Purely my opinion:
Two of these, the flower category and the zebra on the beach both look incredibly "fake" to me. How powerful was the off camera light needed to get that exposure on the zebra? It really looks like a composite image to me (after looking again, am I just supposed to accept that it is 2 shots edited?) and, if it isn't, is lugging around a massive light setup really "mobile" photography anymore? I could care less what sensor you capture something with but call it what it is.
The flower shot is also so heavily processed that it has a great surreal look but has lost, for me, any and all sense of being alive.
I have a number of shots from my phone which I consider up there with the best I have taken and appreciate the platform for its availability and respectable quality.
The portraits, girl in graveyard, b&w category and the kid with the water wings are all really really nice and show that a great scene is great no matter the gear.
Kenneth Margulies: I see a lot of negative comments, and am disappointed that people who like photography would not be supportive of a totally new way to take pictures. This is a new technology that is still first generation. Isn't the potential of this technology of interest to anyone? It's like film photographers, when looking at early digital cameras, saying that the digital technology is just for gadget freaks. This is cool and it could have a decent future...
"Light field cameras literally have no practical application beyond "gadget freaks"."
With a few years to mature the sensor, can you not imagine the cost savings on lenses? No AF motor? Far fewer moving parts? How much would you pay for a 8x optical zoom f2.0 constant lens? A hell of a lot more than the price of this camera for sure.