Who is going to be the first to put their name

[Ham]

https://light.co/camera

Go on, tell me you wouldn't want one. It could work, too.

[Charlotte]

Not me.  It looks like a glorified smartphone. That much would buy me a used D810, which I could make *way* more use of.

[Jaded]

Nah. Can't do selfies. 

[Aunt Maud]

Will it tilt and shift ?

[Ham]

Not me.  It looks like a glorified smartphone. That much would buy me a used D810, which I could make *way* more use of.

It is a glorified smartphone, but the multiple image concept actually makes sense, think of the Astronomical interferometer

[LEE]

This is a classic case of "wait & see" I think.

It could transform photography or it could be a complete white elephant.

My Canon S120 is available for £220 now.  Nothing I read on the Light L16 web site made me think I'd rather pay an extra £700 on top of an S120 for this.

I've yet to see an alternative to large chunks of glass for getting the very best results.

[Efrogwr]

That's because there isn't one (probably)

[Ham]

We've got used to the effect of lenses, and we appreciate the qualities of a good lens, often feeling it adds to the effect of the image. I don't think that's the only way that picures can be, though.

If this device can match the resolution quality of a decent lens and allow you to change the focal length post facto as it claims, I think it could be very, very interesting. Dissing it because it won't have bokeh or dof (maybe it can? I dunno) misses the point by a country mile.

[nicknack]

It's main problem will be that it looks like a phone so you won't have a great big long dangly lens marking you out as a "real" photographer.

[Afasoas]

I hope that LED is for AF assist and not intended as an actual light source.

The benefit of a dSLR is being able to hold the thing poised and comfortably for long periods. It's about ergonomics as much as anything.

[T42]

Maybe they could add a plug-in EVF for a mere $900 extra.

Anyway, I like the idea if not the price.  Were they to make it waterproof it'd be a great cycling camera.

[Graeme]

Maybe they could add a plug-in EVF for a mere $900 extra.

Anyway, I like the idea if not the price.  Were they to make it waterproof it'd be a great cycling camera.

That was my thought too - looks comfortable to have slipped in the back pocket of a cycling jersey. Price is off putting.

[Ham]

Maybe they could add a plug-in EVF for a mere $900 extra.

Anyway, I like the idea if not the price.  Were they to make it waterproof it'd be a great cycling camera.

Is the L16 Camera dust- and water-resistant?

The Light L16 Camera is being built to the IP54 specification, so it will be dust- and water-resistant.

Something phone size that takes true hi-res pictures? what's not to like? Clearly it won't replace an SLR, but I have more than one type of camera, as this technology trickles down and out, it is going to make for an interesting generation of compacts.

If those gallery shots are real, it will be awesome. Curious they haven't added 100% crops, though.

[LEE]

Something phone size that takes true hi-res pictures? what's not to like?

Here's my phone and my Canon S120



This is a random shot from the S120 (I admit it's dull on a dull day but it's a classic "snap").


It's handheld on a dull day and here's a crop. It's almost printable as a 6x4" snap (My mum has worse in her album that weren't cropped in this extreme way)


That's 12MP and it's why the mega-pixel war is dying out.  The optics required to resolve beyond 12MP are the limiting factor, it's no good just putting 50MP behind tiny "smartphone" glass.

I'm not a Canon employee but this is what the L16 is up against.  £250 buys you some serious quality nowadays (The S120 was a £500 pocket camera 3 years ago.  I expect it will be £150 within 2 years).

Once you get into £1000 price bracket then it needs to do significantly more than just compete with superb "normal" cameras that are a quarter of the price (and smaller).


The L16 will be viable when it's simply part of a feature set of an iPhone 8 (or whatever version) but they are taking on perfectly adequate cameras at a ridiculous price point.

[Jaded]

Several key things for me:

I like the isolation of a viewfinder. You don't get this with an LCD held up in front of you.
Dioptric adjustment. A DSLR allows me to take photographs without glasses.
DoF. Any DoF stuff from this camera will have to be astonishingly good. There is no way that a lens that size will do DoF so it has to be computer generated.
Multiple lenses equals parallax fuzziness. There's no way it cannot, unless the software is estimating what is behind foreground objects based on the views from other cameras.
Low light capability: Big pixels = good low light performance. This camera does not have big pixels, so low light capability is a bit like stacking Astro photos - a compromise.

Having said that, if this works, it will blow away compact cameras.

[Jurek]

Here's my phone and my Canon S120

How did you take that picture ?

[red marley]

One of the cameras took a selfie obvs.

[Jurek]

 

[red marley]

And while it looks like an interesting approach, it is considerably larger than a smartphone (which themselves are considerably larger than they need be), and so loses the portability benefit over mid-range compact cameras.

[Jurek]

Indeed.
It looks like we're looking at something about the size of a paperback book.

Anyone remember those?

[nicknack]

It's a bit of a lump then.
Do you suppose they gave any thought to actually holding it and using it?

[David Martin]

It is the first of its kind. Personally I'd wait and see how it works out. All the pricing, size etc  is nothing new for a first of kind.

[LEE]

Here's my phone and my Canon S120

How did you take that picture ?