Looks very compelling to me, I love the explorable images -- and adding fast zoom lens and a hotshoe (and 4" touch screen) make it far more useful than the first model.
My big issue is resolution -- they talk about a "40 megaray" sensor (which I'll take to be a 40MP sensor with custom microlenses). The question is how many MP does that effectively translate to (e.g. how large an image can I display). I suspect it's significantly shy of 4K, and quite possibly lower than 1080P.
Note that the original camera had an 11 "megaray" lens. So that suggests a rough doubling of linear resolution -- good but not great.
It seems to me that resolution is an obvious question, and it was a major shortcoming of the original camera (your photos were essentially tiny). Why not address this head-on?
From DPreview: resolution is apparently 5 megapixels. So significantly better than 1080p (2mp) but less than 4k (8mp). So the resolution seems to scale fairly linearly with the "ray count".
Assuming they move to 4:3 that would be around 1800p. That's pretty darn good, and likely would look perfectly OK slightly upscaled to 4K (assuming that's 1800p and sharp).
My big issue is resolution -- they talk about a "40 megaray" sensor (which I'll take to be a 40MP sensor with custom microlenses). The question is how many MP does that effectively translate to (e.g. how large an image can I display). I suspect it's significantly shy of 4K, and quite possibly lower than 1080P.
Note that the original camera had an 11 "megaray" lens. So that suggests a rough doubling of linear resolution -- good but not great.
It seems to me that resolution is an obvious question, and it was a major shortcoming of the original camera (your photos were essentially tiny). Why not address this head-on?