What? Someone on here agrees with what I have been saying lately????Oh well. At least there are still alternatives. I just find it incredibly ironic and disappointing that Apple has done a complete 180 on how they used to position themselves.
What? Someone on here agrees with what I have been saying lately????Oh well. At least there are still alternatives. I just find it incredibly ironic and disappointing that Apple has done a complete 180 on how they used to position themselves.
I would pay attention if they did something along the lines of the Sony NEX line.
I hope this never happens. Leave the cameras to companies like Nikon and Cannon please.
It seems that most people who are criticising this don't understand the concept of a light field camera.
As cool as that would be, I feel like that isn't enough to sell an Apple product.
If/when Apple releases a standalone camera, expect it to cost $400-$600.
There will be a killer app that will make the camera vastly better than anything you've ever seen before, and you won't see it coming.
My only guess for a feature that would make a camera must have that's never been seen before would be some kind of past-picture capability. What do I mean? Well... imagine you're trying to get the perfect picture of a subject that's noncooperative, like a baby or animal... while you're approaching them, they're going to get spooked and run away. But what if the camera knew when you had a perfect shot (or the best possible, anyways?) What if hitting the button that traditionally would take the picture would instead be a button that says "That was it. The perfect shot was just in frame, but on account of my slow human reflexes, I couldn't press the button fast enough." The camera has some kind of memory of amazing pictures you should have taken which it's constantly writing over with new ones, and it takes the most recent picture out of memory.
Kind of weird idea, and probably requires an incredible AI... face recognition is a start... but it would have to couple in the ideas of composition and stuff so that it could judge whether a picture is as good as it's going to get.
A light field camera allows you to take the picture and worry about focussing etc after it's taken.
Casio already has a series of cameras which buffer the last five seconds before you hit the shutter release, then lets you pick the best shot.
What? How is that going to work? You would attach one of these,
http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/test_canon_sigma_100-400/full_comparison-large.jpg
by cable to the iPad? What are you going to do, hold the iPad in 1 hand, and the large lens in the other and point it like a handheld telescope? I don't understand this idea at all.
As said: THIS.
Why would Apple take on the photography industry? because the photography industry is absolutely stuck in a set of specifications & paradigms, and there are emerging technologies that add whole new dimensions to the subject.
I own a Nex-7. I love it, but this line is vastly too complex to be Apple's.
A camera with phone capabilities might just be the ticket for many people. Many people want a better camera than what a smart phone can offer. There are ways in incorporate a pretty serious lens assy and other aids within a small enclosure. It could be quite awesome.
Camera companies always have vast menus and modes and all that. Apple does not have that DNA and would automate the heck out of it. See a subject, aim and fire. A bright, colorful and sharp image will pop out and that can be sent to the cloud or an Apple device without effort. Same for videos of course.
I could see Apple having a huge impact on the P&S market, and of course sell some extra phones as well.
Right, like please leave portable music players to Sony, and computers to Atari and HP, and portable phones to Nokia, and personal digital assistants to Palm. Building a better mousetrap has always been the fundamental driver of businesses in our society, especially Apple.