14 ms·

"Lytro’s Illum Is a Camera for Serious Photographers" Meh, not really. I mean, it is interesting, but the title isn't really correct and also not justified by

"Lytro’s Illum Is a Camera for Serious Photographers" Meh, not really. I mean, it is interesting, but the title isn't really correct and also not justified by anything written in the full article. I'm a fairly serious hobbyist photo-taker and while the Lytro appeals to my geeky experimental side it has some major issues for use in "serious photography": While being able to refocus the image is nice, no matter where you set focus the sharpness is pretty shitty relative to nice, sharp modern conventional sensor/lens combos. The images I've seen from the Illum are better in this regard than the previous oddly shaped box camera Lytro released, but still quite a bit off of conventional digital cameras. 4 megapixels, while perfectly fine for web-based images (though with the acceleration in adoption of HighDPI displays, even this is changing), is seriously limiting if you intend to make prints much larger than a 4x6", especially if you also have to crop at all. Also, while the Canon 70-200mm is ~$2500 as noted in the article, Tamron makes an f/2.8 70-200mm that is for all practical purposes just as good for $1,400 which is less than the price of the Lytro even if you add in the cost of a used older low-end APS-C DSLR body (and even an older low-end DSLRs will have many more megapixels and overall image quality at HighDPI or print sizes) to go with it. I still find the Illum (and light-field photography in general) interesting from a tech perspective and and would probably buy one to fuck around with if they cost like $400, but in the price range the Lytro retails for I would recommend anyone "serious" about photography pick up the Sony A7 with the 28-70mm kit lens. You won't be able to refocus or perspective shift the images, but the images will be sooo much nicer and more flexible if you intend to print or display them at very high resolutions. I really wish I could be more positive about the camera because I want to see where light-field photography ends up down the road if it is pursued, but the $1,600 price really puts it in an odd place where it is too much (for most of us) to buy as a toy but too limited to buy as a serious piece of photography gear.

devindotcom 12y ago
RE the lens, yeah, it's worth pointing out that these are much higher performing optically and intended for use on full frame or APS-C size sensors. Rather a different animal.
danbee 12y ago
You don't even have to spend that much. The f/4 version of Canon's 70-200 can be had for around $600 new and it's a fantastic lens.
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  Yup, this is true. The way the article used the lens was as comparison to something similar to the effective f/2.0 the Lytro camera uses; if you're willing to go 2-stops slower (f/4) instead of 1-stop slower (f/2.8) then the lens costs can be reduced even more substantially. In any case, the original comparison isn't all that useful anyway since the Lytro is a very different beast than a traditional digital dslr, but the bottom line remains while I think the Illum is cool, $1,600 is about 4x what I'd pay for it (which isn't to suggest the cost isn't justified based on BOM and/or R&D costs, it probably is, but that is irrelevant in calculating its value to me personally).

devindotcom 12y ago

RE the lens, yeah, it's worth pointing out that these are much higher performing optically and intended for use on full frame or APS-C size sensors. Rather a different animal.

danbee 12y ago

You don't even have to spend that much. The f/4 version of Canon's 70-200 can be had for around $600 new and it's a fantastic lens.

georgemcbay 12y ago
Yup, this is true. The way the article used the lens was as comparison to something similar to the effective f/2.0 the Lytro camera uses; if you're willing to go 2-stops slower (f/4) instead of 1-stop slower (f/2.8) then the lens costs can be reduced even more substantially. In any case, the original comparison isn't all that useful anyway since the Lytro is a very different beast than a traditional digital dslr, but the bottom line remains while I think the Illum is cool, $1,600 is about 4x what I'd pay for it (which isn't to suggest the cost isn't justified based on BOM and/or R&D costs, it probably is, but that is irrelevant in calculating its value to me personally).