4 ms·

I love this technology and it is fascinating as hell, but as a photographer it leaves me absolutely cold. I just cannot seem to find a good reason to use it oth

I love this technology and it is fascinating as hell, but as a photographer it leaves me absolutely cold. I just cannot seem to find a good reason to use it other than the simple novelty one feels when first navigating one of the photos. That doesn't remain novel for long, and the contrived compositions that make the best use of the technology tend to reflect a lack of what, in my own opinion, goes into a good photograph. The results of the camera are simply not compelling to me.

pfranz 12y ago
A friend of mine does event photography for swing dancing. He's looking at getting one because it's really hard to catch focus when things are moving so quickly (in dimly-lit halls). There are photography niches out there where features like this can be a necessity. Another use-case I've heard about was wedding photographers using depth of field as a Ken Burns-like effect for videography or on their webpage. Both are narrow use-cases, but I too find the technology fascinating and hope it finds a sustainable use-case.
- aaronbrethorst 12y ago
  Why not set up a strobe or two at relatively low power in the corners and use those instead?
- djKianoosh 12y ago
  this won't really help him catch focus of moving objects... because they are moving. only a faster shutter speed can help there.
  - lelandbatey 12y ago
    But when someone is moving closer/further away from you (as probably happens when you're a stationary photographer among dancers) the ability to not worry about what's in focus right now seems huge.
    - elithrar 12y ago
      > But when someone is moving closer/further away from you (as probably happens when you're a stationary photographer among dancers) the ability to not worry about what's in focus right now seems huge. But the subject is still moving quickly - the Lytro can't compensate for that. Dark, high movement indoor scenes (dancing, sports, etc) are always some of the toughest situations to shoot in, and are probably one of the times where gear can make a substantial difference between getting a "passable" shot and getting a completely unusable one. Stop down as much as you can, zone focus, push the ISO up to maintain the minimum shutter for the activity at hand and shoot. You can get push ISO higher if you're not looking to print big (as in, 16x20" and up) too, which can help give you more breathing room.
      - stevekemp 12y ago
        Agreed entirely, although it has to be said the f/2.0 will help a little. (Of course a 4MP image will not be as good as a real cameras, but low-light performance should be reasonable with that aperture - though I've not seen anything mentioned about ISO ranges.) I will go hug my 70-200 f/2.8 now, it truely is an amazing lens :)
        djKianoosh 12y ago
        I took a Nikon 180mm f2.8 [1] to the world cup and it was phenomenal[2]. It's less bulky than the 70-200. Now, if this Lytro has real good ISO range and decent glass, then it might be good for a travel kit. Just depends on how big it really is. -- 1: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af_180mmf_28d_if/ http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/a... 2: https://www.flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh/sets/72157644825335868/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh/sets/72157644825335...
- kghose 12y ago
  I agree with the other poster - I think your problem is motion blur rather than focus - if you have a decent lens (one of the "pro" lenses, rather than kit) the focus is very fast, smooth and does well in low light for both Nikon and Canon.
aaronbrethorst 12y ago
I agree completely. Despite submitting the article, I don't agree with its conclusions at all. Give me the ability to fix my focus fuckup on a 20MP image at a wide aperture like f/1.4, and then I might be interested. But for now this still seems like a novelty item.
- jychang 12y ago
  That might not be that far off. The D800 is 36 megapixels, if we ever hit 50 megapixels then it might be very possible for a Lytro camera to be 15MP or so. That's perfectly acceptable, resolution-wise. The current DoF of the lens is limited by the fact that it's a superzoom, which trades off aperture for focal length. Considering that they capture the entire light field, a traditional 24-70mm might very well be effectively faster than the f/2 superzoom they currently have, giving us a f/1.4 DoF and brightness.
pogden 12y ago
I agree, the refocusing is somewhat gimmicky, but how would you like a 30-250mm f/2 lens that never misses focus. To me, this is where the Lytro shines. It enables you to use a lens that would be unusable with a normal sensor.
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  At least with the original Lytro camera I have, "never misses focus" is rather overstating the case. When the pictures come out well, they're stellar. But that constant f/2 aperture means the depth of field is minuscule, and it's surprising how often it takes pictures where none of the focal lengths you can choose from is particularly compelling.
vanderZwan 12y ago
I think it would be much more interesting for film than for photography, adding a huge amount of creative power to the editor and cinematographer in post-processing. EDIT: I wonder if there are any stop-motion animators who have tried working with this camera.

pfranz 12y ago

A friend of mine does event photography for swing dancing. He's looking at getting one because it's really hard to catch focus when things are moving so quickly (in dimly-lit halls). There are photography niches out there where features like this can be a necessity. Another use-case I've heard about was wedding photographers using depth of field as a Ken Burns-like effect for videography or on their webpage. Both are narrow use-cases, but I too find the technology fascinating and hope it finds a sustainable use-case.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago
Why not set up a strobe or two at relatively low power in the corners and use those instead?
djKianoosh 12y ago
this won't really help him catch focus of moving objects... because they are moving. only a faster shutter speed can help there.
- lelandbatey 12y ago
  But when someone is moving closer/further away from you (as probably happens when you're a stationary photographer among dancers) the ability to not worry about what's in focus right now seems huge.
  - elithrar 12y ago
    > But when someone is moving closer/further away from you (as probably happens when you're a stationary photographer among dancers) the ability to not worry about what's in focus right now seems huge. But the subject is still moving quickly - the Lytro can't compensate for that. Dark, high movement indoor scenes (dancing, sports, etc) are always some of the toughest situations to shoot in, and are probably one of the times where gear can make a substantial difference between getting a "passable" shot and getting a completely unusable one. Stop down as much as you can, zone focus, push the ISO up to maintain the minimum shutter for the activity at hand and shoot. You can get push ISO higher if you're not looking to print big (as in, 16x20" and up) too, which can help give you more breathing room.
    - stevekemp 12y ago
      Agreed entirely, although it has to be said the f/2.0 will help a little. (Of course a 4MP image will not be as good as a real cameras, but low-light performance should be reasonable with that aperture - though I've not seen anything mentioned about ISO ranges.) I will go hug my 70-200 f/2.8 now, it truely is an amazing lens :)
      - djKianoosh 12y ago
        I took a Nikon 180mm f2.8 [1] to the world cup and it was phenomenal[2]. It's less bulky than the 70-200. Now, if this Lytro has real good ISO range and decent glass, then it might be good for a travel kit. Just depends on how big it really is. -- 1: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af_180mmf_28d_if/ http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/a... 2: https://www.flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh/sets/72157644825335868/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh/sets/72157644825335...
kghose 12y ago
I agree with the other poster - I think your problem is motion blur rather than focus - if you have a decent lens (one of the "pro" lenses, rather than kit) the focus is very fast, smooth and does well in low light for both Nikon and Canon.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

I agree completely. Despite submitting the article, I don't agree with its conclusions at all. Give me the ability to fix my focus fuckup on a 20MP image at a wide aperture like f/1.4, and then I might be interested. But for now this still seems like a novelty item.

jychang 12y ago
That might not be that far off. The D800 is 36 megapixels, if we ever hit 50 megapixels then it might be very possible for a Lytro camera to be 15MP or so. That's perfectly acceptable, resolution-wise. The current DoF of the lens is limited by the fact that it's a superzoom, which trades off aperture for focal length. Considering that they capture the entire light field, a traditional 24-70mm might very well be effectively faster than the f/2 superzoom they currently have, giving us a f/1.4 DoF and brightness.

pogden 12y ago

I agree, the refocusing is somewhat gimmicky, but how would you like a 30-250mm f/2 lens that never misses focus. To me, this is where the Lytro shines. It enables you to use a lens that would be unusable with a normal sensor.

bunderbunder 12y ago
At least with the original Lytro camera I have, "never misses focus" is rather overstating the case. When the pictures come out well, they're stellar. But that constant f/2 aperture means the depth of field is minuscule, and it's surprising how often it takes pictures where none of the focal lengths you can choose from is particularly compelling.

vanderZwan 12y ago

I think it would be much more interesting for film than for photography, adding a huge amount of creative power to the editor and cinematographer in post-processing. EDIT: I wonder if there are any stop-motion animators who have tried working with this camera.