Pentax_Prime: Anyone notice that this is the only site that 'updates' you on 'Lytro'? (A company that has never actually released a product - nor made any sort of actual business sense.) Is this company Amazon owned or what?
And I've published a dissertation. It would have been interesting to have a civil discussion and occasional disagreement with you, but clearly that's impossible.I'm done here.
Oahu Kamaaina: Here's an interesting link about the Dycam Model 1 digital camera released in 1990. It had 320x 240 resolution, held 32 pictures, fixed focus lens, and cost $995. [That's 1990 dollars]
I'm sure there were lots of comments by film photographers putting down the new technology then, similar to the comments in this blog. The Lytro camera may well fail, it's largely a proof of concept, but I'm surprised that the photographers who don't buy one aren't at least cheering their innovation rather than dissing their attempt to improve the technology.
Wow, I rarely am called deceptive.
I just looked at the Lytro files in my Lytro library. Each file image data consists of two files, one is consistently 16.1 MB and the other varies in size, but the total varies from 17.3 MB to 17.9 MB for each image. That's not a "rather small amount of data." From these one can extract several different JPGs and a depth map for showing them on the Lytro website, or all-in-focus and 3D images. If you print one JPG you're not throwing away data, you're only using part of what can be extracted.
Lytro has demonstrated 3D images (if you care to search the web) and others have demonstrated all-in-focus images (if you care to search).
Thank you for revealing that your "fizzled" remark is based on your own guess of Lytro production figures.
I joined this discussion thinking I could learn and share information with other Lytro owners or interested people, but I was wrong. Much of what I've read is factually incorrect or just yelling to be heard.
Re "(A company that has never actually released a product - nor made any sort of actual business sense.)"
This is factually incorrect. They are a $50 Million company that makes and sells consumer light-field cameras to a long waiting list.
Dr Ng built this company in six years out of his award winning Stanford Dissertation and has several technical experts in the field on his advisory board. If you're going to disparage someone's technical ability or business acumen, perhaps there are better choices than Dr. Ng.
Perhaps I should have clarified my comment but I was fighting the text limit. The "one trick" Lytro does is to take a huge amount of data that can be mined to make refocusable images, 3D images, and all-in-focus images after the fact. These have been demonstrated already. I think that's /incredibly/ impressive for a consumer product, apparently you don't. That's o.k.
I checked the web for Lytro sales figures and can find nothing so if you have some information why Lytro has "fizzled", please share it.
As I said earlier, part of the appeal of the camera to me is that it's not particularly easy to take good refocusable images. so I'm not surprised 10 are on eBay. [There are also 331 hits for the Leica R4 on eBay, if that's your criterion.]
Lytro may well fail; startups usually do. But as I said earlier, "I'm surprised that the photographers who don't buy one aren't at least cheering their innovation rather than dissing their attempt to improve the technology."
I guess we agree to disagree, Roland. I find mine very interesting.You're correct, it /is/ a special thing; it's not intended to replace a traditional camera or a movie camera, so I think people who grouse about it seem to miss the point. They're judging a new technology against a relatively mature technology and they're not comparable devices. The Lytro is a one-trick pony but it's a trick that no other consumer camera does.I've had more "fun" with my Lytro camera than I can recall with my other more expensive cameras. It's certainly not an easy camera to take good images with, but that's part of the challenge and enjoyment.It seems clear to me (as a user) that many of the comments here are either just snide put downs or factually incorrect, or both, but it is difficult to comment intelligently when one has never actually touched the camera.Your "more would be better" argument is certainly valid, as it often is. Thanks for your comment; I think we agree more than we disagree.
Here's an interesting link about the Dycam Model 1 digital camera released in 1990. It had 320x 240 resolution, held 32 pictures, fixed focus lens, and cost $995. [That's 1990 dollars]
I have used one of Franiec's grips for my S95 for quite a while. It's excellent. Most people don't know it's not part of the original camera. It makes carrying my $400 camera more secure and comfortable. I don't regard it as a waste of money at all.Sometimes you can't judge the ergonomics of a camera until you've used it for a while, especially since everyone has a different opinion about what is comfortable /for them/. I am a little surprised at all of the mostly-negative comments from people who've never used one of his grips or this camera.