Lytro Illum upsetting to some, bringing the future closer

I was just looking at another article on the Lytro Illum camera, where they put it into the hands of a few professionals to see what could happen.

What gets to me is the negative comments about the camera, its technology, and how they show the hidden fear of the unknown.

Are people so afraid to change?  If Nikon and Canon were to stop making cameras, would they fall apart?  (That reminds me of people who were panicking during a BlackBerry blackout.)

I'm still a bit skeptical about using the camera, but at least the Illum model is shaped like a camera.  I want to use one, and given that I'm moving to a nearby area and can be there in a couple of hours, I'd like to test one, if the company is willing.  They can go with me while I try it.

On display at a local store

I think it's selling for US$1599.99.  That doesn't sound horrible.  My Olympus D-300L was $US999.99 and my C-2500L was originally $1499.99, though I only paid $850 for it because it was an open box deal.  They were experimental, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't really do a lot of casual photography.  I generally do sports or business photos, but there are times when I try to take a walk and find something interesting to photograph.  Since I'm moving to another area of the country, to a place I've never lived, I should have plenty to photograph.  I might as well try something totally new, correct?

I'm sure I'll have a handy, conventional camera with me at all times.  When I was walking up and down San Francisco, California, I was using my Olympus E-5 and 14-35mm f/2.0 combination--something small, correct?  :-D  I also had my bag of goodies on my shoulder, including the Panasonic GH3.  Nothing was light that day and I was dragging by the time I returned to the motel.

So, it might be good to go light, especially if I'm in a somewhat difficult environment.

What the Lytro people are doing is nothing short of amazing.  They're collecting a massive amount of information to allow the photograph to be re-constructed.  Of course, this can't be done with some Adobe product at this time.  They're still having trouble with FujiFilm's X-Trans sensors.

Next month, I will have moved and will be close to the San Fran Bay Area, so I could be at the Lytro headquarters in Mountain View (I think), to see what they're doing, and hopefully, they'll agree to a visit and a trial.

Update 2014.05.23: I've seen plenty of fearful comments about mirror-less cameras, also.  It seems that those who really don't know photography that well are afraid and speaking out about it.  I rarely see professionals who are afraid to try new equipment.  They may not like it, but they're willing to try it.  Wedding photographers seem to be the most resistant of professionals but I understand that.  When you have a whole wedding party yelling at you, you've got to deliver what they want, no matter what it is.  I've been asked to do two weddings and I wouldn't even consider photographing them.  I would do things my way, and that would not be the correct way.

I'm still wondering what all these hobbyists are going to do when they have no choice but to change.

If you've seen a Star Trek series, you've probably seen a holo-imager--a camera that apparently goes beyond 3D capture.  I see Lytro's technology as a start to get to such devices.

Update 2014.12.11: It was interesting to see Intel advertising Lytro's technology as their own.  Do they have no shame?  It reminds me of all those early 80x86 processors with the divide errors that never happened.

Update 2015.11.19: I've seen the Lytro Illum available at about half the price.  I'm concerned about buying one because the company might not make it.  Without the computer-based software, how would it work?  Would I have to keep an old computer to use it?

Besides this, quite a while ago, Panasonic revealed a patent about multiple focus planes.  Today, there was a rumor that a few days from now, they'll be implementing the patent in the GX8 that I have.  What's more is that Olympus has been ready to do this in the E-M1 firmware, version 4.0, which is about to be released.

These are both simplistic versions that require several photos but the technology will be a decent compromise for 2015.  The Lytro technology will likely prevail 10 or 20 years from now, although I hope that it will be sooner.  As soon as mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras will be dominant, things can go further.

DPReview's most-clicked

For years, I've seen a list of DPReview's most clicked cameras.  They have always included some mix of Canon and Nikon equipment, as though each faction will not let the other win.

On occasion, you will see Pentax or Olympus or Fuji or Sony sneak into the top list, and then, promptly be forced to the bottom and then, off the list entirely for a while.  Sometime, they return, as when a preview turns into a review.

Amusingly, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 ended up their camera of the year in 2012, as to say to the Canikon crowd, "We've had enough of you!"  Still, the most-clicked list has continued to have both Canon and Nikon equipment, until November 6th, when I saw this:

I'm not saying that it means a lot, but it is a surprising departure, and the list has not had a single Canon camera on it for several days.  You have to wonder if the whole lot of them are at some Canon-sponsored event and can't be bothered to visit DPReview now.

Update: the whole situation is slowly going back to normal with a few Canon products on the list.  I wonder if they somehow stopped counting the Canon products or banned them from the list due to "stuffing the ballot box" type of behaviour.

Pentax K-3, successor to the Nikon D300?

I've been dissatisfied with the available choices in dSLRs.  I wanted a (mythical?) Nikon D400, but ended up buying an Olympus E-5 to replace/supplement my E-1.  The E-5 was a great body for 2007, but it became available in 2010, replacing the slightly horrible E-3 that was two years late, which anti-aliased its photos to mush.  The Nikon D300 was a great body for 2007, but was more-or-less replaced by the D300s and then, the D7100.

Unfortunately, the D7100 doesn't have enough buffer depth for raw files in burst mode, so you wait more than you should.  That's what happens when you take a buffer from a 12 MP camera body, along with the AF module, etc.  The price of the D7100 is great and the plastics in the exterior are reasonable to hold the price down and it is weather-sealed, but performance (for me) isn't negotiable.

Today, Ricoh (omg, Ricoh?) announced the replacement for the Pentax K-5 II, the K-3.  (I'm waiting to see the follow-on bodies at lower levels since they had the K-50 and K-500--they already used the K-30 name.)

The K-3 puts a APS-C sized  (the same sensor as the D7100, apparently) sensor into a body based on the K-7/K-5, reworks the auto focus, auto exposure, and video, and turns out a camera body seemingly as good as a D300 replacement would be, and for US$1299.99, US$100.00 less expensive than the Olympus E-M1.

They also use the in-body image stabilization/shake reduction to work as an optional anti-aliasing filter, since they've removed one from the mix.   If you're dealing with a situation where moiré patterns will be a problem, you can enable the "filter" to smooth things.  How this works at the same time with the image stabilization going is anyone's guess but it's great, unconventional thinking.

I normally have terrible things to say about Ricoh because they do some things that are beyond weird.  In this case, the mix of Ricoh and Pentax seems to have produced a hellacious camera body that should be able to take on anyone.  It certainly beats the hell out of the Canon 70D and 7D and puts the hurt on Nikon's D7100, and nails the coffin on the D300s.  It also takes some of the shine off the newly-revised Nikon D610, which seems to have changed minimally.

Will anyone buy it?

This is the big question.  The Canikon fanatics don't seem know about other brands, in general.  If they have anything to say, it's that the other brands are inferior, even if they use information incorrectly.  Pentax has for a long time, been a forgotten brand.

I sold the Pentax ME and K-1000 (and the Auto 110 SLR!) and they were very reliable camera bodies.  Given the other choices at the time, Nikon, Olympus, and Fujica/FujiFilm all had better and more interesting equipment.  Pentax' claim to fame at the time was the Gallium Arsenide sensor for the light meter, while Fuji was using something called Silicon Blue, and the others were less advanced.  Pentax were well known for their 6x6 and 6x7 cameras and commercial work beyond what an enthusiast's camera like the Nikon F2 could do.

Does the Pentax name have enough recognition now to climb out of the hole first dug by the *ist?  Barely, I believe.  When I've been out photographing sports, I've seen a few Pentax models.  That's a big change.  Of course, it's easy to see the Canikon equipment but I think people are realizing that they have to buy higher up with Canikon to get what they really want.  From what I see, you need to buy the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk III to get full-featured models.  Everything below them is cut-rate.

There seem to be quite a few modern lenses now, and with three levels (two of which are weather-sealed) of bodies on which to attach them, they look to have a sensible line.  With Ricoh's imaging (all those copiers have to do something, don't they?) enhancements, it looks quite a bit better.  Certainly, the Hoya people weren't doing a lot for Pentax, except dishing the money.

Barring some weirdness, Pentax/Ricoh seems to have a winner on their hands.  It may be my next dSLR.  Hmm...try to find a Pentax dealer these days.  There might be some medium format Pentax dealers, but no one seems to carry their dSLRs in a physical store.

What happens if/when Nikon responds with a D7200?  Will it correct the buffer issue?

Update 2014.01.11: Apparently, there is some weirdness that could be corrected by firmware updates.  Whether there will be corrections, I wonder, as this is one of the reasons I haven't jumped to Pentax time and again.

As far as the Nikon D7200 goes, Nikon USA tweeted about the D3300 the other day and I replied, asking where the D400 or D7200 was.  I realize that they want to sell the D610, but they need a real replacement for the D300/D300s.  The Pentax K-3 and 60-250mm look like a good combination for me, but I'm just not sure.

Update 2014.04.10: I have to laugh at DPReview's rather late review.  In particular one line caught my attention that they wanted to downplay the K-3's importance in the US$1000 to $2000 sector:

 The Nikon D7100 is a safer bet in this respect, too, though it is somewhat hobbled by its small Raw buffer - 7 images, rather than the K-3's 23-or-so.

3.x to 1 is "somewhat"?

I realize that they don't want to offend their Canikon users, but please, tell it like it is.  They have no trouble complaining about the variable focus speed of various Pentax lenses, but they can't say that there is a problem where the Nikon D7100 has to write and write and write to clear the buffer and the photographer has to wait and wait and wait?  Do all Nikon-made (or Canon-made) lenses focus at the same speed?  I thought that they had differing focusing technologies, as well.

It reminds me of the preview for the Olympus E-M1 where someone slipped a line like "but we don't know if the sensor can go beyond 16 MP" even though we don't know if APS-C sensors can go beyond 24 MP, either.  The line was removed for the review, but it was obvious that brand fanatics often write what they want to defend.

Update 2014.04.29: Seeing Imaging Resource's K-3 review and test images, I'm thinking that Pentax (by Ricoh) have made some odd mistakes.  The images at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 show the Olympus E-M1 to be better, which seems damned odd, even given that the sensors have a similar pixel density.  I really would have expected better performance.  Perhaps, it's still possible to re-work the firmware.  Right now, I wouldn't recommend it, sadly, even though Nikon don't seem to be in a hurry to fix the D7100's buffer issues.

Update 2014.12.25: It's unfortunate that there is always a bit of weirdness in Pentax products.  Adding Ricoh to the mix didn't push things toward the center, but thankfully, it didn't made things worse, as Ricoh products are usually more weird.

I wish there was a standard visual interface for cameras.  Pentax makes very desirable products let down by their firmware.  Back in their film days, products like the ME Super and Auto 110 SLR were great.

Pentax could really use a boatload of firmware developers who could put things right.  They should be selling loads of equipment.

Update 2015.03.03: Since Nikon has introduced the D7200, the hope for the Pentax K-3 is diminished.  The K-3 is a very good product, hampered by its firmware.  The company really needs to hire better firmware developers to take a fresh look at what they're doing and remove the quirks.

Update 2015.04.27: The K-3 Mk II is now out in the open.  Regardless, it doesn't seem as much is known, at least, as how the camera body will work in real life.  What I see are good, but minor changes made to a very good body.  What probably hasn't changed is the quirkiness of the firmware and operations.

About a week ago, I got a Pentax K-50 and I'm attempting to familiarize myself with the Pentax way of doing things, which isn't like any other experience I've had so far, except maybe for Canon.  No, I believe it's quite unique.

I hope that Ricoh, the company in charge of Pentax products, will find a way to make things very easy to use.  If they can make the operation of the K-3 Mk II as smooth as Nikon or Olympus, they should be able to gain many customers and make them very happy with their photos and even, their video.

I'm finding from the K-50 that it's very good for still image quality, and it looks as though the video is quite good, even if it's not as great as the Panasonic GH3.  The GH3 is formidable in its video abilities but is a bit lacking for still photography.  Pentax, like Olympus, excels in still photography, not video.

Since the Nikon D7200, there is an answer to the US$1000-$2000 range that was left open by the D300/D300s' retirement.  Is it enough?  The D7200 isn't a huge leap over the D7100, which wasn't a replacement for the D300.   The D7200 is good, but is the K-3 Mk II better?  In general, I think that the K-3 Mk II is better but are the lenses there, and will the firmware be a problem?

Update 2015.07.27: While the Pentax K-50 was very good, I ended up giving it to someone who had their camera stolen.  I looked to buy lenses that could be used with the Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 and the possibilities didn't seem so good with the availability of K-mount lenses or the adapters.

I bought the Nikon D7200 and I'm taking some time to learn how to use it best.  Even small things are a pain to learn.  Given that I have not used Nikon SLRs since film, it isn't a real surprise.  The controls don't exactly seem logical, even compared to the Pentax K-50.  It definitely feels good enough to replace the D300, though.

Update 2016.05.16: Since the K-3 has been revised and there is a new 135 Format K-1, the company has done well for itself.  They've also addressed the lack of familiar focal length lenses with the help of Tamron.  I suspect that they'll still end up a distant third (Sony isn't really involved in dSLRs or APS-C any longer) in the minds of people.  However, the price of the K-1 at around US$800 or $900 lower than the Nikon D810 has raised some eyebrows.

The fact that Nikon has brought to market the D500 pushes the D7200 and the K-3 Mk II further away than they were, if you have the extra money for it and then, only if you don't want the K-1.

Panasonic's new 12-35mm f/2.8 lens

Note that there is no secondary aperture number.  This is a constant maximum aperture zoom lens.  Even in 2012, there aren't that many of them, and they certainly haven't outnumbered typical variable maximum aperture lenses.  Beyond all that, this is a first for a mirror-less system.

It will carry a premium price.  Was there a doubt?  US$1299.99 isn't bad considering the maximum aperture, weatherproofing, and hopefully, amazing image quality.  The last is a big hope, given the small size of the lens.  I expect the companion 35-100mm f/2.8 to be somewhat more expensive, given that the materials used will be larger.

On one side, the micro Four-Thirds users are complaining about the price, even though they might not need it.  On the other side, the Canikon users are being somewhat indignant about the quality, the sensor size, and the Panasonic name.  (it wasn't that long ago that I wasn't sure about Panasonic making cameras but since the DMC-GH2, they've convinced me.)

What comes to my mind is a comparison to Olympus' Super High Grade 14-35mm f/2.0 lens.  That is one of the finest "normal" zoom lenses, ever.  The price echoes that thought, also: $2299.99.  I know someone has used the lens extensively and had to back off using it for portraits, as it showed too much facial detail.  (It's no wonder there are variable soft-focus lenses for medium format.)  I'd love to see how these two lenses compare.  Of course, if it only comes to the image quality of the High Grade 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, I'd be disappointed in such quality for the price.  There is a limit to how much weight or space I want to save--for the price.

I'm really not expecting great things.  Previous X-series lenses have been mediocre, no matter where they fit in micro Four-Thirds land.  However, there are plenty of people who find a 10x zoom to be a great lens, and I don't want any zoom lens over 4x.  If these new lenses deliver the kind of image quality Olympus' 14-35mm and 35-100mm lenses have, it should likely drive a lot more positive attention and sales to micro Four-Thirds.

It is a format that's doing quite well against the competition anyway.  Panasonic's DMC-GH2 constantly seems to be making headway in video recording and with all the cine lenses available, it should be able to produce some amazing work.  I don't do video, but good equipment always makes it easier.  Since the GH3 is close, I should be even more impressed when it arrives.  I would expect a new sensor that will also be used in their new professional recorder for higher image quality, faster throughput and processing, and the (new!, awesome! ramdom!) 4K recording that everyone is hyping.

Considering how well the Olympus E-M5 resolves images, I'd hope that it and the 12-35mm lens would be a great pair, delivering stunning results.  My skepticism keeps me firmly planted in my chair--no jumping for joy.  People seem to be reporting mostly good things about the E-M5 since they've been arriving.  I hope it's not just euphoria.  I'd like to think that people are realistic from time to time.  I'm waiting for an E-M6, just as I waited for an OM-1N or an E-3 successor.  I had a notion today about Pentax's new K30: it looks a lot like what I wanted in an Olympus E-1 successor.  It's just too bad Olympus hadn't wasted so much money betting on the horses.

Update: I've seen preliminary reviews on the 12-35mm and 35-100mm Panasonic lenses and I'm less than impressed despite the brand fanatics' enthusiasm.  Of course, they might not be any worse than the Canikon lenses.  Canikon users have been paying more for less for quite a while. 

Update 2: I've got the 35-100mm f/2.8 and I also have the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0.  I'm disappointed in a lot of things with the 35-100mm f/2.8 from Panasonic.  It's not bad optically--it's about what I'd expect from Nikon or Canon--but the plastic and the tacky finish seem inconsistent with US$1499.99.  The lens hood that isn't completely sealed from light where it meets the lens is also a letdown.  So far, the performance is good.  I could have hoped for a lens more like the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, though.