I don't actually think that it will make our camera obsolete but I'm sitting here wondering who will be the first camera maker to incorporate this type of sensor into their camera?
It seems to me that this technology will only really be useful for photos taken a short distance from the camera.
It is just too limited in its capabilities as yet. There is at least one company that will fit this, or a similar idea, to a DSLR. But the effective resolution is pitiful.
I think it takes away from the spontaneity of photography personally... there will be some who like it and want to use it, and some who won't... I don't think our cameras will become obsolete because of this technology, just like film is still around in the face of the digital age :)
I think we have plenty of time before this picks up and my camera will probably be replaced by them. I have been playing with film, so it seems I am bringing the sexy back to film. @38mm@peterdegraaff I just missed an OM-1 for $60 on ebay because I could not remember my damn login name last night and there was 2 minutes left. Ugh.
@blightygal What does that even mean? You would not classify photos taken with a lytro photography? That's a silly notion. It's still a camera, a camera with an amazing upgrade that no camera has had before. Was the first digital camera just a gadget, and were photos taken with it not photography? Why would technological improvement cause a picture no not be considered "photography"?
Obviously this camera as it is right now would not replace any of the consumer cameras and DSLR's that we use today. But if you can bring that technology to my DSLR, I would be in heaven. When I shoot sports at in indoor arena with low light, I expect to miss focus now and again. How amazing would it be to refocus a picture that is incredible but you just missed the focus? I would pay heavily for this feature.
@pocketmouse Agreed, some people would use it, some wouldn't. But wouldn't this technology ADD to the spontaneity of photography? I would be able to get shots in an instant that I otherwise would have missed because I was fiddling with settings and focusing right? Imagine the most amazing site you've ever seen, but you know it's only there for 5 seconds. With a lightfield camera, you pull it out, click, focus later. With my DSLR, I pull it out, set the shutter speed, aperture, etc, focus, and the moment is gone =).
Another thought that occurred to me is that lenses would get a lot less expensive since you wouldn't need to focus. Or would the sensor be built into the lens? @brumbe Where do you get your film developed?
I don't really like them. I think it's a bit of a shame. Why does it need inventing? Yes, some are more talented photographers than others but almost everyone is able to capture basic images. And I think this could damage artistry and harm the photographic industry generally. I don't think it needed inventing and I think it could harm the creative sector.
@jwlynn64 For color I actually am going to Ritz Camera and having it put on cd instead of in prints (why waste paper). But I swear by Sams Club developing and printing and would use them if they were closer. I will actually be taking a class this summer for Holga/LoMo/Developing, so I will be able to process at home and then print at some of the camera stores. I actually found my dads enlarger, but yet have no room for a darkroom in my current abode.
@38mm Of course. If I am shooting indoors with my settings perfect for that, and I walk outside and see something I must shoot (or vice versa), it will definitely take me longer than 5 seconds to adjust my aperture, SS, and ISO and to set up and focus. I don't know why that would be hard to believe.
@bradleynovak Yep, I said it wasnt photography, but it is an image for sure. I wont take away the genius of the invention, but at the moment, it is but a gadget, a toy. You cant even print a pic on it yet... And as a photographer, I find it boring and disheartening.
Missing those shots you talk about is a way to learn, to become a better photographer. Photography to me is much more than the camera you use, its knowing how to use it, to play, to push it to its limits, to be creative. Its the person who makes an image when they press the shutter and really knowing where to focus or the camera settings at low light is kinda basic photography! I hate the fact that everything is done later on a computer and people can stop thinking about the technical aspects of photography until later on when they can sort it out.
Ooh, and as @shadowdancer said, it ruins all the fun. Perfect comment!
Yes I agree, this iteration of this product is pretty much worthless, they don't even have windows software for it at launch which is a joke.
Photography IS much more than the camera you use, so why is this camera any different? You can't be creative with this camera or push it to its limits just like any other camera?
"Its the person who makes an image when they press the shutter and really knowing where to focus or the camera settings at low light is kinda basic photography!"
This is my whole point. Things change. Technology changes. "Really knowing" camera settings in 2012 is way different than "really knowing" camera settings in 1963. If I play the role of 1963 photographer guy, I can say that you are not REALLY doing photography because your DLSR meters automatically and auto-focuses. But that is silly. I embrace technology. If something comes along that makes it easier for me to create a great image, I am HAPPY about it because the goal is creating a great image, nothing more. I am not disappointed by new technology. I won't be the guy in 2030 that thinks someone isn't actually doing photography because they use a lightfield camera and not a DSLR.
I don't know why you would find it disheartening. Should I find it disheartening that you do not shoot on medium format film anymore? You still have to create an image. You still have to choose your focal point. You still have to be talented to create a great picture. None of this changes. Just because you make the changes on a computer does not mean it is not photography. Cameras are tools. Computers are tools. The goal is still: a great image.
"I hate the fact that everything is done later on a computer and people can stop thinking about the technical aspects of photography until later on when they can sort it out."
I don't understand this. If you are taking a good picture, you are considering technical aspects of the picture when you take it. There is only so much you can do it post. People seem uncomfortable about editing images on a computer, and it baffles me, and I honestly think it scares people who either aren't proficient at it or just are old school and have no desire to learn it. Because I use a computer, am I not a photographer? Why do you assume that those who use a computer for post production don't think about technical aspects of photography? It seems like quite a stretch. @blightygal
I think it's a cool idea. I probably wouldn't use it much, personally, but I could see for like maybe family events like weddings it would be cool; like when everyone's mingling and dancing around you would be able to look at the picture and see everyone clearer by clicking one them, instead of just a couple people in focus and everyone else blurry. Fun with candids.
Other than that, though...I dunno.
@bradleynovak
"You can't be creative with this camera or push it to its limits just like any other camera?" Because it has just two buttons, on/off, and the shutter! There is no control over dof, shutter speed, focus - the only thing you can control is the zoom and even that is limited. Where the heck is the fun in that? Where is the fun of using different lenses, using flash to give you different effects etc? Where's the challenge, the control, the enjoyment of pushing it to the limits? There is no challenge, you simply find something pretty and press a button.
"If you are taking a good picture, you are considering technical aspects of the picture when you take it. There is only so much you can do it post" But that it, its nearly all done post isnt it? By choosing which part is going to be focus after the event means that the choice is taken away when you photograph. How for an example do you do a silhouette on this camera? It will always take a pic with a general reading per se, and your ability as a photographer to set your exposure for a silhouette has gone, and it would all have to be done post production, For the record, I am not afraid of editing images, I think Photoshop is one of the best inventions for years - BUT as an aid.
"I don't know why you would find it disheartening. Should I find it disheartening that you do not shoot on medium format film anymore? You still have to create an image. You still have to choose your focal point."
The principle behind medium film camera's and camera's in 1963 are exactly the same as 35mm and DSL camera's - nothing has changed.. so I find your reasoning irrelevant. The whole thing with this new gadget is you dont get to have complete control with focal points etc until after. A focal point is the point of interest yes? That can be chosen by your framing, and focus and of course your subject. Take away focus then you're starting to limit the amount that can be done with the camera and have to do in editing. Again, this is not what I will call photography.
"Cameras are tools. Computers are tools. The goal is still: a great image" Only to an extent. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The best you'll get out a shit image on a computer is something that is just about usable otherwise you lose all the photography aspects to it.
I dont think you really got what I was trying to say. I am all for advancing, but not when it changes it beyond recognition ( - it needs to be better than what we already have), takes away the need to have a good knowledge of a camera and takes away all of the fun and creativity really understanding how that camera knowledge can help you as a photographer. It would be so dull to go out there and just snap for me if this is its limit, but that's why I love a SLR, my wonderful collection of lenses and why I dont just use a point and shoot. I dont think thats a stretch at all, just my opinion.
Great to see such innovation ...and the death of creativity.
"Because it has just two buttons, on/off, and the shutter! There is no control over dof, shutter speed, focus"
-Why would you lose creativity? Does your brain stop working if your camera has any degree of automation? Do you lose your ability to beautifuly frame a subject?
"There is no challenge, you simply find something pretty and press a button"
-Yup, and then you are a professional photographer and are paid millions of dollars for your beautiful picatures! You overestimate what a camera like this will do. You still have to have an eye for photography. You still have no know what makes a good photo.
"But that it, its nearly all done post isnt it? By choosing which part is going to be focus after the event means that the choice is taken away when you photograph."
-Completely wrong. Do you honestly think that you can just take a picture of anything, adjust focus afterwards, and you have a prize winner? Of course not. You still have to know what you want when you take the picture. You won't end up with beautiful pictures on accident. I have a friend with a Nikon D3x, a beautiful camera which takes amazing pictures. His pictures suck with it, because he sucks at photography. He would suck with a lytro too. Good photographers take good pictures. Just because he can nail the focus afterwards doesn't mean a "choice" has been taken away from him.
"The principle behind medium film camera's and camera's in 1963 are exactly the same as 35mm and DSL camera's - nothing has changed.. so I find your reasoning irrelevant. "
-The principle behind this new camera is still the same too, to MAKE PICTURES.
"The whole thing with this new gadget is you dont get to have complete control with focal points etc until after. A focal point is the point of interest yes? That can be chosen by your framing, and focus and of course your subject. Take away focus then you're starting to limit the amount that can be done with the camera and have to do in editing. Again, this is not what I will call photography"
- And it still makes no sense that you don't consider it photography. You frame a subject. You know WHAT you want in focus WHEN YOU SHOOT. All this camera does in guarantee that it will be in focus. It's taking a potential point of failure and ELIMINATING it. This is just like any other advancement. Autofocus, metering in-camera, auto-ISO, whatever, these are all advancements that allow you to have more keepers more often. This is another advancement. If this is incorporated into a DSLR, you will say its not photography, and that's ridiculous.
"Only to an extent. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The best you'll get out a shit image on a computer is something that is just about usable otherwise you lose all the photography aspects to it."
-That is exactly what I am saying, and which is why I am so confused. Someone with a Lytro is still going to take shit images if they take shit images with other cameras. The skill lies WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER. This camera won't magically make anyone lose or gain creativity like you apparently think.
"I dont think you really got what I was trying to say. I am all for advancing, but not when it changes it beyond recognition,"
-Why is it beyond recognition? It's a camera that takes pictures. It shouldn't make you uncomfortable because it doesn't look like your canon or nikon. My Blu ray player doesn't work like my VHS player either, but it still plays movies.
" takes away the need to have a good knowledge of a camera "
-This is short sighted. If you have a tool that allows you to do things better than the old tool, why do you need the knowledge of the old tool? You only need knowledge of the tool you work with if it does what you want it to do. I know how to drive an automatic car, I dont need to know how to drive a manual to get me from point a to point b. The automatic is easier and gets me the exact result that I would have with the manual. If a lytro improves and the technology becomes useful, why would I want to know how to work a tool that I really don't need? As a photographer, all the same fundamentals relating to composition will still be the same. A great picture will still be a great picture.
"It would be so dull to go out there and just snap for me, but that's why I love a SLR, my wonderful collection of lenses and why I dont just use a point and shoot. I dont think thats a stretch at all, just my opinion."
I use my DSLR and wonderful lenses because it is the easiest way to get awesome pictures. If there were an EASIER way, I would use that. The fun for me is taking awesome pictures, not gawking at my lens collection.
"Great to see such innovation ...and the death of creativity"
-A melodramatic viewpoint. All because you can change your focus after the fact, creativity apparently dies.
photography: the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays.
This definition does not say, "Oh and if you change the focus after the pact you aren't a photographer".
I DO agree that this camera is limiting and obviously not a replacement for anything going on right now. But I am not going to hate on it and tell someone who shoots with it that they are not a photographer. And MAN I would love to see this technology grow, because it is massively cool.
I took a picture of some strawberries a few days ago, and when I downloaded it on to my laptop and played with the crop, I realised it would have been a much better photo had the focus been on the other strawberry instead of the one I focused it on. Completely agreeing with Brad on this one. It would be excellent to not worry and just click. And focus is hardly what makes someone a good photographer. Its all about the composition and a creative eye. Put this into some DSLRs and we'll have some real gold on our finger tips.
Anyway
"I use my DSLR and wonderful lenses because it is the easiest way to get awesome pictures. If there were an EASIER way, I would use that. The fun for me is taking awesome pictures, not gawking at my lens collection"
Then you're lazy. And we have different view points on fun, thats all. My fun is manipulation of the camera, not computer.
"Great to see such innovation ...and the death of creativity"
-A melodramatic viewpoint. All because you can change your focus after the fact, creativity apparently dies. "
Nope. Its just not photography anymore, its image making on a computer. Completely different.
@blightygal
"Then you're lazy. And we have different view points on fun, thats all. My fun is manipulation of the camera, not computer."
-Desiring the fastest and easiest user experience is not lazy. People use cameras to take pictures. You apparently use it for something else. If that is lazy, then sorry, you are a moron. That's great that you like manipulating a camera. I like actually creating pictures.
"Nope. Its just not photography anymore, its image making on a computer. Completely different."
-The image was already made. It isn't different. You just like making up batshit crazy definitions that are simply wrong. "Image making on a computer" is digital photography. Your DSLR is just a computer with 1 or 2 processors in it and a sensor. But I guess when you move it to the big scary computer and you change anything on the image then you are no longer a photographer.
@dishaparekh176 That is what excites me. I am also excited about the aspect of fixing photos that are just out of focus. I don't know how many times, I've taken a photo at one of my kids events only to get home and see that the camera focused on the microphone in front of them and they are all blurry.
This of the monetary impact also for portrait photographers who finally get a good shot with everyone looking and their eyes are all open but the camera focused on just the front row. How great would it be to change the depth of field and get everyone in focus.
I'm sure that the photographers who used to have to adjust the depth of their bellows to focus a photo thought that rotating a barrel to focus took some of the fun out of it.
By the same token, we have wide angle lenses now tilt or raised the elements to correct perspectives or give a deeper DOF. I remember Ansel Adams writing about having to tilt his lens to get near objects in focus on some of his wide angle shots. I wonder if he would have thought that anyone using this technology wasn't a photographer?
Clearly the device is question is very simplistic and doesn't lend itself to very artistic endeavors as is, but that doesn't mean that it will not be improved upon.
Let's don't cast into the beta max pile right now. I can see some very practical applications for it.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Here, http://365project.org/allie912/365/2012-05-09 a 365er reviews her Lytro.
http://365project.org/discuss/general/12470/my-review-of-the-lytro-camera
Obviously this camera as it is right now would not replace any of the consumer cameras and DSLR's that we use today. But if you can bring that technology to my DSLR, I would be in heaven. When I shoot sports at in indoor arena with low light, I expect to miss focus now and again. How amazing would it be to refocus a picture that is incredible but you just missed the focus? I would pay heavily for this feature.
@pocketmouse Agreed, some people would use it, some wouldn't. But wouldn't this technology ADD to the spontaneity of photography? I would be able to get shots in an instant that I otherwise would have missed because I was fiddling with settings and focusing right? Imagine the most amazing site you've ever seen, but you know it's only there for 5 seconds. With a lightfield camera, you pull it out, click, focus later. With my DSLR, I pull it out, set the shutter speed, aperture, etc, focus, and the moment is gone =).
Missing those shots you talk about is a way to learn, to become a better photographer. Photography to me is much more than the camera you use, its knowing how to use it, to play, to push it to its limits, to be creative. Its the person who makes an image when they press the shutter and really knowing where to focus or the camera settings at low light is kinda basic photography! I hate the fact that everything is done later on a computer and people can stop thinking about the technical aspects of photography until later on when they can sort it out.
Ooh, and as @shadowdancer said, it ruins all the fun. Perfect comment!
Photography IS much more than the camera you use, so why is this camera any different? You can't be creative with this camera or push it to its limits just like any other camera?
"Its the person who makes an image when they press the shutter and really knowing where to focus or the camera settings at low light is kinda basic photography!"
This is my whole point. Things change. Technology changes. "Really knowing" camera settings in 2012 is way different than "really knowing" camera settings in 1963. If I play the role of 1963 photographer guy, I can say that you are not REALLY doing photography because your DLSR meters automatically and auto-focuses. But that is silly. I embrace technology. If something comes along that makes it easier for me to create a great image, I am HAPPY about it because the goal is creating a great image, nothing more. I am not disappointed by new technology. I won't be the guy in 2030 that thinks someone isn't actually doing photography because they use a lightfield camera and not a DSLR.
I don't know why you would find it disheartening. Should I find it disheartening that you do not shoot on medium format film anymore? You still have to create an image. You still have to choose your focal point. You still have to be talented to create a great picture. None of this changes. Just because you make the changes on a computer does not mean it is not photography. Cameras are tools. Computers are tools. The goal is still: a great image.
"I hate the fact that everything is done later on a computer and people can stop thinking about the technical aspects of photography until later on when they can sort it out."
I don't understand this. If you are taking a good picture, you are considering technical aspects of the picture when you take it. There is only so much you can do it post. People seem uncomfortable about editing images on a computer, and it baffles me, and I honestly think it scares people who either aren't proficient at it or just are old school and have no desire to learn it. Because I use a computer, am I not a photographer? Why do you assume that those who use a computer for post production don't think about technical aspects of photography? It seems like quite a stretch. @blightygal
Other than that, though...I dunno.
"You can't be creative with this camera or push it to its limits just like any other camera?" Because it has just two buttons, on/off, and the shutter! There is no control over dof, shutter speed, focus - the only thing you can control is the zoom and even that is limited. Where the heck is the fun in that? Where is the fun of using different lenses, using flash to give you different effects etc? Where's the challenge, the control, the enjoyment of pushing it to the limits? There is no challenge, you simply find something pretty and press a button.
"If you are taking a good picture, you are considering technical aspects of the picture when you take it. There is only so much you can do it post" But that it, its nearly all done post isnt it? By choosing which part is going to be focus after the event means that the choice is taken away when you photograph. How for an example do you do a silhouette on this camera? It will always take a pic with a general reading per se, and your ability as a photographer to set your exposure for a silhouette has gone, and it would all have to be done post production, For the record, I am not afraid of editing images, I think Photoshop is one of the best inventions for years - BUT as an aid.
"I don't know why you would find it disheartening. Should I find it disheartening that you do not shoot on medium format film anymore? You still have to create an image. You still have to choose your focal point."
The principle behind medium film camera's and camera's in 1963 are exactly the same as 35mm and DSL camera's - nothing has changed.. so I find your reasoning irrelevant. The whole thing with this new gadget is you dont get to have complete control with focal points etc until after. A focal point is the point of interest yes? That can be chosen by your framing, and focus and of course your subject. Take away focus then you're starting to limit the amount that can be done with the camera and have to do in editing. Again, this is not what I will call photography.
"Cameras are tools. Computers are tools. The goal is still: a great image" Only to an extent. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The best you'll get out a shit image on a computer is something that is just about usable otherwise you lose all the photography aspects to it.
I dont think you really got what I was trying to say. I am all for advancing, but not when it changes it beyond recognition ( - it needs to be better than what we already have), takes away the need to have a good knowledge of a camera and takes away all of the fun and creativity really understanding how that camera knowledge can help you as a photographer. It would be so dull to go out there and just snap for me if this is its limit, but that's why I love a SLR, my wonderful collection of lenses and why I dont just use a point and shoot. I dont think thats a stretch at all, just my opinion.
Great to see such innovation ...and the death of creativity.
-Why would you lose creativity? Does your brain stop working if your camera has any degree of automation? Do you lose your ability to beautifuly frame a subject?
"There is no challenge, you simply find something pretty and press a button"
-Yup, and then you are a professional photographer and are paid millions of dollars for your beautiful picatures! You overestimate what a camera like this will do. You still have to have an eye for photography. You still have no know what makes a good photo.
"But that it, its nearly all done post isnt it? By choosing which part is going to be focus after the event means that the choice is taken away when you photograph."
-Completely wrong. Do you honestly think that you can just take a picture of anything, adjust focus afterwards, and you have a prize winner? Of course not. You still have to know what you want when you take the picture. You won't end up with beautiful pictures on accident. I have a friend with a Nikon D3x, a beautiful camera which takes amazing pictures. His pictures suck with it, because he sucks at photography. He would suck with a lytro too. Good photographers take good pictures. Just because he can nail the focus afterwards doesn't mean a "choice" has been taken away from him.
"The principle behind medium film camera's and camera's in 1963 are exactly the same as 35mm and DSL camera's - nothing has changed.. so I find your reasoning irrelevant. "
-The principle behind this new camera is still the same too, to MAKE PICTURES.
"The whole thing with this new gadget is you dont get to have complete control with focal points etc until after. A focal point is the point of interest yes? That can be chosen by your framing, and focus and of course your subject. Take away focus then you're starting to limit the amount that can be done with the camera and have to do in editing. Again, this is not what I will call photography"
- And it still makes no sense that you don't consider it photography. You frame a subject. You know WHAT you want in focus WHEN YOU SHOOT. All this camera does in guarantee that it will be in focus. It's taking a potential point of failure and ELIMINATING it. This is just like any other advancement. Autofocus, metering in-camera, auto-ISO, whatever, these are all advancements that allow you to have more keepers more often. This is another advancement. If this is incorporated into a DSLR, you will say its not photography, and that's ridiculous.
"Only to an extent. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The best you'll get out a shit image on a computer is something that is just about usable otherwise you lose all the photography aspects to it."
-That is exactly what I am saying, and which is why I am so confused. Someone with a Lytro is still going to take shit images if they take shit images with other cameras. The skill lies WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER. This camera won't magically make anyone lose or gain creativity like you apparently think.
"I dont think you really got what I was trying to say. I am all for advancing, but not when it changes it beyond recognition,"
-Why is it beyond recognition? It's a camera that takes pictures. It shouldn't make you uncomfortable because it doesn't look like your canon or nikon. My Blu ray player doesn't work like my VHS player either, but it still plays movies.
" takes away the need to have a good knowledge of a camera "
-This is short sighted. If you have a tool that allows you to do things better than the old tool, why do you need the knowledge of the old tool? You only need knowledge of the tool you work with if it does what you want it to do. I know how to drive an automatic car, I dont need to know how to drive a manual to get me from point a to point b. The automatic is easier and gets me the exact result that I would have with the manual. If a lytro improves and the technology becomes useful, why would I want to know how to work a tool that I really don't need? As a photographer, all the same fundamentals relating to composition will still be the same. A great picture will still be a great picture.
"It would be so dull to go out there and just snap for me, but that's why I love a SLR, my wonderful collection of lenses and why I dont just use a point and shoot. I dont think thats a stretch at all, just my opinion."
I use my DSLR and wonderful lenses because it is the easiest way to get awesome pictures. If there were an EASIER way, I would use that. The fun for me is taking awesome pictures, not gawking at my lens collection.
"Great to see such innovation ...and the death of creativity"
-A melodramatic viewpoint. All because you can change your focus after the fact, creativity apparently dies.
photography: the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays.
This definition does not say, "Oh and if you change the focus after the pact you aren't a photographer".
I DO agree that this camera is limiting and obviously not a replacement for anything going on right now. But I am not going to hate on it and tell someone who shoots with it that they are not a photographer. And MAN I would love to see this technology grow, because it is massively cool.
Anyway
"I use my DSLR and wonderful lenses because it is the easiest way to get awesome pictures. If there were an EASIER way, I would use that. The fun for me is taking awesome pictures, not gawking at my lens collection"
Then you're lazy. And we have different view points on fun, thats all. My fun is manipulation of the camera, not computer.
"Great to see such innovation ...and the death of creativity"
-A melodramatic viewpoint. All because you can change your focus after the fact, creativity apparently dies. "
Nope. Its just not photography anymore, its image making on a computer. Completely different.
"Then you're lazy. And we have different view points on fun, thats all. My fun is manipulation of the camera, not computer."
-Desiring the fastest and easiest user experience is not lazy. People use cameras to take pictures. You apparently use it for something else. If that is lazy, then sorry, you are a moron. That's great that you like manipulating a camera. I like actually creating pictures.
"Nope. Its just not photography anymore, its image making on a computer. Completely different."
-The image was already made. It isn't different. You just like making up batshit crazy definitions that are simply wrong. "Image making on a computer" is digital photography. Your DSLR is just a computer with 1 or 2 processors in it and a sensor. But I guess when you move it to the big scary computer and you change anything on the image then you are no longer a photographer.
"you are a moron"
"You just like making up batshit crazy"
Ahh.... there it is. A person who cant engage in debate without losing their cool when someone disagree's with them. Bravo.
This of the monetary impact also for portrait photographers who finally get a good shot with everyone looking and their eyes are all open but the camera focused on just the front row. How great would it be to change the depth of field and get everyone in focus.
I'm sure that the photographers who used to have to adjust the depth of their bellows to focus a photo thought that rotating a barrel to focus took some of the fun out of it.
By the same token, we have wide angle lenses now tilt or raised the elements to correct perspectives or give a deeper DOF. I remember Ansel Adams writing about having to tilt his lens to get near objects in focus on some of his wide angle shots. I wonder if he would have thought that anyone using this technology wasn't a photographer?
Clearly the device is question is very simplistic and doesn't lend itself to very artistic endeavors as is, but that doesn't mean that it will not be improved upon.
Let's don't cast into the beta max pile right now. I can see some very practical applications for it.