Found this little device:

lytro

 

There is a much more expensive camera based on this theory but this is the first consumer version. Love it as a proof of concept. Sounds to me like the megapixel race will dovetail into this nicely. Give me this with Foveon-style color sensing, Fuji sensor's extended dynamic range and, oh, say 12 effective megapixels, lol.

Can you imagine the new general advice for photographers, "f2 and be there!" I'm thinking future cameras of this type might have built-in neutral density filters, assuming the lenses are good enough to shoot wide open all the time (aside from dragging the shutter for intentional motion blur, fireworks, or the like).

A bit further in the future imagine watching a movie filmed this way, then add eye tracking of the viewer so whatever part of the image you look at is in focus.

 

Doesn't quite exist yet. Try buying one. Something in the back of my head is telling me I can put this in my pocket next to my paper cellphone.


But seriously, the way I use a camera is I choose my subject, set aperture and focus and take the picture. I don't run around snapping wildly and later try to edit every shot into something I actually wanted and get frustrated and quit. I am of the school that thinks one uses focus and exposure to delineate the subject in a photo. So perhaps this product isn't for me. But not knowing what you want to be the subject of your picture beforehand is some strange picture-taking.

The idea is neat, but it does nothing an existing camera cannot do. I'm not seeing the advantage.

 

I'm not saying I can't make stunning images with earlier hardware but you asked what can this do that your camera can't? Try taking photos at f2.0 (or wider open) and see what sort of razor-thin DoF you get. Are you saying you see no use for a camera that can achieve greater DoF at wider-open apertures? Because that's like saying you also have no use for less noise at higher ISO ratings. Similar effect. I want all the effective ISO I can get.

 

Just a few thoughts, because I've been following the developments of this thing for quite a while now:

#1, Try taking photos with a camera that doesn't exist.

#2, The very shallow depth of field is WHY I use F/2. It's not a flaw but the whole reason for shooting wide open. I can always take pictures stopped down. All my lenses can do that. Only my fast lenses can take pictures at f/1.5, for that shallow, shallow DOF. I can also stop motion in fairly dim light, but the shallow depth of field gets used more than just for the extra stop of shutter.

#3, The prototype of this camera was a consumer digicam with microlenses and extra digital processing. A 10-megapixel sensor outputs less than a megapixel image. What you are getting is a fairly low resolution image, not some super-duper high resolution/high image quality result.

#4, This thing does not give you a higher effective ISO. The parts are off-the-shelf, and you don't mount your own lenses in front of it. Think of it as a bunch of really tiny cheap digicams mounted to a board. Every one is focused at a different thing in the scene. When you take a picture, you have to go back through every image and pick the ones that are focused on what you wanted. Everything is shot at the same shutter speed and aperture. The matching scenes are blended together, and Voila! You have one small photo from a very large set of data.

#5, Shutter speed is your only variable. If the shutter speed is too slow you get motion blur. If it is too fast, you get under-exposure. Again, it's an off-the-shelf sensor with a plastic microlens layer in front of it. It's not going to take better pictures than existing cameras, just different pictures.

I don't care what kind of depth of field you get, it requires as much light as any other digicam. If I was looking for high ISO performance I'd look elsewhere. If I wanted high quality images, I'd look elsewhere. If I wanted control over the picture-making process, I'd look elsewhere. I don't use a current consumer digicam for picture-taking right now because I don't like the lack of control over the process, combined with the poor image quality compared to interchangeable lenses that have been manufacturered to take good pictures rather than fill a pricepoint on a Price-Mart shelf.

And this has got to be mentioned again: This camera does not exist. It's an open question whether it will ever exist outside of a laboratory.

It might be a very cool toy, but it's not a tool that this photographer would ever choose for making photographs. That's if it ever becomes something you could buy at Target.