While it does look awesome and I totally want one, I will say...I'm a little disappointed that we keep coming up with ways to seemingly make anyone an awesome photographer.
While it does look awesome and I totally want one, I will say...I'm a little disappointed that we keep coming up with ways to seemingly make anyone an awesome photographer.
I still want one.
This is pretty silly, a camera that allows the user to retroactive focus does nothing for someone who lacks the ability and skill to properly frame, pick an interesting subject and background, pose a model, work with lighting, etc etc etc.
Lytro is not a "make awesome photographer" tool any more than using a DSLR vs a P&S would be. If you're worried that this is going to make a skilled photographer obsolete, you're being paranoid.
Personally I'm pretty disappointed in the weird form factor, lack of buttons, lack of interface, lack of viewfinder, small and low res screen, and the Icrap design with non user replaceable battery and memory. As well as the inherantly low resolution this system outputs.
Lets hope this thing has massive dynamic range, because not even having exposure compensation is pretty messed up.
I understand they want to do something completely different, though. The tech is undeniably cool, it will be interesting to see what/if they go for higher end models.
I'm very curious to know the actual sensor size, because an F2.0 lens with a 1/1.7" sensor is very different than an F2 lens on a full frame sensor. A F2 35-280mm is again, undeniable cool though.
Looking at this, the sensor looks fairly small, which was something I was worried about when the first examples came out months ago. The DOF even at its narrowest seems to be pretty wide, which is probably fine for the target demographic, but it means that a DSLR is still going to provide significantly better IQ/narrower DOF.
If that F2.0 lens is really only an F5.6-8 in DSLRs terms, its not really all that impressive.
Good find EarthQuake on all the specs on this new camera.
Now i don't have to worry about replacing my Canon DSLR camera for a while.
This new type of camera will take time to get prefect like all new technology does.
Seeing it will only be released for apple first then windows tells you something,lol
This camera, not necessarily the tech behind it, is clearly intended for the casual shooters who just wants to press one button and take a photo. In reality that is a pretty big market, it will be quite a while before we see this sort of tech end up in pro-level gear I think. There is certainly a place for it there though.
We'll have to see some major advances, with a lot of people complaining that the newly announced Canon 1DX "only" has 18mp, pros or anyone looking to actually print photos will not put up with 1-2mp output. That should come in time though, increased resolution. For now, its perfectly suitable for throwing some photos up on facebook, where an 18mp image is otherwise extreme overkill.
I do worry that this is oversimplified however, there is a massive and growing market when you look at higher-end compacts, compact mirrorless and even the blooming entry level DSLR market that offer full manual control etc. That said, something like the majority of all photos taken are taken on Iphones these days, so there is still that massive market of consumer who don't know too much or care to know much about photography.
yeah, I've been following this camera's development, and I love the ability to refocus in post. It's honestly a bit cheaper than I expected, and I'd probably grab one if I was rolling in spare cash. I'm looking forward to seeing what it becomes down the road. I definitely wouldn't drop $400 to beta test it for them, with my current 'tight' budget.
Yeah but at $400 a lot of people will. This is cheaper than what I was expecting too($500-1000). At this price point they should sell a lot, and with the very limited features and design, they leave the door open for an enthusiast version, and a pro version which could be sold at significantly higher prices.
A buddy of mine told me it's only 1.2MP though, which if true, is way too low for the price. I can't find anything to confirm his claim though. Not trying to be a hater here, because I wouldn't mind having one, but I'm more excited about what it will become as it evolved.
If you're worried that this is going to make a skilled photographer obsolete, you're being paranoid.
I'm not worried it's going to make a skilled photographer obsolete. I just talk to hundreds of people every week, and the amount of people in the world who think that because their son knows what "the rams" are - that they're a computer genius who knows more than a professional with years of experience, it's staggering. Different thing, same idea. Most folks don't care and don't know what makes something good half the time.
It is being a little overly paranoid, but I guess I'm just weary of anything that could potentially take away from the value of someone's craft, even if just in the eyes of others.
A buddy of mine told me it's only 1.2MP though, which if true, is way too low for the price. I can't find anything to confirm his claim though. Not trying to be a hater here, because I wouldn't mind having one, but I'm more excited about what it will become as it evolved.
Right, I'm not surprised at all by this, because I did a little bit of reading into the topic before it hit market, and because of what its doing, it has like a 10:1 sensor to pixel ratio, meaning it needs 10 pixels on the sensor to equal 1 in the output.... Again for the target demographic(people posting random stuff on facebook), 1.2 megapixels is about all you would ever need.
Its telling that they go out of their way to NOT list the MP output of the camera, they know its one of the weaknesses but possibly unreasonably so. Do most people who would want this sort of camera really use 10-20mp output? And I don't mean the photography nerds like us that understand the tech and want it because its cool, but people who want "magic 1 click photos". The amount of people in that demographic who really need a high MP number are pretty small.
The fact that it is genuinely something completely new, and that it offers a realistically usable resolution for web-based images, makes me feel like the price point is just right. I mean think of it this way: 1.2 megapixels is higher than or close to the screen resolution of a of lot user's Laptop or PC monitors.
I don't know about you, but the majority of photos I take with my 14mp DSLR get sized down to 1400x900(1.26mp) and posted on the internet. Clearly this sort of tech isn't mature enough yet for large prints.
It is being a little overly paranoid, but I guess I'm just weary of anything that could potentially take away from the value of someone's craft, even if just in the eyes of others.
I know what you're saying, but at the same point, I mean if you look at the history of photography, or even portraiture you've got people saying:
A. Oh these terrible cameras, they're going to ruin art!
B. Oh this terrible color film!
C. Oh these terrible auto focus cameras!
D. Oh these terrible digital cameras!
Yeah I know what you mean, part of me doesn't like it because in some people's minds it could lessen the value of real quality work. But another part of me knows that real talent and ability is always going to be apparent to the right set of eyes. And to a certain extent it makes it more valuable, having to stand out among more and more fish in the sea, in a way.
And I mean, I still want one, so there's that part of me too.
Was quite literally ready to order one til I noticed the "Mac only software currently", and a OS version I don't yet have, so I'll wait til they get their act together and publish support for the dominant OS.
Yeah I know what you mean, part of me doesn't like it because in some people's minds it could lessen the value of real quality work. .
I find myself agreeing with this. It kind of bugs me a little. However, I wonder if they'll be able to truly replicate the Bokeh effect. It just looks like a gaussian blur, to me. I want to see more examples.
I doubt they can truly get a nice bokeh like this: 秋の逆さ傘 by *SuiKa*, on Flickr
*edit*
After looking at their website here , the pictures... are... well... terrible. There is no bokeh, just a blur, giving the photos a really bland look. None of them are sharp, and have a high amount of noise. Surely this will develop with time, but I'm very unimpressed with the quality of the shots. I guess that is to be expected with such a small lens, sensor, etc. Of course, they're definitely not targeting professional photographers either, which is understandable.
Yeah I know what you mean, part of me doesn't like it because in some people's minds it could lessen the value of real quality work. But another part of me knows that real talent and ability is always going to be apparent to the right set of eyes. And to a certain extent it makes it more valuable, having to stand out among more and more fish in the sea, in a way.
And I mean, I still want one, so there's that part of me too.
People who don't know art typically can't tell good work from mediocre or poor work.
Also, 8x optical zoom? That sounds like a lot. My 70-300mm lense is only 4.3x magnification, something seems a little wrong here?
That is very common with telephoto zooms, just because it has a lot of reach doesn't actually mean it has a lot of range. Now, if you think of a common super-zoom lens like a 18-200mm lens, that has over 10x zoom.
I find myself agreeing with this. It kind of bugs me a little. However, I wonder if they'll be able to truly replicate the Bokeh effect. It just looks like a gaussian blur, to me. I want to see more examples.
I doubt they can truly get a nice bokeh like this: 秋の逆さ傘 by *SuiKa*, on Flickr
*edit*
After looking at their website here , the pictures... are... well... terrible. There is no bokeh, just a blur, giving the photos a really bland look. None of them are sharp, and have a high amount of noise. Surely this will develop with time, but I'm very unimpressed with the quality of the shots. I guess that is to be expected with such a small lens, sensor, etc. Of course, they're definitely not targeting professional photographers either, which is understandable.
Actually, your sample photo is a pretty good example of what would commonly be considered poor bokeh. Distracting OOF elements combined with obvious polygonal lines from the 8 bladed aperture with sharp defined lines. A lens that had "good" bokeh would have a round bokeh shape, and a smooth transition at the edges. Now you may like the effect for this particular shot, but it isn't what I would point to as an example of good bokeh. Most portrait type lenses are optimized to have very smooth and un-distracting bokeh for instance.
Thats not to say that the examples from the Lytro are a standard of quality to strive for, personally I think its a bit early to really judge the quality from this system, I mean its not even out yet, so we don't really know the potential with processing. It might even be possible in the future to load in a specific "type" or "shape" of bokeh if you're looking for a specific effect, I'm not sure if that was possible but it wouldn't surprise me.
I do agree though, that the small sensor looks like a pretty big limitation. A "focus later" system with a small sensor that already has a very wide DOF doesn't make all that much sense to me. Even on the shots where the subject is very close, the BG is still rendered in pretty clear detail, which is unfortunate of course. With a close subject, you would like to be able to really blow the BG away. From what I understand depth of field is also a paramater you can edit after the fact though, the question then becomes does F2 with a small sensor provide a shallow enough DOF. On the tele end probably for some things, on the wide end probably not.
I'm not sure how shitting on some amateur's work on a random forum is either productive or relevant to this thread. Posting just to laugh at someone with beginner level work is just poor taste and accomplishes nothing.
That is very common with telephoto zooms, just because it has a lot of reach doesn't actually mean it has a lot of range. Now, if you think of a common super-zoom lens like a 18-200mm lens, that has over 10x zoom.
Actually, your sample photo is a pretty good example of what would commonly be considered poor bokeh. Distracting OOF elements combined with obvious polygonal lines from the 8 bladed aperture with sharp defined lines. A lens that had "good" bokeh would have a round bokeh shape, and a smooth transition at the edges. Now you may like the effect for this particular shot, but it isn't what I would point to as an example of good bokeh. Most portrait type lenses are optimized to have very smooth and un-distracting bokeh for instance.
Thats not to say that the examples from the Lytro are a standard of quality to strive for, personally I think its a bit early to really judge the quality from this system, I mean its not even out yet, so we don't really know the potential with processing. It might even be possible in the future to load in a specific "type" or "shape" of bokeh if you're looking for a specific effect, I'm not sure if that was possible but it wouldn't surprise me.
I do agree though, that the small sensor looks like a pretty big limitation. A "focus later" system with a small sensor that already has a very wide DOF doesn't make all that much sense to me. Even on the shots where the subject is very close, the BG is still rendered in pretty clear detail, which is unfortunate of course. With a close subject, you would like to be able to really blow the BG away. From what I understand depth of field is also a paramater you can edit after the fact though, the question then becomes does F2 with a small sensor provide a shallow enough DOF. On the tele end probably for some things, on the wide end probably not.
Ahhhh you just cleared everything up regarding the magnification on lenses. Thanks for that.
And yes, I agree with you about the bokeh on my sample picture. I just grabbed something real quick, something with a bokeh effect that you do not have at all on the Lytro cameras. You get the point I was trying to make. Indeed, it is too soon to judge the quality, but from what I've seen so far... I've yet to be impressed. It is pretty cool to adjust the focus in post, and could be very nice for macro photography, if the quality was up to par with a DSLR and a nice macro lens.
I think the weird thing for me is that they're kind of advertising the refocusing as a fun trick, but I wonder if it would get old after a while. The value of this tech for me would be to salvage bad shots, but without better access to editing the image yourself and the rather limited image quality it doesn't seem that useful at the moment. I hope it is improved and is opened up more because the tech itself seems like a step in the right direction.
Yeah I don't really understand the causal marketing and the gimmicky prototype, plus does it really need to be embedded into websites? Parallax and refocusing are awesome tools and I'm sure some unique things are going to come out because of it.
Ahhhh you just cleared everything up regarding the magnification on lenses. Thanks for that.
And yes, I agree with you about the bokeh on my sample picture. I just grabbed something real quick, something with a bokeh effect that you do not have at all on the Lytro cameras. You get the point I was trying to make. Indeed, it is too soon to judge the quality, but from what I've seen so far... I've yet to be impressed. It is pretty cool to adjust the focus in post, and could be very nice for macro photography, if the quality was up to par with a DSLR and a nice macro lens.
Well I think its important to have a little perspective. At $400 for what is one of the few actual inovative technologies in photography in the last 15 years, this system is clearly not competing with DSLRS. I mean just think about how much those first 1.2 megapixel DSLR's cost when they came out, and the drawbacks they had vs film cameras at the time. I'm not saying this will reveloutionize photography or anything, but when you consider that this is truely inovative, the price point make sense and at lower than any current DSLR, its clear they are not trying to compete in that prosumer DSLR segment.
I mean really, in 15 years we have seen very little actual inovation, just more resolution, better ISO/noise, nicer LCDs, better shooting rates/AF, video added to most models in the past few years, but nothing that really changes the way you take photos.
If you're just looking at it and saying "Ha! My dslr is still better!", I mean I agree with you, but I think that is sort of missing the point.
When this was released it was 1.5mp, and cost $12,000. http://www.nikonweb.com/dcs420/ The resolution was vastly inferior to film. It turned out ok.
I think the weird thing for me is that they're kind of advertising the refocusing as a fun trick, but I wonder if it would get old after a while. The value of this tech for me would be to salvage bad shots, but without better access to editing the image yourself and the rather limited image quality it doesn't seem that useful at the moment. I hope it is improved and is opened up more because the tech itself seems like a step in the right direction.
For me it would be refocusing, and adjusting DOF as well. How many times have you take a shot only to say, oh I wish I would have used a smaller or larger aperture? Actually having a "dynamic" depth of field would be more useful to me than the refocusing thing. But again, with the small sensor its of limited use I agree.
Yeah I don't really understand the causal marketing and the gimmicky prototype, plus does it really need to be embedded into websites? Parallax and refocusing are awesome tools and I'm sure some unique things are going to come out because of it.
Well first off, nobody is going to force you to share your photos with the dynamic applet thing. You can export a jpeg or tiff to photoshop and put it through your standard processing i'm sure. Eventually we'll see Lytro raw processing directly in photoshop too. So really, there's no reason you HAVE to do anything, its just a cool way to show off the extra data that the camera captures.
Unfortunately again the F2 lens is really about F8-11 equiv from what i've been reading. At that point, you get about the same DOF of a high-end compact P&S camera like the Canon S95, Samsung Ex1, Lumix LX5 etc. However the target market is switching from a Canon 5D to this camera, they're switching from a low end P&S or cell phone.
At the end of the day, the success of this camera will likely influence future products and more advanced sensor design. You would think they could come out with a APS-C sized sensor in a "pro" body, or even a M4/3rds size sensor would be a big step up. I would like to see a larger sensor, and a smaller zoom range(3-5x) in a more conventional camera shaped body, but who knows if we will ever see that. I hope this camera is a commercial success so they can continue with further sensor development, as sensor development is one aspect in photography that has the largest potential for innovation and growth.
Replies
I still want one.
It looks impressive - I'd be interested in being able to read up on it at some point.
This is pretty silly, a camera that allows the user to retroactive focus does nothing for someone who lacks the ability and skill to properly frame, pick an interesting subject and background, pose a model, work with lighting, etc etc etc.
Lytro is not a "make awesome photographer" tool any more than using a DSLR vs a P&S would be. If you're worried that this is going to make a skilled photographer obsolete, you're being paranoid.
Personally I'm pretty disappointed in the weird form factor, lack of buttons, lack of interface, lack of viewfinder, small and low res screen, and the Icrap design with non user replaceable battery and memory. As well as the inherantly low resolution this system outputs.
Lets hope this thing has massive dynamic range, because not even having exposure compensation is pretty messed up.
I understand they want to do something completely different, though. The tech is undeniably cool, it will be interesting to see what/if they go for higher end models.
More links:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7237351494/lytro-light-field-camera-first-look-with-ren-ng
https://www.lytro.com/camera
I'm very curious to know the actual sensor size, because an F2.0 lens with a 1/1.7" sensor is very different than an F2 lens on a full frame sensor. A F2 35-280mm is again, undeniable cool though.
Looking at this, the sensor looks fairly small, which was something I was worried about when the first examples came out months ago. The DOF even at its narrowest seems to be pretty wide, which is probably fine for the target demographic, but it means that a DSLR is still going to provide significantly better IQ/narrower DOF.
If that F2.0 lens is really only an F5.6-8 in DSLRs terms, its not really all that impressive.
Now i don't have to worry about replacing my Canon DSLR camera for a while.
This new type of camera will take time to get prefect like all new technology does.
Seeing it will only be released for apple first then windows tells you something,lol
We'll have to see some major advances, with a lot of people complaining that the newly announced Canon 1DX "only" has 18mp, pros or anyone looking to actually print photos will not put up with 1-2mp output. That should come in time though, increased resolution. For now, its perfectly suitable for throwing some photos up on facebook, where an 18mp image is otherwise extreme overkill.
I do worry that this is oversimplified however, there is a massive and growing market when you look at higher-end compacts, compact mirrorless and even the blooming entry level DSLR market that offer full manual control etc. That said, something like the majority of all photos taken are taken on Iphones these days, so there is still that massive market of consumer who don't know too much or care to know much about photography.
haha what, too obvious
I'm not worried it's going to make a skilled photographer obsolete. I just talk to hundreds of people every week, and the amount of people in the world who think that because their son knows what "the rams" are - that they're a computer genius who knows more than a professional with years of experience, it's staggering. Different thing, same idea. Most folks don't care and don't know what makes something good half the time.
It is being a little overly paranoid, but I guess I'm just weary of anything that could potentially take away from the value of someone's craft, even if just in the eyes of others.
Right, I'm not surprised at all by this, because I did a little bit of reading into the topic before it hit market, and because of what its doing, it has like a 10:1 sensor to pixel ratio, meaning it needs 10 pixels on the sensor to equal 1 in the output.... Again for the target demographic(people posting random stuff on facebook), 1.2 megapixels is about all you would ever need.
Its telling that they go out of their way to NOT list the MP output of the camera, they know its one of the weaknesses but possibly unreasonably so. Do most people who would want this sort of camera really use 10-20mp output? And I don't mean the photography nerds like us that understand the tech and want it because its cool, but people who want "magic 1 click photos". The amount of people in that demographic who really need a high MP number are pretty small.
The fact that it is genuinely something completely new, and that it offers a realistically usable resolution for web-based images, makes me feel like the price point is just right. I mean think of it this way: 1.2 megapixels is higher than or close to the screen resolution of a of lot user's Laptop or PC monitors.
I don't know about you, but the majority of photos I take with my 14mp DSLR get sized down to 1400x900(1.26mp) and posted on the internet. Clearly this sort of tech isn't mature enough yet for large prints.
I know what you're saying, but at the same point, I mean if you look at the history of photography, or even portraiture you've got people saying:
A. Oh these terrible cameras, they're going to ruin art!
B. Oh this terrible color film!
C. Oh these terrible auto focus cameras!
D. Oh these terrible digital cameras!
You get where i'm going with that...
And I mean, I still want one, so there's that part of me too.
I find myself agreeing with this. It kind of bugs me a little. However, I wonder if they'll be able to truly replicate the Bokeh effect. It just looks like a gaussian blur, to me. I want to see more examples.
I doubt they can truly get a nice bokeh like this:
秋の逆さ傘 by *SuiKa*, on Flickr
*edit*
After looking at their website here , the pictures... are... well... terrible. There is no bokeh, just a blur, giving the photos a really bland look. None of them are sharp, and have a high amount of noise. Surely this will develop with time, but I'm very unimpressed with the quality of the shots. I guess that is to be expected with such a small lens, sensor, etc. Of course, they're definitely not targeting professional photographers either, which is understandable.
People who don't know art typically can't tell good work from mediocre or poor work.
Case in point: http://www.3dbuzz.com/vbforum/showthread.php?169172-Anime-Head-Model
whoops, hit edit instead of quote.
That is very common with telephoto zooms, just because it has a lot of reach doesn't actually mean it has a lot of range. Now, if you think of a common super-zoom lens like a 18-200mm lens, that has over 10x zoom.
Actually, your sample photo is a pretty good example of what would commonly be considered poor bokeh. Distracting OOF elements combined with obvious polygonal lines from the 8 bladed aperture with sharp defined lines. A lens that had "good" bokeh would have a round bokeh shape, and a smooth transition at the edges. Now you may like the effect for this particular shot, but it isn't what I would point to as an example of good bokeh. Most portrait type lenses are optimized to have very smooth and un-distracting bokeh for instance.
Thats not to say that the examples from the Lytro are a standard of quality to strive for, personally I think its a bit early to really judge the quality from this system, I mean its not even out yet, so we don't really know the potential with processing. It might even be possible in the future to load in a specific "type" or "shape" of bokeh if you're looking for a specific effect, I'm not sure if that was possible but it wouldn't surprise me.
I do agree though, that the small sensor looks like a pretty big limitation. A "focus later" system with a small sensor that already has a very wide DOF doesn't make all that much sense to me. Even on the shots where the subject is very close, the BG is still rendered in pretty clear detail, which is unfortunate of course. With a close subject, you would like to be able to really blow the BG away. From what I understand depth of field is also a paramater you can edit after the fact though, the question then becomes does F2 with a small sensor provide a shallow enough DOF. On the tele end probably for some things, on the wide end probably not.
I'm not sure how shitting on some amateur's work on a random forum is either productive or relevant to this thread. Posting just to laugh at someone with beginner level work is just poor taste and accomplishes nothing.
Ahhhh you just cleared everything up regarding the magnification on lenses. Thanks for that.
And yes, I agree with you about the bokeh on my sample picture. I just grabbed something real quick, something with a bokeh effect that you do not have at all on the Lytro cameras. You get the point I was trying to make. Indeed, it is too soon to judge the quality, but from what I've seen so far... I've yet to be impressed. It is pretty cool to adjust the focus in post, and could be very nice for macro photography, if the quality was up to par with a DSLR and a nice macro lens.
Well I think its important to have a little perspective. At $400 for what is one of the few actual inovative technologies in photography in the last 15 years, this system is clearly not competing with DSLRS. I mean just think about how much those first 1.2 megapixel DSLR's cost when they came out, and the drawbacks they had vs film cameras at the time. I'm not saying this will reveloutionize photography or anything, but when you consider that this is truely inovative, the price point make sense and at lower than any current DSLR, its clear they are not trying to compete in that prosumer DSLR segment.
I mean really, in 15 years we have seen very little actual inovation, just more resolution, better ISO/noise, nicer LCDs, better shooting rates/AF, video added to most models in the past few years, but nothing that really changes the way you take photos.
If you're just looking at it and saying "Ha! My dslr is still better!", I mean I agree with you, but I think that is sort of missing the point.
When this was released it was 1.5mp, and cost $12,000. http://www.nikonweb.com/dcs420/ The resolution was vastly inferior to film. It turned out ok.
For me it would be refocusing, and adjusting DOF as well. How many times have you take a shot only to say, oh I wish I would have used a smaller or larger aperture? Actually having a "dynamic" depth of field would be more useful to me than the refocusing thing. But again, with the small sensor its of limited use I agree.
Well first off, nobody is going to force you to share your photos with the dynamic applet thing. You can export a jpeg or tiff to photoshop and put it through your standard processing i'm sure. Eventually we'll see Lytro raw processing directly in photoshop too. So really, there's no reason you HAVE to do anything, its just a cool way to show off the extra data that the camera captures.
Unfortunately again the F2 lens is really about F8-11 equiv from what i've been reading. At that point, you get about the same DOF of a high-end compact P&S camera like the Canon S95, Samsung Ex1, Lumix LX5 etc. However the target market is switching from a Canon 5D to this camera, they're switching from a low end P&S or cell phone.
At the end of the day, the success of this camera will likely influence future products and more advanced sensor design. You would think they could come out with a APS-C sized sensor in a "pro" body, or even a M4/3rds size sensor would be a big step up. I would like to see a larger sensor, and a smaller zoom range(3-5x) in a more conventional camera shaped body, but who knows if we will ever see that. I hope this camera is a commercial success so they can continue with further sensor development, as sensor development is one aspect in photography that has the largest potential for innovation and growth.