A new and very different kind of camera - the future?

[Paulo Bizarro]

Maybe that's why their are aspiring, rather than actual photographers.

Not long ago, a NatGeo photog was shooting a magazine feature in Rio with a Nokia smartphone, the one with 42 mpx, can't remember the name.

A smartphone allows nice pics to be taken; it has been proven many times.

[razrblck]

This looks way better than the Lytro, more portable as well. Too bad the price is that steep, but I'm sure it will come down with time.

It would make a great camera when hiking, along with a really small tripod, if I don't need focal lengths outside its range.

[jjj]

Not long ago, a NatGeo photog was shooting a magazine feature in Rio with a Nokia smartphone, the one with 42 mpx, can't remember the name.

A smartphone allows nice pics to be taken; it has been proven many times.

Never said that wasn't the case.
But if you are aspiring to be a photographer or do any trade, severely limiting your tools is not good. If you are genuinely aspiring as a photographer, a camera that is more capable is not hard to come by. Owning a screwdriver and a hammer does not make you an aspiring builder.
Also that sort of quality camera that is found in that Nokia is very rare in a phone. I have an iPhone 6 for example and quality is pretty poor in reality. Pics looking OK on your small phone screen is very different to making a decent print or even viewing on your monitor. Not to mention the issues with highlights or low light levels.

[Justinr]

Never said that wasn't the case.
But if you are aspiring to be a photographer or do any trade, severely limiting your tools is not good. If you are genuinely aspiring as a photographer, a camera that is more capable is not hard to come by. Owning a screwdriver and a hammer does not make you an aspiring builder.
Also that sort of quality camera that is found in that Nokia is very rare in a phone. I have an iPhone 6 for example and quality is pretty poor in reality. Pics looking OK on your small phone screen is very different to making a decent print or even viewing on your monitor. Not to mention the issues with highlights or low light levels.

A point often overlooked. 99% of images will only ever be viewed on a screen and that's what a smartphone does best, take pictures for Facebook.

[jjj]

A point often overlooked. 99% of images will only ever be viewed on a screen and that's what a smartphone does best, take pictures for Facebook.

Except we are not talking about taking photos for FB. We were talking about those who want to be photographers and aspire to be more.

[BernardLanguillier]

And I thought that photography what about deciding what to leave out...

This is just the opposite. It appears to be a device aimed at capturing more of reality when it unfolds to let a post-processing decisions pick what matters.

The concept (either in its current or future instanciations) may be a commercial success, but isn't it bound to result in images with less intent?

Cheers,
Bernard

[razrblck]

The concept (either in its current or future instanciations) may be a commercial success, but isn't it bound to result in images with less intent?

It's just a tool. If lazy people will abuse it to pose as professionals, well they already do this today with less advanced cameras, so this won't change.

Frankly if I could afford it and it proved to have pretty good image quality, I would bring this with me when hiking for landscape photos. It has my most used focal lengths integrated in a single body that is a bit bigger than a smartphone, along with 52MP that are enough to print large or crop. The ability to change DOF in post is just icing on the cake.

The price will keep this as a niche camera, but I'm glad that we are moving forward with technology.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And I thought that photography what about deciding what to leave out...

This is just the opposite. It appears to be a device aimed at capturing more of reality when it unfolds to let a post-processing decisions pick what matters.

Hi Bernard,

I consider it more as a shift in the moment of image creation. We take the picture (Capture), and later make the image with our creative intent (Creation).

The concept (either in its current or future instanciations) may be a commercial success, but isn't it bound to result in images with less intent?

There will be those, but we already have instagram and such. Our creative intent will still be (potentially) able to create masterpieces from the source capture.

Cheers,
Bart

[jjj]

And I thought that photography what about deciding what to leave out...

This is just the opposite. It appears to be a device aimed at capturing more of reality when it unfolds to let a post-processing decisions pick what matters.

The concept (either in its current or future instanciations) may be a commercial success, but isn't it bound to result in images with less intent?

To add to Bart's comment above - How you make the picture is not really relevant. How good a picture you present is. That is the criteria that should be judged.

[scooby70]

To add to Bart's comment above - How you make the picture is not really relevant. How good a picture you present is. That is the criteria that should be judged.

Well, yes, but... Personally I like to see technology and things moving on and you never know, this might be the start of something even if it doesn't look like it.

[jjj]

Well, yes, but... Personally I like to see technology and things moving on and you never know, this might be the start of something even if it doesn't look like it.

Uh, my comment was nothing to do with technology. Rather people's attitude regarding how a photo is created.
And it certainly was not anti-progress/new-tech, anything but in fact.

[JoeKitchen]

Uh, my comment was nothing to do with technology. Rather people's attitude regarding how a photo is created.
And it certainly was not anti-progress/new-tech, anything but in fact.

Being a pretty young photographer, I talk with many other young and aspiring photographers.  I kind of see a shift in how an image is created with some people, but the serious shooters still have a vision and then work on producing that vision.  Sometimes it is almost all through the lens (like me), and other times it is more post production. 

Now with modern cameras , it is allowing people to use ambient light and then produce what ever vision the mood brings afterwards in post.  However those working this way are not the serious aspiring photographers, and have an inconsistent body of work that does not invoke trust to the serious art buyer.  It is just that we see it more because of the availability of better cameras and the "good enough" buyers, who do not have a vision either, that are all too ready to go with the cheapest bid. 

With that being said, I was recently at a retoucher demo in my area and, well, I am not sure if I was more impressed with what retouchers could do in post or more disappointed in some pretty big name photographers after seeing their before shots.  (It was obvious one of those big name guys had little to no professional skill in manipulating light.) 

[BernardLanguillier]

To add to Bart's comment above - How you make the picture is not really relevant. How good a picture you present is. That is the criteria that should be judged.

Agreed, but intent is of essence to capture useful raw material. The few additional bits of reality this will enable us to capture won't help much compensating for lack of intent, but will give plenty of impression that they do.

That's the problem I have with it, it doesn't drive photographers towards what truly matters, only sells a misleading perception.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Telecaster]

That's the problem I have with it, it doesn't drive photographers towards what truly matters, only sells a misleading perception.

Isn't this always the case to an extent with (potentially) paradigm-shifting photo tech? Who actually needs electronic capture and post-processing to be visually creative with a camera? Kodachrome and Tri-X were more than sufficient. Coated glass plates were more than sufficient. Etc. With each shift it takes people awhile to move past the wowie-zowie aspects of the new stuff. Some in fact never make it past this. Others reject the new ways & means and stick with what they already know. If it ain't broke… But for people who do embrace the new tech this typically also means embracing an altered concept of what photography is. Which is fine…it's a fluid endeavor.

We have a tendency to view the technologies and methods we "came of age" with as fundamental baselines, and all further developments as deviations, while forgetting that our treasured baseline was someone else's abominable deviation. It's just the way our short-term-fixated brains are wired.

-Dave-

[jjj]

Isn't this always the case to an extent with (potentially) paradigm-shifting photo tech? Who actually needs electronic capture and post-processing to be visually creative with a camera? Kodachrome and Tri-X were more than sufficient. Coated glass plates were more than sufficient. Etc. With each shift it takes people awhile to move past the wowie-zowie aspects of the new stuff. Some in fact never make it past this. Others reject the new ways & means and stick with what they already know. If it ain't broke… But for people who do embrace the new tech this typically also means embracing an altered concept of what photography is. Which is fine…it's a fluid endeavor.

We have a tendency to view the technologies and methods we "came of age" with as fundamental baselines, and all further developments as deviations, while forgetting that our treasured baseline was someone else's abominable deviation. It's just the way our short-term-fixated brains are wired.

Just like musical taste.

[MarkL]

I think very groundbreaking in it’s concept and I’m sure cameras will eventually start to go this way with multiple lens/sensor sites. Perhaps in the future these sorts of cameras will have a low light option (fusing similar frames for lower noise), high resolution mode (like pixel shift) and ‘focus later’ mode.

More and more I have started to see digital cameras as just data capture devices rather than picture making devices and commonly use stitching, focus bracketing for dof stacking and exposure blending as part of my normal photography. My concern is getting the highest quality data captured at the time because I can put the picture together later (which arguably even shooting RAW is doing).  Olympus and Ricoh brought the idea of using multiple exposures into a mainstream camera with sensor/pixel shift technology and in-camera HDR has been tentatively added but a camera like this takes this to a new level. Why have one lens and sensor (often fixing you to a tripod and manually processing the frames in software) when you can have many simultaneous ones?

Some see manual Leica M cameras as having the least barriers in the way of the creative process I see it as absolute pure point & shoot.

[Dale Villeponteaux]

Agree with JJ that only the finished image matters, not
how you produced it. Wasn't there once a thread called
"Nobody cares how hard you worked"?

Regards,
Dale

[jjj]

Some see manual Leica M cameras as having the least barriers in the way of the creative process I see it as absolute pure point & shoot.

I find Leicas clumsy and unergonomic, which is a considerable barrier to creativity in my view