[stoppingdown]

70% off... never seen so far.

 

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/900-off-...-illum-40/

[Brightcolours]

70% off is nothing

How about paying just 14% for a Hasselblad?

 

http://www.kamera-express.nl/product/122...ase-zwart/

 

:ph34r: 

[davidmanze]

  What no 10% price deals from Nikon?

[popo]

Wait until they pay you to take it away...

[toni-a]

All depends how you do your marketing, and who are your opponents.

In such a saturated market, with so many big players it is really hard to impose, especially when you have a sensor with a fraction of the resolution of the opponents , seems they are in the same boat as foveon.

Too bad that was a promising system, hope they will be able to ameliorate it till it becomes really competitive 

[mst]

How about paying just 14% for a Hasselblad?

Important part missing: how about paying just 14% and still paying way too much


-- Markus

[mst]

70% off... never seen so far.
 
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/900-off-...-illum-40/

A pity... I really liked the idea and the creative potential of the technology after I saw some of the samples. But unfortunately they received very mixed reviews about the software and the sharpness of the output.

So, even at that low price, I still wouldn't be tempted to try a Lytro... but hopefully any other (and better) future light field device.

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

The "sharpness of output" was just absent or at a very low level. Personally, I don't see the point of the light field tech anymore: to me, photography is about decision what I like to be seen in the picture. Leave that all to the viewing person, and worse, force the viewing person to download technical aid just to view a second hand experience is nothing I want to waste money, time or disk-space for me or other people.

 

And I think, when I get 40 MB (or 10 MB jpgs) files with decent sharpness and dynamics, how much more would a combination of sharpness layers be? DoF is important to me and if I want to have everything sharp, I can use focusstacking.

 

Tony Northrop made the remark, that the camera need to be rebooted quite often (in comparison  to other cameras).

[stoppingdown]

I partially agree with the first part of JoJu's comment - but I say, ok, innovation is not bad per se. I might imagine some cases in which the light field technology could be useful.

 

"Tony Northrop made the remark, that the camera need to be rebooted quite often (in comparison  to other cameras)."

 

I've read some reviews and this actually to me sounds as it's the real problem. If you want to introduce a new technology such as light field, fine, but you should make a camera that's on par with a regular camera for all the other things (usability, reliability, etc...) and then offers that new technique. Otherwise it sounds as you're just trying to sell a prototype. I mean, if we were talking about a tool for engineers, there would be lots of them happy to play with a prototype. But aiming at photographers, they want to be able to take pictures with no hassles.

[davidmanze]

The first camera was a novelty but the only one of it's type and sold moderately, this is updated improved and actually looks like a camera, but the novelty wears quickly at it's launch price, especially when you can but  very decent DSLR/Mirrorless for the same money.

 It's a pity because it did have quite a few things going for it.

 

 

  I kinda looks like we won't see another!

 

 

 

 Addition:

  Kick start project:  

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WBvFzkjegc

 

A TLR instant print camera, if you can watch it to the end give yourself a house point!