I don't think this qualifies as a "hands on" as advertised. It's barely a "first look".Whose hands were on it and what were the impressions? Or perhaps I'm very old fashioned (Beyond the Fringe reference).
I noticed the same thing as bluemoonman. The photo looks great in the small version, but when clicked to enlarge, the image changes radically–the colour, exposure, etc. fall to pieces.I'm using a mac, FWIW.
It's the main stereo mic - a Royer SF24. I am putting a series of foam sheets on it as an improvised windscreen. In use it is up about 12 feet and visible in other photos of the concert which I could send you if you were interested. There was no pink noise used in the PA set up, and the PA was used only for reinforcement, not replacement, of the acoustic sound from the orchestra.
The fatal flaw in this concept by Leica is that the camera looks better with the black lens - in silver it looks ungainly. The "Edition G-STAR RAW" in fact does look like a special edition but its flaw is the $4-500 surcharge, just for cosmetics that could have been there in the first place.
The Ricoh GR limited edition, by contrast, costs only $100 more than the standard model - and actually is actually cheaper if you factor in the value of the included case and lens hood. Takes good pix, too!
Chris_in_Osaka: At least this wooden grip blends in. The one on the Olympus E-P5 luxury edition looks like a glued on afterthought.
Yes, luxurious like the hyper-gloss "wood" dashboard inserts and vinyl roof tops of 1970s and 80s American luxury cars, and sporting a similar sense of design, i.e., none.As a design, the Ricoh is in a completely different league. It has it; the Olympus has "style".If you want to anger a designer, call him/her a stylist.
A very serious lapse of good judgement on Ricoh's part here, I think. I hope they didn't spend a lot of time and money on development that could have gone into something really salable, like a Ricoh version of the Sony RX1.
Are these colors not substantially over-saturated?
RStyga: I'm stupefied by Leica.
I think this is a clever ruse by Leica to help Panasonic out by increasing their DMC-LX7 sales due to the reflected glory principle of marketing. OK, I made that up, but I refer to the enhanced value and attention drawn to the DMC-LX7 by the presence of an essentially identical version costing so much more. I guess Panasonic pays Leica some license fee for each LX7 sold, so Leica profits from this as well.
The Customer: Gorgeous! I like the minor changes that enhance the subtle philosophies inherent in the original design, without overwhelming or changing them. They're the kind of "big by being little" alterations I like to see when reimagining an object that ALREADY excites the imagination. Most excellent.
Methinks "The Customer" had tongue firmly in cheek.
Russell Dawkins: I am curious to know if there is a technical reason that image stabilization is incorporated into the design of neither the Ricoh GR nor the Nikon Coolpix A.
I don't know why this camera doesn't need image stabilization when it is used on a number of DSLRs. 2 to 4 stops of improvement would be a huge advantage in low light. I can only think battery consumption is the factor, but I imagine a one ounce heavier battery and a half an ounce sensor shift mechanism would still not violate the basic design intention and the GR would still be lightest APSC camera in the world.I didn't think Ricoh played the marketing game described by Serenity529 - I gave them more credit than that.
I am curious to know if there is a technical reason that image stabilization is incorporated into the design of neither the Ricoh GR nor the Nikon Coolpix A.
Where is the focal point in this? It seems slightly blurry, yet the shutter speed is so high and the aperture so small I get the feeling it should look sharper than this. The Canada goose photo, on the other hand, looks very sharp.
Spectro: lytro.. enough said
Too much said! Happy New Year!
DavidRiesenberg: I still prefer my idea of the perfect camera :)http://davidriesenberg.com/archives/262
So do I - although I prefer the dimensions of the Nikon V1 yours is very elegant.
Credit where credit is due. There isn't an aeronautical engineer in Britain, the USA, or anywhere outside Russia who has designed an aircraft that can perform this manoeuvre (the cobra) successfully, as far as I know.
howardroark: What an ugly camera. And way too expensive for what you get. I think $133 is a fair price. And why aren't there any sample pictures of hot blonde girls dancing in dark night clubs? I mean, without that particular shot how in the world can we tell how good this mid-20th century radio....I mean camera really is? It looks like the upper left corner is 1/8th stop darker than the bottom right corner. :) LOL Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Looks like a fascinating camera. I wonder if people will insist the AF speed of this camera match other $1,700 cameras.
These images are technically good, but all lack something - in the same way I found the X100 images seriously lacking compared even to my Leica D-Lux 4, with all its noise and limited low light capability (and Panasonic genesis). I liked my Fuji f31fd, so it's not as if I have a bias against Fuji, but these images completely lack the magic I see in the Leica X1, for example. I don't get the impression of real sharpness or pleasing colour rendering.
Do the columns to the left and right of the nave actually bow inwards or is that an artifact of the lens or post processing?
jkokich: I don't get it.
I mean it literally - I expect we will see a forum for Lytro users in due course, if the camera takes off - won't we?
I wonder when we will see the Lytro forum...
I think it would be occasionally very useful to have at hand on any camera. I don't understand the reflexive naysayers - this is clever!