
Lytro’s Illum Is a Camera for Serious Photographers - aaronbrethorst
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/technology/personaltech/lytros-illum-is-a-camera-for-serious-photographers.html
======
georgemcbay
"Lytro’s Illum Is a Camera for Serious Photographers"

Meh, not really. I mean, it _is_ interesting, but the title isn't really
correct and also not justified by anything written in the full article.

I'm a fairly serious hobbyist photo-taker and while the Lytro appeals to my
geeky experimental side it has some major issues for use in "serious
photography":

While being able to refocus the image is nice, no matter where you set focus
the sharpness is pretty shitty relative to nice, sharp modern conventional
sensor/lens combos. The images I've seen from the Illum are better in this
regard than the previous oddly shaped box camera Lytro released, but still
quite a bit off of conventional digital cameras.

4 megapixels, while perfectly fine for web-based images (though with the
acceleration in adoption of HighDPI displays, even this is changing), is
seriously limiting if you intend to make prints much larger than a 4x6",
especially if you also have to crop at all.

Also, while the Canon 70-200mm is ~$2500 as noted in the article, Tamron makes
an f/2.8 70-200mm that is for all practical purposes just as good for $1,400
which is less than the price of the Lytro even if you add in the cost of a
used older low-end APS-C DSLR body (and even an older low-end DSLRs will have
many more megapixels and overall image quality at HighDPI or print sizes) to
go with it.

I still find the Illum (and light-field photography in general) interesting
from a tech perspective and and would probably buy one to fuck around with if
they cost like $400, but in the price range the Lytro retails for I would
recommend anyone "serious" about photography pick up the Sony A7 with the
28-70mm kit lens. You won't be able to refocus or perspective shift the
images, but the images will be sooo much nicer and more flexible if you intend
to print or display them at very high resolutions.

I really wish I could be more positive about the camera because I want to see
where light-field photography ends up down the road if it is pursued, but the
$1,600 price really puts it in an odd place where it is too much (for most of
us) to buy as a toy but too limited to buy as a serious piece of photography
gear.

~~~
danbee
You don't even have to spend that much. The f/4 version of Canon's 70-200 can
be had for around $600 new and it's a fantastic lens.

~~~
georgemcbay
Yup, this is true.

The way the article used the lens was as comparison to something similar to
the effective f/2.0 the Lytro camera uses; if you're willing to go 2-stops
slower (f/4) instead of 1-stop slower (f/2.8) then the lens costs can be
reduced even more substantially.

In any case, the original comparison isn't all that useful anyway since the
Lytro is a very different beast than a traditional digital dslr, but the
bottom line remains while I think the Illum is cool, $1,600 is about 4x what
I'd pay for it (which isn't to suggest the cost isn't justified based on BOM
and/or R&D costs, it probably is, but that is irrelevant in calculating its
value to me personally).

------
devindotcom
I love this technology and it is fascinating as hell, but as a photographer it
leaves me absolutely cold. I just cannot seem to find a good reason to use it
other than the simple novelty one feels when first navigating one of the
photos. That doesn't remain novel for long, and the contrived compositions
that make the best use of the technology tend to reflect a lack of what, in my
own opinion, goes into a good photograph. The results of the camera are simply
not compelling to me.

~~~
pfranz
A friend of mine does event photography for swing dancing. He's looking at
getting one because it's really hard to catch focus when things are moving so
quickly (in dimly-lit halls). There are photography niches out there where
features like this can be a necessity.

Another use-case I've heard about was wedding photographers using depth of
field as a Ken Burns-like effect for videography or on their webpage.

Both are narrow use-cases, but I too find the technology fascinating and hope
it finds a sustainable use-case.

~~~
djKianoosh
this won't really help him catch focus of moving objects... because they are
moving. only a faster shutter speed can help there.

~~~
lelandbatey
But when someone is moving closer/further away from you (as probably happens
when you're a stationary photographer among dancers) the ability to not worry
about what's in focus right now seems huge.

~~~
elithrar
> But when someone is moving closer/further away from you (as probably happens
> when you're a stationary photographer among dancers) the ability to not
> worry about what's in focus right now seems huge.

But the subject is still moving quickly - the Lytro can't compensate for that.

Dark, high movement indoor scenes (dancing, sports, etc) are always some of
the toughest situations to shoot in, and are probably one of the times where
gear can make a substantial difference between getting a "passable" shot and
getting a completely unusable one.

Stop down as much as you can, zone focus, push the ISO up to maintain the
minimum shutter for the activity at hand and shoot. You can get push ISO
higher if you're not looking to print big (as in, 16x20" and up) too, which
can help give you more breathing room.

~~~
stevekemp
Agreed entirely, although it has to be said the f/2.0 will help a little.

(Of course a 4MP image will not be as good as a real cameras, but low-light
performance should be reasonable with that aperture - though I've not seen
anything mentioned about ISO ranges.)

I will go hug my 70-200 f/2.8 now, it truely is an amazing lens :)

~~~
djKianoosh
I took a Nikon 180mm f2.8 [1] to the world cup and it was phenomenal[2]. It's
less bulky than the 70-200. Now, if this Lytro has real good ISO range and
decent glass, then it might be good for a travel kit. Just depends on how big
it really is.

\-- 1:
[http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/a...](http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af_180mmf_28d_if/)
2:
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh/sets/72157644825335...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/djkianoosh/sets/72157644825335868/)

------
DenisM
In related news, people are working on light-field display:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109515](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109515)

------
sjs1234
What are the issues with applying this to a video camera instead? That seems
like a more interesting use case.

~~~
devindotcom
IIRC, Ng told me the team is working on it but the amount of storage and
processing necessary is pretty massive.

------
stevewilhelm
On a similar topic, does anyone watch 3D television?

------
LeicaLatte
What? No. Cameras are complicated enough.

