4 ms·

As a geek, I think this is totally awesome. As a casual photographer, I'm less excited. I've pretty much got the hang of focusing my shots as I'm taking them.

• shadowfox 15y ago
  Well. One use would be to experiment with different focuses and pick the best later. It is not a rarity for me to look at old pictures and think that a different focus would have worked better (Then again I am no great photographer. For all I know others are never feel this need. So take that with a pinch of salt)
• thomasgerbe 15y ago
  I'm a casual photographer too. The advantage I see in the future is that you are 'guaranteed' a potentially sharp picture. Even when I do portraits with a wide aperture (1.2/1.4) there are times when I miss the focus on a tiny detail that I wish was more in focus. And since I prefer doing candid poses, redoing a situation just isn't that preferable. For sports or wildlife, I imagine it can be hard to focus too, sometimes just missing a shot of a bird because of a split second. It does make me wonder how the motion blur on this would work.
• tincholio 15y ago
  This might be a bit far into the future, considering the speed and resolution deficiencies that these first products are bound to have, but in the case of sports and nature photography, this would allow greatly improve the ratio of keepers to frames shot, by making those otherwise perfect but slightly out of focus shots viable. Even with the amazing AF systems available today, a significant number of frames don't have perfect focus. This could provide a solution for that problem.