant; eyeballs on the content are all that matters.
pavi1: Beautiful cameras, great lenses. When I win power ball I will buy one of each. But lets be real, a Leica is a lot like buying a 200 hp Ferrari.
The Ferrari 208 used a 2,0l 8 cyl motor with a similar output.
Was it a good car? No more so than Leica us a good camera.
With Leica, it's not just the subject posing; it's also the photographer posing.
rallyfan: Oh look fantastic, there are links below the "article" so we can buy photo gear mentioned in the text. That's great. Let me guess: nobody at DPR actually cares about the responses as long as hits are generated, right?
It doesn't sound like you understand what a non-profit is.
Please do click through to the sales pages though, cheers.
timo: Leaving aside any factual inaccuracies, the article was uncritical and unconvincing. Whatever arguments there may be for spending money on a Leica, they weren't clearly stated here. Anybody could have written it after a couple of hours of research, gathering second-hand guff off the internet.
I don't think accuracy matters to NYT any more than to DPR. Views matter; eyeballs that are quantifiable for advertising purposes. What the article says only matters to the extent that it can generate views. Controversy, be it due to inaccuracies or otherwise, only helps generate more views.
rfsIII: Maybe people in the US are so passionate about cameras because they look around and realize they have nothing else...The see a government run by moral cowards whose only goal is to destroy the other party regardless of the devastation it inflicts on the actual public; their banks are run by thieves who reap fortunes by selling worthless paper and never face a minute in jail; their clergy, when not excoriating the poor and downtrodden or preying on altar boys, preach a message whose main point is "hate thy neighbor unless he is exactly like thyself"; and finally, they work for Dickensian plutocrats who take glee in squeezing every drop of life and joy from their employees while paying them less and less each year in inflation adjusted terms.
Mr. Bilton is lucky he escaped with just a scolding, it could have been so much worse...
I don't think Americans have turned to photography for solace -- though that's not to say they're not sufficiently self-absorbed.
I believe they are instead eating themselves to death.
If I win the Powerball I'll not take another picture in my life.
If one of those silly German lenses gets ultra-rare, I might buy it and recycle it for its weight in metal, provided I get to see the look on the faces if the poseurs and wannabes that typically collect that stuff.
What's a little money if one doesn't have fun? Life's too short.
tex: I've come to the conclusion that a high (higher than the general populace) percentage of "photo enthusiasts" are on the autism spectrum, probably Asperger's, and this accounts in large part for the intensity. I'm not being facetious.
One of the people mentioned by the Times has posted enough pictures of himself to reveal what I suspect is an unusual phenotype. It'd be interesting -- but only mildly -- to get some sort of assessment of the number of loci across which he is homozygous.
I stopped reading his drivel because I could not tell if they were products of prescriptions or results of missed doses.
Oh look fantastic, there are links below the "article" so we can buy photo gear mentioned in the text. That's great. Let me guess: nobody at DPR actually cares about the responses as long as hits are generated, right?
TTLstalker: I guess the Lytro camera, as novel as it might be, is a solution looking for a problem. Just because you can make something new doesn't mean people have a need for it. I think they needed to consult with a photographer.lol
I tend to agree as I can't figure out what use this thing would have in the real world to justify the price. In the image above (taken with a Lytro, I wonder?) the sole use of the tech would be to bring the guy grinning like an idiot into focus. Hurray.
jjl: They should have targeted microscopy & other technical fields first. This technology could be really helpful in technical applications where depth of field is a big issue - mostly in extreme macro situations. Imagine looking at photos of bacteria or plankton with this?
But as a consumer product, there just isn't an easy way to view/share the images, and after refocusing an image a couple times, it's like.. ok, that's pretty cool, but what's the point exactly?
I can't think of a single use for this camera and I suspect I'm not alone. If there were something I could use it for I might buy it I suppose.
Neeneko: I am kinda saddened at people taking so much glee in a product failing. Lytro at least took a chance and did something different rather then the 'go faster stripes' that DSLR manufacturers have been putting out lately.
I suspect the problem is less that it did not appeal to professionals, and more it was not a good status symbol for 'prosumers', too many of whom seemed to have an emotional stake in the technology not catching on.
I doubt professionals cared too much one way or the other. They are generally too busy actually getting work done.
If you are saddened, buy more product or buy some stock in the company.
How many Lytro cameras did you buy? Why?
Now, if Lytro come up with a way for me to generate in-focus images of an object ranging from, say, 15 to 1000 kg and moving at, say, 5 kph to 300 kph as a series of sharp photos taken from a distance of 20m to 50m, I'd be buying -- but they'd have to be cheaper than the current dSLR bodies and lenese, lighter, more resilient, and I'd want it yesterday. A lightweight, high efficiency and connected rig to shoot animals and sports including motorsport would be useful
The rest is hippy talk and vapourware.
Confocal microscopy allows stacking of images from different planes (fields of view) at the subcellular level. Although out-of-plane images are specifically excluded from the end-product "stack," the number of included images is such that a 3D visualization of the observed structure is feasible. The optics used are not unconventional, and the technology dates back decades now. In fact this was among my initial exposures to digital photography.
There are "3d" techniques available with other optical scopes as well.
To access the scientific market this company would have to partner with a hardware/software firm already established in the field.
FrankS009: These are big, heavy cameras with big heavy lenses. Would not want to lug one any farther than I would have to.
Fantastic, that's good news then! OK great thanks.
Tell what to Ansel Adams, Walter? Tell him to carry my bag?
Unless he's going to haul stuff for me, or unless you are going to haul stuff for me, he and your reverence for him and his cute pictures of a bunch of rocks are useless.
If you want to carry photo gear for me let me know. The rest is just posturing. Poserus don't pay the bills.
IchiroCameraGuy: If you can go without retro styling, cool viewfinder, extra dials and buttons maybe grab a $1,000 cheaper EOS M with 22mm F2 lens. You get a fun touchscreen, much better detail, smaller size for pockets.
No. It doesn't make sense.
If your point were "moot" rather than... mute, the statement might make some sense.
You'd still be incorrect.
rallyfan: If you don't understand this camera, first make sure you're not dim. Can you read this? OK good. Now find your gear bag. Look inside. Do you see a couple large Canon bodies and several Canon lenses? Yes? Great, you can replace one of the two or more larger bodies with this smaller bodies. Your lenses still work.
With a large and expensive variety if Canon bodies to chose from daily, if I were shopping strictly for myself and didn't care about preexisting legacy accessories, the answer is clear: Pentax! The K30 leads the class even after a long time in the market (there is a delayed review on this site if you're interested).
If I were shopping for a gift? μ4/3 from Panasonic or Olympus. The G5 wasn't reviewed at all here I don't think, but that's life. Early Oly stuff can be had for a song if you shop.
Since none of that is happening and legacy kit does exist, Canon all the way. The smaller the better.
RGL1215: Got mine yesterday. Awesome little camera. Looks so cute next to my 5D3. If you have large hands don't be put off. It just takes some time getting comfortable with the size. I had to try a few different ways to hold it before I found a way that worked for me. Love the little thing.
Blessed are the poor in spirit.
If you don't understand this camera, first make sure you're not dim. Can you read this? OK good. Now find your gear bag. Look inside. Do you see a couple large Canon bodies and several Canon lenses? Yes? Great, you can replace one of the two or more larger bodies with this smaller bodies. Your lenses still work.
Marty4650: You really have to wonder.... if mini DSLRs like the SL1 existed five years ago, would there be so much interest in high end MILC cameras today?
It is indeed smaller and more portable, but may be still to large (especially in thickness) for people who want really small cameras.
I think Canon has a good product here, but it arrived too late to the party.
Still... it makes a very nice second camera for people who own a 70D or 7D and have plenty of EOS lenses...
Although I see no need for a mirror specifically, what I do need is AF tracking. If a mirrorless or anything else can exceed SLR speed, it's worth considering. The rest is just spec talk, it isn't useful.