Lytro camera - I don't get it!
I must say that I just don't get this Lytro camera. Today's product is cool and whizzy techology and somewhat amazing that they can do what they can do, but why does anyone really want to use one? It looks to me like technology looking for a good problem to solve and what most of us use cameras for isn't that problem.
I can't find anything that I normally shoot that would benefit from using the Lytro over any camera I currently own. I can't find any scenario where I'd rather carry a Lytro than any one of the cameras I already own.
And, this is before even beginning to discuss some of the drawbacks of the technology:
FYI, I'm not attempting to predict what might happen with the technology in the future and whether they do or don't find something that lots of people want. I'm saying that today's product does not seem to have found a useful problem to solve that lots of people want. One of the reasons you ship v1 is to start the process of finding out what it's good for and what people might use it for, but it seems like they're still searching for that.
I can't find anything that I normally shoot that would benefit from using the Lytro over any camera I currently own. I can't find any scenario where I'd rather carry a Lytro than any one of the cameras I already own.
And, this is before even beginning to discuss some of the drawbacks of the technology:
- 1.2 Megapixel resolution images in days when phones do 10MP
- No video capabilities
- $399 price tag is more than many highly capable compact cameras
- No editing tools for live images. If you want to edit, you have to convert to standard JPEG and then you've lost the refocusing capability.
- Tiny screen (partly because of the odd form factor they chose)
FYI, I'm not attempting to predict what might happen with the technology in the future and whether they do or don't find something that lots of people want. I'm saying that today's product does not seem to have found a useful problem to solve that lots of people want. One of the reasons you ship v1 is to start the process of finding out what it's good for and what people might use it for, but it seems like they're still searching for that.
--John
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
0
Comments
Still, it has that "wow" factor that some folks enjoy. (I'm still waiting for 3D images to become popular too.)
Eventually, you'll be able to do much more with the images, including a 3D stereo image from the original image matrix data. (I believe that will include this current camera image data.) It's possible that image quality will improve too.
IOW, everything Lytro is still in its infancy, but it's likely that even early adopters will be able to benefit from later improvements. "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I think it will only be a matter of time before we see more from them and the technology.
My point was that the current camera is still a technology looking for a problem which seems borne out by the responses that are guessing what problems it might be useful for.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
"Some" of what the Lytro can do hasn't even been envisioned yet.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'm arguing that as the product stands now, it's a technological curiosity looking for some useful problem to solve.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Sometimes, and for some people, technological toys are their own reward.
Yet, these cameras still sell well, even in this digital age.
They are not appropriate for my needs, but obviously they meet the needs of many others.
Or how about the professional line of Canon (EOS-1V) and Nikon (F6) 135 format, 35mm film cameras? These are tremendously expensive and the cost of ownership includes the cost of film and processing purchases. Most people are not going to purchase them and will purchase digital equivalents instead, but a few professional film cameras sell even today. (Actually, I think most of them go to municipalities as forensic tools where film still counts as a reliable method of preventing image manipulation.)
My point is that just because something doesn't fit "your" needs, doesn't mean that it doesn't fit other's needs and/or wishes. For people with the economic means, the Lytro camera may satisfy as a unique and innovative photographic product.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sidebar, but I thought I heard that film has not been admissible as evidence for many years...? All film is digitally scanned in order to be printed now, so unless they look at the negatives or project slides...
I can see a use for the Lytro as a security camera. I can also see it being used by Ken Burns and his imitators for another dimension in their documentaries and slideshows. Hmm... maybe I should get one for my real estate shoots...
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Yes, in that it provides an interesting social interaction that you can't get from most other camera systems. The ability to focus after the fact provides a unique experience.
That's a completely separate issue. I agree that a Lytro camera is not a general photography tool. In that regard, neither is my Calumet 4" x 5" monorail view camera. Neither would make a good "only" camera but both can yield a rather unique product that general photography cameras do not provide.
I agree with you in that a Lytro camera would not serve me very well, considering my interests and needs. I can certainly see how others might use one, similar to how I can see how others use a Diana or a Holga (which I also don't use).
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Some courts and some cases still may require either film or some sort of image authentication (in the case of digital) to assure an original image. Film is still allowed because of its intrinsic resistance to tampering.
Digital image authentication is now under review, because a Russian firm demonstrated that both the Canon and the Nikon image authentication systems may be compromised.
It's generally the high-profile cases where authenticity is ever questioned, however. As long as normal chain-of-evidence (or chain-of-custody) procedures are followed, it's rarely questioned for either film or digital acquisition. In those cases where authentication is a question, written testimony (or personal testimony) by the evidentiary custodian is generally sufficient.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
― Edward Weston
It's cool, what more needs to be said than that!
Plus, with macro, you can get the better shot...at least I can. I find that sometimes the focus is JUST off...with this, I can refocus to where I want.
It's a new thing out there so the only way to go is UP!
Like Ziggy said, it may not be for you or YOUR friends, but there is a market out there. Look at what the iPod did and how it has evolved.
5 years from now, you may just end up owning one!
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
You could have said the same thing about camera phones just a short time ago. Now, you can get a camera phone that's on par with many small p&s cameras on most phones-applications like Camera Awesome or Instagram make the whole process of taking, editing, and publishing simple.
I don't think you can make a strong case (either way) for the success or failure of Lytro as a product right now.
I'm not attempting to predict what might happen with that technology in the future or what future products might be made out of it. They might or might not figure something out in the future. I'm talking about the product they have today.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Being that it's been in consumer hands for just a few months, I believe it's too early to call it anything.
Who's we? I think you are TRYING to make one, but I don't think it's successful.
It's a brand new device and you are already declaring it dead. Just curious, are you a pessimist?
What did you think when Apple introduced the original iPod? Seriously...many people thought that Apple was crazy for not having a removable SD card, no replaceable battery, limited space (5GB), tied to iTunes, etc.
If it hadn't been for that and iTunes, there would be no iPhone/iPad and your current cellphone would suck. (remember when the Motorola RAZR was THE biggest seller at one time? Now imaging trying to go BACK to using it! Yikes!)
Relating to photography, how long did it take you to switch to digital?
Interesting video, but honestly, I thought it was stupid. Too much time yammering when he should have been putting it to test.
Can you find ANYONE who likes the Lytro and uses it regularly for something? I'm not declaring the technology dead. It may find a successful path sometime in the future. I'm just saying that I can't find anyone who finds the current Lytro product useful for anything other than a technology demonstration so the product looks like it's a technology in search of a useful problem to solve. You guys are reading more into what I'm saying than I intend.
The early consumer digital cameras were immediately useful to some. They didn't match up to the quality of film at the time (nor was anyone expecting them to), but they were immediately useful to some people even with their drawbacks (slow, low resolution, short battery life). I had one that I took photos of kids with. I don't yet see a parallel with the Lytro. It's amazing technology, but I don't see that they've yet found the right way to make it a mainstream consumer product.
I'm not sure what your iPod/iPhone/iTunes comments have to do with Lytro. Those products were all immediately useful to many. They introduced some different/contoversial notions, but they were all immediately useful. Are you saying the current Lytro is in that category?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I know several people outside of this forum who have them and use them to take pictures in the same manner you'd use a cell phone.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
The fact that it's so new is the cause of not many people having it right now. I ordered one last week and expected arrival is June-July, so give it a year to see if it's growing.