The Kodak S-1. Image courtesy: Soomal.
We have plenty of more news about the Kodak PixPro S-1 Micro Four Thirds camera:
1) The price for the camera is $499 (Source: Kodakcamera).
2) This is the manual (pdf download here).
3) Soomal (Click here) posted the first image samples taken with the Kodak camera.
Overall the $499 price is much higher than expected! For $300 you can buy the Olympus E-PM2 with lens at Amazon US (Click here). Are the extra $200 worth it? Dont think so…
64 Responses
[OFF] A square multi orientation multi aspect ratio sensor makes the portrait grip useless: you can always hold the camera in ‘landscape’ position even if you want to shot in portrait mode. The orientation could be set (together with the aspect ratio) using a switch – instead of rotating the body. Moreover, a simple tilting screen/viewfinder would be enough for all situations, no need for swivelling screen.
Don’t confuse this with classical square sensor systems. Unlike e.g. MF cameras, in our case the square multi aspect and orientation sensor should cover not just the image circle for 1:1 (square) format but also for 4:3 portrait, 4:3 landscape, 16:9 portrait and 16:9 landscape modes respectively, and won’t use all pixels simultaneously, see the illustration below (omitted the 4:3 modes for simplicity).
(Considering the major importance I will post this in every upcoming threads from now on. Hope both our admin and you, guys will forgive me for this kind of ‘harassment’ being a small price paid for making this killer feature as standard for future M43 bodies.)
Reposting previous reply (only once):
Dear square sensor evangelist,
1) I don’t find your “ergonomic nightmare” of having to rotate the camera argument compelling, it is not such a big deal, really. Turning the camera vs flipping a switch! On the other hand, a solution like the implemented by the Fuji X-T1, to make the data rotate as you rotate the camera would be welcome.
2) It is true that a square sensor would make a swiveling screen redundant, as tilting would be enough. (but it comes with its own problems, see point 4).
3) If the sensor was bigger, the cost of the sensor would be higher and the cameras might have to be larger too to accommodate the sensor.
4) Would the EVF and the screen have to be square too then? since when you want to shoot 4:3 or 3:2 or 16:9 vertical, on the typical 3:2 screens and EVFs, the image would be quite smaller. Then one would probably prefer to turn the camera (ergonomic nightmare!) than ending up with a small vertical preview image. An example: on a 3 inch 3:2 screen (2.5″ x 1.66″ or 63,50mm x 42,16mm), when flipping the switch to take a vertical 3:2 image, the preview would only be 1.66″ x 1.11″ big (42,16 mm x 28,11 mm) instead of 2.5″ x 1.66″ (63,50mm x 42,16mm) big. So I guess the screen and EVF would indeed need to be square too for the “not having to turn the camera” argument to make sense, which would make the size of the camera bigger. Wasn’t one of the selling points of m43 it’s compactness? A square screen in those proportions would be 2.5″ x 2.5″, in other words, it would make the camera 20 mm or 0,79″ taller (+ the increased height for the square EVF). It is either having taller screens/EVFs or keeping the screen sizes and having the vertical images show quite smaller on screen and EVF.
Nevertheless, I shot with Medium Format cameras for a year and It made me really appreciate the square aesthetic. When I shoot with my Panasonic camera using the 1:1 crop, the loss of field of view of the lenses bothers me somewhat. With the proposed solution, the horizontal crop would be less significant and one would gain some vertical image.
I would very much welcome a GX8 with a square sensor, (with the tilting screen and the EVF that can be flipped up) and wouldn’t mind compromising between the preview image size and camera size (a 4:3 proportion screen that would add 1 cm of height?).
But it sounds very much like a pipe dream, not even any current Medium Format cameras come with a square sensor. The GH2 had a bigger sensor than average m43 cameras, but it remained a rectangular sensor (so it was still necessary to turn the camera vertically for a vertical picture, again no big deal).
One last thing, posting the same comment in every m43rumors post does indeed feel a little bit like trolling/harrassing, and after seeing the exact same comment in a few posts and the tone of some of the wording on the replies, it is starting to get annoying, you might make more people be against it than converting them to your cause. Maybe you could try being more creative with the posts, showing artistic image examples? Also even if you convinced a good proportion of m43rumors followers to “lobby” for a square sensor, I’m not sure how relevant it would be in proportion to the m43 market.
I hope you enjoyed the wall of text,
sincerely,
Amateursquareshooter.
Thinking about it a little further, if one was ready to sacrifice the ability to shoot vertical pictures without rotating the camera, but still insisting on having a multiformat sensor larger than 17.3 mm x 13.0 mm, it could be accomplished with a sensor like the one drawn in orange. It is not completely square, gives the advantages of a multi-format sensor but without that much extra height (and area) of the sensor adding that much higher costs and engineering troubles.
(the image didn’t upload).Ah, well it actually did 🙁 🙂
The GH1 and GH2 both had such a sensor. I guess it wasn’t a compelling enough feature to keep in the GH3.
While the GH1 and GH2 had a multi-format sensor. It was optimized for 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3. The one proposed here would also be optimized for 1:1. Sadly, I don’t think this extra 1:1 feature would be compelling enough either for the general public.
Yep. You can probably guess why they didn’t go with a square sensor, though. The area wasted at any given time would be substantial…nearly 50 percent of the area would be unused in the 16:9 aspect ratio. The total sensor area would be greater than that of an APS-C sensor. To achieve a 16 megapixel 16:9 image you’d need a 25 megapixel sensor whereas the GH2 used an 18 megapixel sensor to get 16 megapixels in 4:3 format and 15 megapixels in 16:9 format.
Based on the 19mm effective sensor height of the panasonic GH2 when shooting 16:9…
The sensor size could be around 19mm x 15.52 mm => the format of the sensor would be 4/3.27
Nikon’s DX sensor size is about 24x16mm. The 1:1 crop of this proposed m43 camera would be 15.5 x 15.5mm, in other words, almost the same effective sensor area as shooting with a Nikon DX camera and cropping to 1:1 (16×16). Which would mean that M43 just became that more interesting to someone who prefers to shoot in 1:1 ratio (FOV of a given focal lenght would almost be the same between DX and squareM43 for 1:1 ratio, with smaller lenses than DX).
See my answer in the previous post.
I replied to it too.
Yes it would be a huge advantage after all those damn mFT cameras are so huge and heavy tipping it on its side to take a shot in portrait orientation requires the strength of Hercules lol.I hope your posts get deleted for spamming every thread with your silliness even MF digital cameras unlike MF film do not use square sensors.
All the top Nikon bodies such as the D800 come with the option to shoot different formats [with the viewfinder automatically masking to the chosen format] including 3×2, DX , 1,2x crop and 5×4 crop mode, obviously the higher pixel count of the D800 enables much larger files than cropping mFT would.
Considering the major importance: please stop this spam. I don’t need it, don’t want it, don’t care.
Unfortunately you didn’t show the normal 4:3 Sensor size. It is much smaller than your light grey sensor and it still delivers almost the same result in all situations (with rotating the camera if needed). The 16:9 area is just a few pixel wider than the normal 4:3 area.
Your sensor would be more expensive, it would need a much larger shutter and the readout would take more time and space for unused pixels.
I’m happy with 4:3 because I like to crop to other formats in postprocessing. Often I try to avoid persepective distortion and keep the angle of view horizontal. Later I can move the frame of the final result up and down (like a shift lens).
Your sensor would deliver a little bit more area for moves like this, but this is very limited if you start to crop off center.
I’m sure it’s not worth the efford and repeating the discussion on every topic is not improving the situation.
The normal 4:3 sensor is anyway a ‘no, please’, at least the premium models do deserve a multi aspect sensor with at least a native 16:9 mode. And this is already much closer to what I propose.
As I’ve already shown before, the total sensor surface will be still smaller than the APS-C ones and roughly on same megapixels, so I cannot see why this square sensor would be such expensive.
Another thing is that at the time this type of sensor enter mass production the mechanical shutter will have been discontinued for a while. And for pure electronic (global) shutter the size really doesn’t matter.
“(Considering the major importance I will post this in every upcoming threads from now on. Hope both our admin and you, guys will forgive me for this kind of ‘harassment’ being a small price paid for making this killer feature as standard for future M43 bodies.)”
Please don’t. If enough people cared, I’m sure some manufacturer would have tried it before.
Personally, I don’t think there’s much benefit there. It’s not that hard to rotate your camera, that’s why they have orientation sensors. This sensor would obviously cost more money and require more space, and those are trade offs I’m not interested in making.
Cannot agree with you. The face/eye detection is an incredibly useful and fast way to shoot portraits, street photos etc., but professional photographs still don’t care about it, just because photograps are very-very conservative. Yu should know it since you are member of a mirrorless group! Some thing is the camera rotaton. Despite of being unconfortable most people got used to use it even if it was a more confortable solution.
Damn… And I though Americans were whiney and self absorbed. Seriously? “I really feel this is important so I will yell until people listen”? Enough already. Spamming the comments section of a rumor blog every day and every article because you want a specific feature is absurd. This is not a Panasonic or Olympus site, and your opinion just isn’t that important. Do you really thing think one of these companies is going to say “kesztio and his dog keep screaming into the wind! We better listen!” No. They won’t. Spend your energy writing letters to Panasonic, or start an online petition, but if you really want to see a change, actually work for it. Cutting and pasting the same thing to the comments of every post is just childish laziness. “I will make the same noise over and over and over” is what children do, and a cut and paste rant every post is the internet equivalent of that’s stop with the spam.
I agree with the post, there is no need to call names though.
You obviously haven’t read his rant, every damn day here.
I think this is one of the last features anybody would want. I’m perfectly fine with holding my camera in portrait orientation when I want to shoot in that orientation. No need for another switch.
Moreover, such square sensor would necessarily be bigger, which would increase its cost and make it more difficult to put into small bodies.
So I think your proposal has 0% chance of becoming an actual feature.
This sensor has to fit inside the mount circle, which is always smaller than the camera itself so cannot understand why it would be more difficult to put it in small bodies.
DIA lens factory fire.
Just look at the mount and the sensor of a m43 camera. To me, it’s not obvious how the proposed square sensor could fit in there, without having to move the contacts for the lens.
The lens is circular symmetrical, isn’t it? The contacts are OUTSIDE the back lens, so it has not to trouble us.
BTW look at this image. Do you seriously consider that the contacts would affect in any way the square sensors’ placement? They are far OUTSIDE the image circle!
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Panasonic-GH2-vs-GH3.jpg
STFU with this useless spam. Idiot.
This idea is a lot like a turd. I’m sure you are proud of it and want to tell the world, but to everyone else it just stinks : /
Not a really bad price, but don’t think it’s a really competitive one, either. Just compare to GF6, E-PL5 etc.
I was right. Just checked the GF6 price on amazon, it’s just $448 right now, and we are sure at least about image quality, fast focus and the new, high quality kit lens:
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GF6KK-Mirrorless-Compact-System/dp/B00C97ZZ4S/ref=sr_1_1
At least it’s nice to have a strong brand in the consortium. But could be cheaper…
The release prices are always high, after a will they settle.
G6 BODY 400,-$ ( in 2 months 349,90.- a bargain if… 🙂
is this a probleme?
But PM2 for $300 is because its old, within a couple of weeks when da Kodak are old the price will drop..
A decent camera at a good initial price. I bet it will come down very quickly and will open the door for many new m43 fans.
So let me see if I understand this correctly.
Some no-name company buys or rents the Kodak name, with no real prior experience in m43, sticks it on an m43 camera, and expects me to believe that for any given price/quality combination it will exceed or even meet the combinations of the established players?
Sorry, doesn’t pass the smell test. Yes, some envelope in my mailbox that says “URGENT” on it might reallty mean that I have won the Publisher’s Clearinghouse $10 million prize, but I don’t think so, and toss it in the garbage.
Same here.
Go read the reviews and look at the sample images. Note dpreview.com
has done an initial impression review as well.
Maybe you missed the part where it says the CEO was an Olympus man with years of experience there?
Congratulations from 紫球MASTER
I’m very glad to see soomal ；Congratulations from BigBird MASTER
More competition is always a good thing.
Can’t you say something more interesting 70% IQ?
Can you say something less dickish 70% social skills?
Dear smart person, let me educate you. IQ is a score usually scaled to be Gaussian distributed for a representative sample of the population. It is not measured in percentage.
Incidentally, an IQ score of 70 would still suffice to get you into the same group as 95% of the population. I suspect you may belong to the other 5% though.
Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
Hey Educator, I have a feeling that your arguments might not support your position:
That is, having an IQ of 70 actually puts you right at the bottom of said 95%; meaning that 97.5% of the population would be more intelligent than you.
In contrast thereto belonging to the other 5% includes the possibility of being one of the top 2.5%.
‘In contrast thereto belonging to the other 5% includes the possibility of being one of the top 2.5%.’
Being the man of academics that I am, I have sworn to devote my entire existence to being unnecessarily ambiguous. I hope this answer will help you sort out your feelings.
This guy has always been an complete A-hole.
Not sure why… maybe he is in that time of the month…
Go crawl back in your F blog.
Just because of that douchey comment, I will NEVER visit your blog that you are always trying push here in the comments. Bad marketing is bad.
OH…. And you don’t have to be particularly smart or educated to know that IQ isn’t measured in percentages. Delicious irony there.
Interesting, . . . the Troll must pretend to be 10 different entities, (login aliases), to feel like he has answered your challenge. It takes approximately 10 fever-brained trolls – frothing and sputtering, thrashing and nattering, name switching and name calling to feel that he has enough credibility to beat down just one REAL photographer. Even then he feels the need to to posture as every kind of scientist and expert and to keep voting up his own drivel.
It is completely obvious that he has no pictures of his own, no basis or backing for anything he asserts, he is seething with jealousy at your photos and web-blog.
He is easily the most intellectually challenged poster on this forum, which is why he is so often mistaken for a 12 year old. Maybe 70% an adult (being generous here).
Does anyone also notice that asian camera review sites have much better photographers than popular western ones, like Dpreview and photographyblog?
Na not really. The best photo product reviews are from smaller blogs…
Yes I did. That’s the great American and Western Decadence. In Asia they have the fundamentals while what instagrams an other travesties, we are happily forgetting them.
I try to fight this at my blog:
Photo & Poetry
http://amalric2014.blogspot.it/
No, they have some good ones, but have their share of bad photogs and/or uninspired test shots too.
Dpreview’s photographers are truly awful. It detracts from the credibility of the site. Some of the smaller Asian websites do show higher photographic standards – eg. blogs by Ming Thein and Robin Wong.
I agree, but if you’re referring to Soomal, those aren’t that great a photographs, it’s just the subject matter that’s more interesting. But of course that shouldn’t matter for samples really. Just need detail, colors, shadows, highlights and various lighting conditions.
If those two outfits are considered to be championing the West, well, it is way past doomsday.
Price is too high. Should be no more than $400 new since there are already other m43’s cameras with relatively the same specs for under $300 new right now (PM2). Only advantage of the Kodak is the tilt screen. Not worth that extra scratch when you could get a PM2 and a decent lens for the same money.
So go and get the PM2, then. Problem?
KODAK RULES!!! UP YOURS PANASONIC/OLYMPUS!!!
Indeed, their KODAK FLEXCEL NX System seems to be quite OK, but even here they may face some competition.
The same recommended retail price as as the Olympus E-PM2, but with Wifi and a (possibly) more useful lens.
This could be an entry-level option.
I like the simplicity of this camera. The one thing I do not like is the lack of an imput wheel for adjusting aperture, etc.
Is that $499 price for the body only, or does it include both kit lenses? Dpreview’s 7/24/2014 report on this camera indicated it will be sold in the U.S. as body only or with the two kit lenses, but provided no price information. If the Pixpro 1 comes with both kit lenses, it would be quite a bargain.
Secondly, the initial manufacturer’s suggested list prices on many cameras don’t last much more than six months after introduction. Except perhaps on the top selling models, prices tend to come down so that by the time a camera has been on the market for a year, it’s typically being heavily discounted. So, if you like the camera but think the $499 price is high, just hold on for awhile. In a year or so, you can probably get it for at least 20 percent less.
Very interesting design! It looks very much like my film Pentax P30, and the form factor is quite reminiscent of old compact SLRs (except for the lack of the prism hump). I might have to take a closer look at this one. Looks cheap and cheerful.
It probably commands a premium for all of the experience and built up equity inherent in the Kodak brand (LOL!).
In Hong Kong it’s just about US$380 with 12-45mm