Lytro = junkpile

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 05:23:39 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lytro

Would that such a simple device and form-factor was a normal-sensored
camera, 4/3rds sensor in the same package with a prime focal length
lens. No embellishments, a better screen but the same size would be
interesting as a pocketable product. As it is, (no images posted for
it's output??) it's one of those techy-toys you'll used for a couple
days and shelve.

The Lytro reminds me of a Bushnell binocular known as "Permafocus."
They were basically a scam, pretending to be in-focus across the
distance range when in-fact they used optical trickery that resulted
in very poor overall performance. They were aimed at the lower-tier
buyer as well.

If you think the Bushnell 'Permafocus' binocular is a valid comparison
with what the Lytro does then you clearly don't understand the Lytro.

Do you remember those awful 1.2~1.5 Mp cameras? Are you aware of what
they have grown into? Just think what the Lytro might grow into over
the same period of time.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2012-03-02 08:30 , RichA wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:20 pm, Eric wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 05:23:39 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lytro

Would that such a simple device and form-factor was a normal-sensored
camera, 4/3rds sensor in the same package with a prime focal length
lens. No embellishments, a better screen but the same size would be
interesting as a pocketable product. As it is, (no images posted for
it's output??) it's one of those techy-toys you'll used for a couple
days and shelve.

The Lytro reminds me of a Bushnell binocular known as "Permafocus."
They were basically a scam, pretending to be in-focus across the
distance range when in-fact they used optical trickery that resulted
in very poor overall performance. They were aimed at the lower-tier
buyer as well.

If you think the Bushnell 'Permafocus' binocular is a valid comparison
with what the Lytro does then you clearly don't understand the Lytro.

Do you remember those awful 1.2~1.5 Mp cameras? Are you aware of what
they have grown into? Just think what the Lytro might grow into over
the same period of time.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

The writers were correct to point out that the average small-sensor
P&S achieves basically the same deep DOF results with FAR better image
quality.

Which is not the point of the camera in question. It's not about "deep"
DOF but a single point in time and an image providing whatever DOF the
viewer cares to select, and re-select.

I'm not surprised you can't make the distinction - just like the writers
who don't get it but you have to ape.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 3/2/2012 4:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-03-02 08:30 , RichA wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:20 pm, Eric wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 05:23:39 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lytro

Would that such a simple device and form-factor was a normal-sensored
camera, 4/3rds sensor in the same package with a prime focal length
lens. No embellishments, a better screen but the same size would be
interesting as a pocketable product. As it is, (no images posted for
it's output??) it's one of those techy-toys you'll used for a couple
days and shelve.

The Lytro reminds me of a Bushnell binocular known as "Permafocus."
They were basically a scam, pretending to be in-focus across the
distance range when in-fact they used optical trickery that resulted
in very poor overall performance. They were aimed at the lower-tier
buyer as well.

If you think the Bushnell 'Permafocus' binocular is a valid comparison
with what the Lytro does then you clearly don't understand the Lytro.

Do you remember those awful 1.2~1.5 Mp cameras? Are you aware of what
they have grown into? Just think what the Lytro might grow into over
the same period of time.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

The writers were correct to point out that the average small-sensor
P&S achieves basically the same deep DOF results with FAR better image
quality.

Which is not the point of the camera in question. It's not about "deep"
DOF but a single point in time and an image providing whatever DOF the
viewer cares to select, and re-select.

I'm not surprised you can't make the distinction - just like the writers
who don't get it but you have to ape.


Please stop insulting simians.

--
Peter

On 2012-03-03 03:27 , Bruce wrote:
wrote:

It's a worthless piece of toy crap. You are just too stupid or ga-ga
over a gadget to realize it. So go buy one. Then post your
results.


I cannot think of a camera that would better suit Alan Browne's
so-called "skill set".

I think "junkpile" is too kind. The camera is crap as well. ;-)

I'm sure it can't take photos acceptable for Paris Match covers.

But it probably takes better photos of trains than Tony "Bruce" Polson
ever took.

http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cg...-98/d9000a.jpg
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cg...-98/d9000b.jpg
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cg...-98/d9000c.jpg

The je ne sais quoi of the poor composition, clutter, bad exposure and
horrible grain are monuments to his inability.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.