4 ms·

This camera, like many that have come before it are likely to be subject to the uncanny valley of market. Consumers won't want to stomach the price tag and prof

This camera, like many that have come before it are likely to be subject to the uncanny valley of market. Consumers won't want to stomach the price tag and professionals are already accustomed to their DSLR's, and in most cases have significant investment in specific brand and/or lens type with a lot of expensive glass. Professionals don't care about the bulkiness of their cameras, they care about the performance and flexibility. DSLRs have 20+ years of development in terms of speed, durability, flexibility and the raw image processing power that the giants have spent decades perfecting (lots of work on DSPs). How many pictures can it take in burst mode? How long does the battery last? Can I use my suite of existing lenses with this? Sorry to say this camera, while unique and technical marvel, has an uphill battle from the business perspective. It's interesting from a niche perspective but I don't see it becoming a huge success financially for them, which is unfortunate because many talented people probably worked on this.

themagician 11y ago
Moreover, camera concepts like this and Lytro are really good for people who are terrible with a camera, because it lets you "find the shot" in post. If you are good at using a camera and can frame the shot, you have much less of a need for these things.
rprospero 11y ago
I agree with everything that you say. However, it's also eerily reminiscent of the explanations I was given 25 years ago about why digital cameras would never catch on. Digitals were far more expensive than a simple Canon or Polaroid, so it would never catch on with consumers. As for professionals, they had far to much experience with developing negatives to throw it all away for some flash in the pan gimmick. Heck, the digitals had terrible lenses compared to what you'd get on Service Merchandise point and shoot, not to mention anything professional grade. Besides, even if CCDs kept improving, they'd be competing with a moving target. Even if digitals were better ten years down the line, it's not like Kodak wasn't going to be improving their processes, too.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  A very attractive straw man, but I personally can't remember anyone saying that digital would "never catch on". 25 years ago the state-of-the-art digital camera was a 1.3MP digital back for the Nikon F3, that included a gigantic external box that the user wore over their shoulder. Only a weirdo would use a digital camera in 1990, but it was pretty obvious that digital was the future. 15 years ago the digital camera (Nikon D1) was just barely a good idea for dedicated enthusiasts and still basically terrible for everybody else.

themagician 11y ago

Moreover, camera concepts like this and Lytro are really good for people who are terrible with a camera, because it lets you "find the shot" in post. If you are good at using a camera and can frame the shot, you have much less of a need for these things.

rprospero 11y ago

I agree with everything that you say. However, it's also eerily reminiscent of the explanations I was given 25 years ago about why digital cameras would never catch on. Digitals were far more expensive than a simple Canon or Polaroid, so it would never catch on with consumers. As for professionals, they had far to much experience with developing negatives to throw it all away for some flash in the pan gimmick. Heck, the digitals had terrible lenses compared to what you'd get on Service Merchandise point and shoot, not to mention anything professional grade. Besides, even if CCDs kept improving, they'd be competing with a moving target. Even if digitals were better ten years down the line, it's not like Kodak wasn't going to be improving their processes, too.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
A very attractive straw man, but I personally can't remember anyone saying that digital would "never catch on". 25 years ago the state-of-the-art digital camera was a 1.3MP digital back for the Nikon F3, that included a gigantic external box that the user wore over their shoulder. Only a weirdo would use a digital camera in 1990, but it was pretty obvious that digital was the future. 15 years ago the digital camera (Nikon D1) was just barely a good idea for dedicated enthusiasts and still basically terrible for everybody else.