"Light" camera

[cantsin]

What about using today's high quality, hardware-based camera technology with computational photography. There is no reason they can't work in tandem to up the game. 

It will be physically impossible to build a multi-lens/light field camera with large sensors and high quality lenses - or it would end up having the size and weight of a suitcase.

Whether we like it or not, the industry is moving towards mobile device photography where technologies like the ones used in the L16 promise more versatility and better-looking images in combination with tiny lenses/sensors/bodies. - If you can use algorithms to up-res the signal from small sensors and lenses to match the quality of today's system cameras, it will be good enough for most buyers, and hence good enough for the industry. (With the added benefit of cheaper components.) 

But I fully agree with you that superresolution is overdue for being used in high end cameras. It could improve image quality significantly. At the moment, however, computational requirements might still be too steep for implementing it in firmware.

[maxotics]

To follow on Cantsin's points.  All zoom cameras make lens distortion computations.  They use computations to adjust the mirrors in deep-space telescopes to remove atmospheric blur. My gut feeling is 80% of most photographers don't understand how a bayer sensor works and why it has inherent color problems that reduce true "color" resolution to 33% of the sensor's stated resolution.  

I don't know how you guys feel, but all my experiments in photography/video surprise me in how poorly camera equipment works if you take the hype literally.   Even when I have great light and expensive equipment I'm surprised at how limited the image data is; that is, how much is lost in the shadows, or whites.  As for high ISO noise, sure, full frames like the SONY A7S are amazing compared to other cameras BUT, again, don't live up to what I want, or expect, if digital photography was perfected.  In short, digital photography is far, far from perfect.  For example, little exposure mistakes make a big difference.  Really, if you step back, you wouldn't think so.  

I can understand non-photographers thinking a camera with 16 lenses is stupid (like a car with 16 wheels), but people on this forum?  

A big mistake that light.co is making, IMHO option, is going for the mass market.  What they need to do is get first adopters on board, like Andrew or people on this forum.  They're trying to skip a step.  Lytro did the same thing.  I hope this forum thread, and the one on DPreview, motivates Light.co to focus on one benefit of their technology and effectively educate photographers about what it is, and how it can help them.  I have a BMPCC.  I hardly use it (though I'd love to).  It only really does one thing but that one thing is something no other camera can do at that size and price.   

That's why I bought it.  I believe that's why Blackmagic is successful (yes, I know they're not perfect).  Why would I want the "Light cameras"? After two videos and reading their site, I still have no idea what exactly the camera does that others don't.

[Mattias Burling]

Did their gallery wow you?

Only company in the world thats ever wowed me with demo footage or pics are blackmagic.

I learned a long time ago not to judge gear until Ive used it and that my preference is just mine. Just because I dont understand/like a product I dont go all mad about it.

Recent example is the a7rii. You wont find me in any threads talking it down even though I was sceptical from day one and today cant think of one single reason to buy one. Because I get that others do, and thats all good.

[kaylee]

interesting follow up from stu

foxconn? ive heard that name before lol.... http://prolost.com/blog/lightvisit