Light L16 packs 16 cameras into a single portable body

Have some respect... You are looking into the future of photography and the death of the DSLR.

so many more opportunities to have your fingers in the picture :-)

I watched the video, "Learn more about the Light L16". All I learned is that it is used like a cell phone camera. Guess I'll keep my iPhone.

Why does it have to look and handle like a phone?
I like a bit of something to grab hold of, personally. I'd be terrified of dropping this cracker.
Just something shaped to fit in my palm. With a wrist-strap.

This is not truly new technology. I have a Fuji W3 stereo camera with two lens/sensors similar to Light L16 that are right angle and I can take two separate pictures with different focal lengths. The sensor size on the L16 MUST be small. If it used a large sensor like a 1" the lenses would have to be the same size as DSLR lenses. So they are probably using 1/4 or 1/3 inch sensors. I would suspect that most zoom is digital. If it was optical then they could have more like a 30:1 zoom ratio like my camcorder. The focal length is limited because of size constraints and cost. Wish I knew the f values of the camera. I have a little Samsung that goes 21-400mm at f2.8. Change the focal point after the fact? Try a Lytro! Lots cheaper. So far I don't see any real advantage to this camera but it would be fun to play with. No new technology but an interesting melding of several others. Finally, I have a DSLR because I hate rear screens as viewfinders and waiting for computers.

I just ordered my L16 - the technology intrigues me, and the entrepreneurship of the venture fascinates me. There is an additional $400 coupon code FFBL14 that brings the total to $899 (right now, at least). Also, those who order during the promotional pre-order period (how long this will last, I don't know), will also get the optional grip with additional battery power (that doubles the battery life) for free! It's mentioned in their 1-hour video, and was confirmed to me in an email from Light. Check for yourself before buying as promotions do change.

Why does the 'zoom range' start at 35 mm and not, for example at 24 mm?

I pre-ordered. Fascinating idea. See this video for tech details https://vimeo.com/143690545

CTO Laroia gives in-depth talk - very interesting!

https://vimeo.com/143690545

Good news:

1). Photo of 'Expanded Battery Pack', see the fifth still image here:
http://www.notcot.com/archives/2015/10/light.php

2) Light.co's VP of Marketing Bradley Lautenbach states in this recent interview that this grip will be included with the pre-ordered cameras:http://prolost.com/blog/lightvisit

Yes, I pre-orderred. The bios of the Founders tell me it is worth the risk.

This might just be one of the next paradigm shifts.

For those interested in the extra $300.00 off. Try this code "PRODUCTHUNTER"

Mike

If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. How can Light establish a selling price for the L16 but not publish specs to correspond? Odd.

The real measure of success for this camera is whether it will beat the image quality and imaging versatility of a zoom lens of the same cost mounted on an enthusiast level camera body.

If it does, and you are not already invested in a DSLR or mirrorless system, then why wouldn't you buy this camera for $1300 instead of a camera body lens combo for $2000 or more to get a system that weights 5x as much, is 10x as bulky and doesn't image as well?

For many enthusiasts, having a single system like this might be enough to take care of their photography needs. Then you upgrade with each generation.

Of course, if image quality doesn't at least match or beat something like a Nikon 24-120 mounted on a D610, then the above reasoning goes out the window.

I preordered one today. $400 off for early bird plus $300 coupon code (spend 5 minutes on google folks). Paid my $200 deposit, refundable up to shipment date. I want to support the innovation and may have the opportunity of being an early adopter for something really cool. If the reviews are bad prior to shipping date I will cancel. I see it as low risk with potential big upside.
There are a lot of naysayers here and Ken Rockwell wannabe's reviewing it before they've seen it. I say give them the benefit of the doubt.

As previously linked below, this video does a better job of better explaining the ideas and motivations behind this camera and the company developing it. This video should be in the DPR article as well, in my opinion.

https://vimeo.com/141273968

"a portable camera that offers excellent low-light performance and DSLR-like image quality. " DSLR image quality? Did NOT take them long to lie, how can you trust a company that lies to you right from the start?

This looks/sounds interesting although I'm not really impressed with the gallery given the price point of the product. Some of those shots look like they came from an iPhone. They also could have at least took out the CA in the tree shot.

With that said, it's exciting to see what mobile phone companies can do with this technology if they're able to get their hands on it.

I doubt any consumer would ever buy this. But I doubt they'll ever make something to mass-market to consumers. I'm sure they hope some large company buys them out and purchases their technology.

This camera is very futuristic. A flat panel form factor, no bulky lenses, high resolution, high dynamic range. The camera may be expensive but it only break my bank once. I don't have to invest so many lenses for it and I can bring it all the time and all day long. The form factor could be designed as a extremely waterproof camera in the future model. But the front of the camera look insane.

I'm pretty sure the endgame here is not to create a camera lineup, but to sell the IP to a phone manufacturer such as Apple. I think that's why they are deliberate in the way this thing looks and is marketed.

Sort of like the dot com boom in the 1990s, where the exit strategy was to go IPO and cash out, the idea with a lot of these tech startups is to cash out by being sold to an Apple, Google, etc.

Interesting concept, but it'll face the same problems as most other "normal" cameras. Competition from cellphone cameras. The "just good enough" attitude of most people means they'll just use their cellphones instead of shelling out +$1000 for a dedicated device for photos. For those times when they want to do "serious" photography, they'll dig out the budget $400 DSLR. It'll be a niche product for a very small audience.

It's a very interesting concept. I'm not sure why so many people seem to think that they to know the problems with it a year before they get to see the finished product.

The prototype sample images show a lot of promise and the technology itself is sound.

I'm old enough to remember people trying to discredit the potential of digital sensors. I actually think that digital camera technology worked out OK.

it will not work, this technology would be more exiting if cameras did not have screens to look at pictures after you take them.
eventually it will end up like the Lytro cameras.

this technology is good for specific uses when a human is not holding the camera like security cameras etc.

The cost of calibration between camera modules will be extremely high.

Having working on 3-panel projector, I know how difficult to align high resolution panels to achieve un-noticeable artifacts. That was 3 panels sharing with the same lens. L16 will fuse the images from 10 cameras each having its own lens. It is not possible to have exactly the same magnification between two cameras within the resolution of the pixel size, not to mention they are purposely focused at different focal distance. Each camera module has to have identical focal length, distortion, aberration, etc. From its website, L16 offers optical zoom. There is no way to get all 10 camera modules to change to identical optical zoom due to mechanical tolerances.

If they have to calibrate every L16 with software compensation for all conditions (all temperatures, all optical zoom, all colors, all intensity level), the cost will be way too high.

I would say the product will be extremely expensive.

Good Luck getting anyone to support its RAW file.

No lens hood?

Clever concept. Interesting that they would offer a 25% discount but only for payment a full year before you get the camera??? What's the sensor size?
Maybe I'll wait for the DxO One attachment for this ... :P

Camera's used to collect pictures. Now it is more obvious that they collect data. Quantity and an accurate description of the actual bits is more important than how much it looks like a picture in the raw. That can be fixed later.
I suppose it is the logical progression of where photo processing software can take us. Maybe back to pinhole cameras one day...... multiple pinholes ? .....

When Lytro launched I was excited, but things that never quite panned out for Lytro was the need for the gallery on their website, low resolution, etc.

This device packs much more promise, but may not go far enough. Honestly if the device takes great photos, it would be worth the $1700(final retail) or $1300 intro price. Heck I paid $3200 for my first 5D body years ago, then $2800 for a Mk II.

What it needs for me to look seriously at it though would be: Changeable battery, removable memory/storage MicroSD or such, hotshoe for a strobe/flash with ETTL/manual settings

While this may not be 'the camera', it is very interesting technology. Maybe some of what they are doing can be used by the traditional players to offer better performance, either in hardware or software.

I so want this to work but taking a look at the gallery images left me disappointed. They are all noisy/grainy and there is no detail when you zoom in. I can't see actual eyelashes, for example, on any of the portrait subjects. It looks like someone just stitched together 4 or 5 crappy cell phone pics.

$1300 is a joke. People would basically have to carry around something the size of a large smart phone that isn't a phone. And they'd be taking 15 times too many photos. Because in the end there's only one best photo.