New approach (coming next year)
Meet the Light L16, which features 16 lenses and 11 sensors to produce a 52 Mpx image with DOF adjustable after the fact. All in something about the size of a cell phone. Priced at $US 1300 for pre-order, $1700 when (if?) it becomes real.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542121/a-high-end-camera-in-a-small-package/
http://www.light.co/
As best I understand it, this is a different approach than the Lytro (what ever happened to that, anyway?). Rather than light field, this contraption stitches together multiple images from three focal length groups, 35mm, 70mm and 150mm. The lenses in each group give a slightly different perspective at their focal length and algorithms do the rest.
Hmmm.....
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542121/a-high-end-camera-in-a-small-package/
http://www.light.co/
As best I understand it, this is a different approach than the Lytro (what ever happened to that, anyway?). Rather than light field, this contraption stitches together multiple images from three focal length groups, 35mm, 70mm and 150mm. The lenses in each group give a slightly different perspective at their focal length and algorithms do the rest.
Hmmm.....
0
Comments
Website
Link to my Smugmug site
Pros will not be but I imagine more pros will lose out on more jobs because brides are going to use this line more and more: " I am so sorry to waste your time you spent talking to us. We are on a tight budget and after talking with you my friend showed me their really nice camera so we decided to go with them. Thank you very much for your time and will recommend you."
Link to my Smugmug site
I know, just trying to add a little humor, sorry it failed.
Interesting thread to follow as an amateur photographer. I have attended weddings as you point out where the relative with the nicest camera is the photog. When these potential clients approach you with this scenario I'm sure your next question must be..."But after the pictures are taken what talents does he have to produce the result you are looking for?" or that you must discuss with them that "it's not just having a camera" angle. When I look at the many wedding portfolios posted here, to me there would be no question as to what the right choice would be. What percentage of the decisions you experience are based solely on the cost angle? Seems to me having the quality shots would be a priority from the beginning. I'm also going to probably answer my own question here as well. Having practiced as a primary care MD for 30 years, I can't count the times patients have returned to the office after abandoning my recommendations because "my cousin told me I should do this". If I took this off course, I'll leave through the side door.
I don't justify my prices or try to convince them. The way I look at it it is a way of excluding potentially bad clients. If they can't tell I'm better than Uncle Bob then I have a problem or they don't want good photography.
Cost is a major factor but some do not see the value. I talked to one bride who was having a sunset wedding on a sailboat. She was a friend so I even gave her a rate based on cheap photographers in the area. About two weeks before the wedding she called and said her niece has a really good camera and she will take the pictures. She posted the pictures and the dramatic sunset portraits she is dark and underexposed. When they were facing the sun she was squinting and looked 15 yrs older. However, she was gushing about how well the pictures looked on Facebook. I do think much like we photographers fall in love with our own photos, brides that do not have critical tastes will fall in love with their pictures so good enough and free are just fine. Me, I'm thinking why go through the trouble of having a romantic sunset wedding on a sailboat and not hire someone who can capture the feel of the moment. Her, she uses the pictures to relive the moment and since there isn't a comparison she doesn't know what a great picture is compared to just snapping away.
Which makes me wonder a bit about who this new product is supposed to serve. It's going to have to be exceptionally good to compete with highly capable DSLRs in the same price range. While it's true that small cameras are getting better and better, the same applies to DSLRs and their lenses. It would be great if someone invented a tiny, light device that was as good as the cameras and lenses we use, but I'll believe it when I see it. What I can easily imagine is that this company will sell their technology to cell phone vendors, who could use it for competitive advantage--for a couple of years
That is the perfect truth.
Just recently I attended my nieces wedding as a guest, but I took along a couple cameras and lenses just to get in some fun shots.
I did talk to the wedding photographer before hand to let him know that I would be bringing my cameras to the wedding out of respect. I also did not post any images on facebook or anything like that, again out of respect. I did not take images during the ceremony or during the staged portraits and made sure to stay out of their way when I did take pictures and was careful to coordinate my flashes as to not interrupt them.
The wedding photographer and his assistant both had good gear and from what I've seen got some great shots.
However I am sure that there were more than a few in attendance that probably thought "WTF" when they saw me break out the 500mm lens on my D3 or after watching me use 3 different cameras throughout the day including my medium format.
The few guests that I didn't know who I spoke with who asked me about it, I was clear that I'm not a wedding photographer and just wanted some fun shots for myself to remember the day. I can't help that I have pro gear as photography is my day job and I did discuss that with the wedding photographers so they wouldn't feel like I was stepping on their toes.
Website
It's interesting how even among people who care about image quality (see above), there can be such various opinions on what constitutes "DSLR quality".
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I agree this thing at least in theory is a lot easier of a jump to make than the Lytro was. The basic tech for this device is all out there the bigger issue is getting it to automatically stitch all of the images together in an even way. You can do a lot stacking images, and they said that there's going to be what 10 sensors going per shot?
I wouldn't be shocked if in a lot of ways they can get to DSLR quality with that many images to work from. They wont get a razor thin depth of field but they potentially can do a good job with things like HDR, focus stacking, and eliminating noise.
Website
Actually they are claiming exactly that with their "infinite depth of field", which you can adjust in post processing.
I think the technology has merit, and could make a damn fine pocket camera, if it works. However their comparisons to DSLRs is disingenuous. For starters, DSLRs aren't limited to 35mm-150mm zoom. That's the range of a cheap point and shoot. DSLRs handles lenses from 8mm to 800mm. So the comparison is a non-starter right there. I couldn't handle being forced to shoot a mid-range zoom exclusively. And yet they claim their camera replaces a DSLR and three lenses. It's bogus.
Then there's burst-rate and continuous auto-focus tracking which are extremely important features on DSLRs. I have my reservations about the viability of those features in this camera based on the technology, and of course nothing is mentioned about it.
So if the camera is so good, why are they resorting to bogus comparisons to hype it? The only people who would believe that hype are non-photographers. That to me gives a sense of where they truly believe their camera fits into the industry, ie casual camera users and not pros.
It's an interesting camera for sure. But it's not going to replace DSLRs, at least not in this incarnation. And if they think it is, then they simply don't understand photography very well.
Link to my Smugmug site
facebook.com/robertchenphotography
Regarding wedding photography, it's not really my thing (though I have shot a couple of weddings for friends). It's my overall observation that most people can't tell a really good image from a mediocre to poor image, and don't really care. They just want to capture the moment, and even a poor image will do this for those who were there. Glad I'm not in the business of fighting this tendency. Almost all of my professional work is in sports; not the biggest moneymaker but it demonstrably requires good equipment and skills. Of course for youth sports I see plenty of people (mostly guys) with high end equipment running up and down the touchlines with burst mode fully enabled. Even the most oblivious parents can tell that my work is better than theirs. But since these are just my kids' events, I don't even try to sell those images.
yes, every year there's an internet hype on new camera technology. Maybe it's more about kickstarter funding than the pics !
Very good points. They talk about a dslr like it is a point and shoot with a fixed lens. When Lytro came out it was supposed to revolutionize photography, and today their focus is licensing technology to others (I've read that they are working with NASA) so it may still be something that is used in the future.
But, while the moving focus points and adjusting iso and f stop after the shot is taken might be cool for snapshots, I can't wrap my head around any reason a serious photographer would consider giving up their camera for this.
Website
It might be possible in theory, but I would think you would need high quality at the pixel level to achieve it. View any p&s or phone image at 100% and the quality is shite.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'm open to see the final results. Comparing point and shoots now to what an unreleased camera can do isn't a good measure. Maybe they have found a way to overcome some of the technical problems.
Considering the target crowd isn't discerning as DSLR owners getting DSLR like quality will be just fine anyway.
pp
Flickr
Pixel Depth
Dynamic Range
Noise
So when you say that the pixels of camera phone sensors look like crap, you are saying that they are deficient in one or more of those metrics. I agree with that when you're talking about comparing single sensors. However, all of those metrics can be infinitely improved by taking simultaneous shots with multiple sensors and combining them intelligently. You can theoretically reduce noise close to zero, plus increase dynamic range and bit depth beyond what can ever be achieved with a single sensor. As I previously pointed out in the portion of my quote that you deleted, noise reduction through combining multiple images is a standard technique that astro-photographers use for reducing noise in images at incredibly demanding levels.
Here's some reading for ya. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-averaging-noise.htm
BTW, that article is geared towards averaging images from a single sensor, hence this quote: "Image averaging works on the assumption that the noise in your image is truly random. "
So what about non-random sensor noise? A sensor most likely also introduces a certain amount of repeatable or non-random noise that averaging a single sensor will not remove. However, averaging across multiple sensors will. It's brilliant.
Link to my Smugmug site
facebook.com/robertchenphotography
I am open to seeing what the camera can do too, but I don't think any full res samples exist. Anyway, you can see from the video that the sensors are small, not even 1". I highly doubt they invented new sensors. I'll bet they are sourced from existing p&s sensor OEMs, and probably not the most expensive ones either.
Umm, at $1700, the target crowd is most certainly discerning.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Which is all speculation, and haven't seen too many discriminating photographers getting all that excited about this. Some that want smaller and capable are hoping it can get close to DLSR quality and be a fun camera are getting excited about. If enough people buy this they can research for better quality, smaller size, and get cheaper.
Personally I don't see a huge market for this. The camera phone crowd will use camera phones, the discerning isn't going to go for it unless it does deliver DSLR quality so it will be interesting to see who does buy this.
I'm also hoping for a pocket-size DSLR quality camera with 300mm action/sports lens.
It will be a game changer ...... or another internet fantasy !
The point of this camera is to get over the limitations of a single sensor. KDOG addressed this point pretty well, but to sum it up with multiple images from lower quality sensors you can expand the capabilities beyond the best single sensors out there today. Say you have a DSLR with 14 stops of DR and a cell phone camera with 11, now make that an HDR out of 5 images from that cell phone sensor and you'll be able to have much more dynamic range than that DSLR.
You can do this with various other things as well, like resolution (Olympus is doing this in camera now), and noise as in KDog's post. The big limitation this would face is that it can't replicate a really shallow depth of field.
At 1,700 it'll be going to early adopters. The initial R&D to make this system must have been huge and makes up a large chunk of the cost. The parts they use aren't expensive and are getting cheaper by the year so as long as they don't need to make massive changes to their code if they can stay afloat to release more models I'd expect prices to drop considerably.
This.
I preordered mine for $900.
facebook.com/robertchenphotography