Anyone have any thoughts on the Lytro camera? The summary is basically that it records an image that can be focused after the fact.

Useful, or just a gimmick?

It seems to me that while this camera might be … underpowered … the idea is great. If you could combine the technology with higher-quality image recording and not have to worry about focus when taking a picture, that would provide more opportunities for a photographer to capture the image he wanted, especially in quick-response photography.

Useful, definitely not a gimmick, and something that they should really consider licensing out to manufacturers who already make good prosumer cameras instead of trying to wing it on their own. It seems like a waste of resources to have them working on their own firmware, physical design, marketing, etc. when all people really want is the technology in the cameras they already own (modified to use the new tech, of course.) I would pay a couple hundred extra for a camera with this built-in, and I reckon pros would pay many times that.

The Lytro is definitely a gimmick product. It shoots only tiny little images that are useful only with their player stack and contain only a handful of focus points, which can't be chosen.

This means you won't be able to do much with the images other than post them to Facebook. You may not get any one image to focus at all on the part you consider the most important to be in focus.

Apart from having a super-powerful incarnation of this technology able to create images with the fidelity of the top SLRs with many more focus points, allowing the shooter to pick the primary, I don't really see the point for general photography.

How many times are you ever going to refocus an image? It adds a lot of hassle, and in its current incarnation, requires an additional post-processing step that most people just aren't interested in.

As far as licensing goes, there are already other companies with higher-end solutions to this problem. The Lytro is likely borne out of the inability to convince any existing camera manufacturers to jump on the technology yet.

When 3D isn't flying, I'm not sure this has much of a future in the consumer space - not for a few years yet anyway. Too much hassle, little to no benefit, poor quality images.

Well clearly I do with the technology as according to Mark in the other thread I can't focus an image.

Until I get my hands on one I will reserve judgement, but I suspect it just takes a series of pictures and blends them together in a very limited fashion. I look forward to having a play myself as I find that is much better way of making an informed opinion.

Cheers

Cris

Heh. Two responses to Bitt, and two different opinions. I agree with this one. It's a gimmicky product.

Lightfield technology, however, is incredibly fascinating, and I could make great use of it, if it existed in pro-sumer camera models.

If the question is how often am I going to refocus my own pictures, well, hopefully never. But reality says I can sometimes use a post-photo re-focusing. A lot of what I've been shooting lately is live-action theatre. You only get once chance at an actor's expression, because their performance is never identical. There have been plenty of times where I've gotten what I think is a good shot (composition, lighting, and by review on the LCD, focus), only to get home and discover that the focus was on their shoulder, instead of on their face, and the depth of field means their face is slightly out of focus. It would be nice to be able to fix small errors like that, instead of throwing out an otherwise good shot.

But if you consider how often am I going to let someone else refocus my photos? Never. But I can imagine such technology being useful for things like virtual museum tours, or gigapixel panoramas, etc.

I saw a demo of this type of thing several months ago, a video from an electronics expo convention, and in the demo, the camera doesn't simply take a series of images from what I understand. It's got a different kind of approach to the lens and the sensor which means that everything is captured at the same instant, but with a range of available focal depths. I think the closest analogy was like that of an insect's compound eye, or something like that.

What I'm wondering is why, in the image playbacks, I only get the choice of focusing one plane of the image. Why not give me the option of all planes focused (and make that the default for goodness' sake).

No. It uses a different type of sensor to record the light. Did you poke around the site? They "explain" the science, and have some example photos up. There are some photos that make no sense (to me) to be refocusable, but there are also photos where changing the focus gives a very different mood to the photo, despite the subject matter remaining constant. As a photographer, I think the ability to explore those moods after a photo has been taken, is a very compelling feature, allowing you to be very precise about the image you convey.

So... the Lytro, gimmicky. Lightfields, not gimmicky.

Exactly. The Lytro's player allows anyone to refocus what appear to be simply bland/bad photos from their demo showcase I first saw last month (or was it September?)

The technology uses prismatic micro-lenses to capture multiple light fields, it doesn't take multiple photos. Its resulting file isn't exactly a photo either - it needs to be processed into one. And the Lytro implementation only captures sufficient light fields to produce a small number of focus possibilities. I believe it's 8 planes.

This isn't infinite focus by any stretch and I believe we're many years away from the technology being that mature, let alone being able to control depth of field which is a lot more fun than simply altering the focal plane. In the Lytro images I looked at, there wasn't much point to changing the focal plane - the images could have been captured with a traditional process producing better looking photographs. The Lytro only added the Facebook gimmick - which will be fun for about 5 minutes.

So basically the camera take 8 photos at the same time on fixed focal planes and combines them into a meaningful image in software that the user can then tweak between the planes but not actually fine tune the focus in any given plane.

So by reckoning that means all they have done is to figure out how to split the sensor up into sections with light focus differently across it's face to basically build 8 pictures taken at the same time. Like I said, it's just taking multiple pictures at different focal lengths from the exact viewpoint at the same time. With some very clever software working it all out.

I'm not impressed with the website of the examples they give. None of the images really work very well and you clearly can't fine tune focus and everything seems to be slightly out and low res. Still, I look forward to having a play.

Cheers

Cris

I looked thru the doctroral thesis of Lytro's CEO.

Lots of math. (way beyond me) but the basics are that you take a many megapixel sensor, the same as used in many cameras, and install an array of lenslets just in front of the sensor. This has the effect of creating an array of many small images focused on the sensor.

Each sub image covers a dozen or so pixels. All are slightly different from each other. The full result can then be post processed to generate an image. Adjusting various parameters in the math allows reconstruction of the image at various focal distances.

One issue in building the camera is, there is a relationship between the image sharpness that can be achieved vs. the ability to resolve the focal depth, is tied to the distance between the lens array and the sensor. The thesis has examples.

Another interesting bit is, since standard sensors are being used, there is no reason that video can't be captured. I'm guessing that the amount of post processing needed for video is extreme.

More megapixels would seem to be the answer to things like small images and sharper images with the ability to selectively focus thru greater depth.

If photography, from the very beginning, had been able to resolve everything in focus, a lot of what we call the photographic art, might not exist.

Piss off, Chris. Please do not attribute things to me which I did not actually say or post.

Cheers

No. You're not stirring the pot at all....

They are already using an 11 megapixel sensor to get (roughly) 500x500 images. Even if they magic'd up a 44 megapixel sensor you are still only looking at 1000x1000 images, which sure sounds at the gimmick end of the scale to me.

I've missed you Rob.

Sorry, how dare I doubt The Lord...



If you are going to insult me, at least have the decency to spell my name right.

Cheers

Cris

Here here! I miss the voice of reason.

Cheers

Cris

My two cents: The Lytro isn't a replacement for a traditional camera, particularly if you want to make big prints. However, it's a harbinger of some pretty interesting things to come, including non-traditional lenses that might bolt onto traditional cameras.

For what it's worth, I'm not getting one. If it were cheaper (say $100), then I'd get one for my daughter in a snap, since it would be a cool toy to play with.

At 500x500 resolution, I'd change that to "any prints"

500x500, IMO, isn't even high enough resolution for making images to post on the web.

Yea, I would agree. But it leaves me thinking what is the point at all ???

If it offered a low resolution image that I could fine focus and use it to extend the composition options in a shot then I would be very interested. At the moment I am struggling to think of many situations where I would actually want to focus on different planes. Maybe a bride walking down the aisle, perhaps.

Still I'll jump at the chance to have a play when I get the chance.

Cheers

Cris

This model looks to me like a technology demonstrator. I assume they'll sell a bunch, which will possibly appease their investors. Then in a few years time, after it's gone through a couple of generations of development, one of the existing camera manufacturers will license it (no doubt the technology is already suitably patented up) and incorporate it into a P+S.

I think Andy is spot on here. The startup environment right now is one that forces a little more then just a good idea and technology demo. Investors are looking for more solid things to invest in, resulting in startups having to turn into full on businesses to prove themselves. The technology also needs to evolve, and one way to help do so is to build it out and learn lessons from that process. Much like many things in life, this is one of those iterative situations. Digital cameras date back to the 70s, but took decades to mature to the point they became common consumer items. The tech behind Lytro and similar tech is also probably a decade out from common use, and these are the first baby steps.

Well in that case they are doomed to fail. I don't see their market.

People still want to print pictures, maybe less than they used to but they still do. Who wants a camera that you can hardly print from these days ???

Sure if it's taking interesting and different pictures I can seeing that being a drawn enough just to put them on an iPhone for example. But it doesn't (without me having a play with one) see to deliver on the creative element.

Cheers

Cris

The market I see isn't in the "put refocusable images on the web page". Thats just a shiny way to show of the tech. The future market is "Buy a digital camera that you never have to worry about focus again at the time of the shot". Point, shoot, then adjust later if necessary. This also has the advantage of letting the camera perform autofocusing in the background after the moment has been captured, instead of when the user is pressing the trigger button. The quicker a camera can go from off to picture taken, the better the chance the moment was captured as intended.

Thats my long term vision for it anyhow. Business plans can change much quicker then the technology behind this, so it's much easier for them to try a ton of different strategies to get this to catch on.

I'll point out that people have been decrying megapixel expansion for years. Here's something that could conceivably make those overlarge sensors make sense.

What Tom and Bitt said.

Nobody thought those Flip video cameras were worth a damn when they came out, and they sold gazillions of them.

Sorry, Cris. I think you're the only guy I've met who's name doesn't have the "h" in it -- I don't mean to misspell it on purpose.

But please don't misquote me or continue to resort to name-calling. Simply constructing a logical representation of your side of the debate is sufficient.

"Misquote" in that I've never said you don't know how to focus a camera. I simply noted that the focus point in that particular image was not where I'd expected it (the eyes), but rather on the clothing near the bottom of the frame. That's probably the iPhone's fault, or maybe the camera shifted between focus point selection and release of the shutter. Dunno.

Cheers

One other useful thing for the Lytro camera technology: crank the resolution up to at least 720p (they're already at standard def resolutions) and you've now got a very interesting video camera that works in low light without requiring autofocus.

Yea, that picture isn't out of focus. Her eyes are in focus I'm afraid. I'm not mis quoting you either, you clearly say that that image is out of focus.

Again no name calling. I didn't call you any names. I can think of a few if that make you feel better ???

Cheers

Cris

I've been hesitatant to post what I'm about to post, but I think it needs to be said...

Am I the only only who believes this discussion and the one in the iPhone 4S thread are getting way out of hand?

I've been a member of this forum for over a decade now, and this has always been one of the friendliest, most informative places I've known on the internet, filled with nice and knowledgeable people, some of whom I've met in person at a couple of the meets. I'd hate to see this change and it saddens me to see the atmosphere here getting spoilt over what is essentially a simple disagreement. If you don't agree, which you are obviously completely entitled to, can't you guys just agree to disagree and shake hands? Please?

Cris, this post is not meant directly at you just because I've responded to your post. It's a general posting.

Cheers!

Not taken as such. I hear what you are saying.

I think for too long the BBS has been too tolerant in places, it's natural to have disagreements, I'm fine with it. I believe that left unchallenged the discussions lead to indifference of opinion and those who may disagree tend not to post as they feel they will be out cast by the group. So instead they out cast them selves by not posting and eventually never coming back.

This BBS is not the thriving interesting place it used to be. I feel strongly that this is due to the interesting people with interesting opinions getting fed up for the tolerance of a few people who seem, on some levels, just out to enrage people.

The one thing I can tell you for fact is, if any of these two discussions had been held face to face I would have not held out so long to call bullshit and use stronger terms. People who know me in person will know this to be true.

I don't really see what is wrong with what has been said, or the tone in which has been said. We are all big boys and should be able to take a bit of banter. If someone calls my work, which I feel passionately about, I will call them back and make no apology for it. I think that is fair ??? It's not all one way traffic.

I would agree that continued mud slinging does not serve the community well, but on points that people feel strongly about freedom should be given to express that view. I have not stooped to name calling as some would suggest, I have just called a spade a spade and said things as I saw them. I never got personal or made threats, so I can't really see the problem to be honest.

Cheers

Cris

As a few people can attest to, you're using my exact words. Somehow, Cris, who I am indeed singling out here in this case, seems bent on always bringing this back to me. I don't know why, I don't care why. I use Cris and myself as an example here specifically because of the 4S thread.



Because that quote isn't a perfect example of what it says. Any forum is only as interesting as the people who post or read, at any time, make it. Discounting the veiled disparaging comment which may be targeted at no one in particular, you can't blame the lack of interesting dialog on "someone else" who is no longer participating.

I look forward to seeing interesting topics, but I also make an effort to start threads on topics I find interesting or timely. I think this goes for a lot of people. If anyone feels different, they should start some as well.

This board is not an inviting place to do that these days. Sometimes I feel you have to be apologetic simply for being an American here. Did you know that I have a pistol permit and didn't vote for Obama? If I were to participate in any such threads or start one of my one, I would simply be outnumbered and probably lumped in with that kid from Louisiana that hacked the BBS almost a decade ago. I'm sure people who haven't met me in person are already forming opinions.

You made some crack about Apple buyers a few post back like they'll just drink the Kool-Aid and love everything about the iPhone. I could participate in that pointless discussion, but I might as well do that on Engadget where they have more asses in the seats.

Eh, I think there's some false equivalence going on here. There's a big difference between having different opinions and being an uninformed Neanderthal. This is the kind of place where, if you're in the first category, I think you're treated pretty kindly by most people, whereas if you're in the latter, you're going to get a bit bruised and bloodied.

I do think the makeup of the commentariat has changed over time, and we have lost some of our more prolific and interesting characters. I still think what's left is a great community, and we've had new folks join who have added fresh perspective -- though maybe not enough to replace some who've left.

I participate a lot in off-topic threads here, and I'm not shy about sharing my opinion, but I always aim to do so from an empirical standpoint, trying to understand the other side's view, but also offering data to support my own view. Who you vote for is your damned business, but if you have an opinion on something that's easily undermined by available data, I think it's worth asking you where you're coming from, and for data that supports your view. I've learned things from others here that I didn't know, and those facts have helped inform my views on various matters in a positive way.

So, I really don't think things have gone as far downhill as you suggest, and I certainly don't agree with your suggestion that we're all lock-step lemmings who try to push out people with opposing views -- but if you're going to make a statement, you ought to be prepared to support it.

I find it interesting that you're getting involved since something you said the day after Obama was elected got me pretty irritated. I'm typing this on a phone, so I'll have to get back to it. It was something to the effect of you asking if that had made up for 8 years of Bush.

I vote for my own reasons as should you. Not to please other people or countries or apologize for actions outside of your control.

OK... Mind pointing me at the thread? I don't see anything like that in a search for my posts around that time with "bush" as a search term. Here are all of my posts from that era, if that helps. Just trying to figure out what I said that irked you so much. Would also really appreciate a response to the substance of my comments when you're in a better typing environment.

First off, this is a post from me as a participant of the community. I generally try to avoid being an admin here socially, as this community should be what the people make it, not what I or a few others try and force it to be.

I can see some parts of where Rob is coming from. And I think some of it is due to the difference in free time some people have. I know some people here browse frequently, due to downtime at work or whatever. Others visit less often, once a day, or once a week even. Sometimes the opportunity to make a counterpoint seems lost as the thread has moved on. And with the quick reply at the bottom and some peoples misuse of it, the threaded views don't work well to bring back old points for active discussions.

The quick replies can also put people on the defensive quickly. And this can lead to irritation and fatigue when visiting, as they feel they have this uphill battle to fight just to have a fair chance at sharing their side.

On a more personal note, this is one reason I left the IRC room a while back Tony. What started as me just simply poking fun in a lighthearted way at a parking situation at work involving fuel efficient spots turned quickly into me having to try and defend my situation. This happened early in my morning, at work, with my mind somewhat tired and also being inundated by the days first requests. The mix did put me into a hostile and defensive mood, to the point I decided to just throw in the towel and leave. You appeared to have a goal of proving me wrong, in regards to a situation that started as a joke, or at least thats how my mindset at the time interpreted it. I've seen situations here that mirror that feeling. I bring this up to offer perspective, not as a way to make an attack. I personally don't care about it anymore, nor hold a grudge about it. It just turned into my sign that the IRC room wasn't for me during work hours, and during non work hours there isn't much activity. I reverted back to participating with you and the others here, on my own time and schedule.

The lesson from that for me was to stop multitasking so much, as it is distracting, and leads to misinterpreting a situation due to it lacking my full attention. I now try to read these boards only when I have a fair bit of free time, to make sure I can give my full attention to the words others have typed, and to my own replies.

Over the past year or two, I've been adopting a much more care free attitude, and it's helped a lot. I'm trying to get out of the somewhat common geek nitpick mode, letting the smaller things just not get in the way. I suppose in part it's just part of my own maturity growing over time. I hold this community dear, because it has been a major part of my adult life. I make very few apologies for my past stances on things, but hope people don't also hold me to the mental state I was in when I was still technically a teenager with some of my early posts. And yeah, sometimes I'm a bit unstable, leading to situations like my stress meltdown around this time last year. Backing away for a few months helped, and I'm glad the admin community here is still strong enough to allow me to do so if needed.

I'm sure moving to CA helped a little!

I feel the same way. I've been doing my best to hold back a little more on these things. I'm going to voice my opinion in an attempt to add to the conversation, and if someone disagrees I'm going to do my best to let it roll off. I disagreed with every element of Bruno's reply to me in the UP thread, but at this point it's just not worth it to get into yet another argument. Arguments are not what I always loved about this board, but it seems that's what the board is about now.

You are not the only one!

Yeah, I remember that conversation on IRC. Here's the thing, though. If you and I are talking, and you point out how crappy the weather is, or how much your boss sucks, that's one thing, but by complaining about fuel-efficient parking spots forcing you to drive further to park, you aren't just venting -- you're also making a statement about a policy that you dislike. If someone else disagrees, you can't really be shocked or upset if they respond with a different point of view, and, as I recall, you didn't seem to have a problem engaging in the debate, and were also pretty passionately arguing your own position (though you're now saying it was just a joke, which certainly wasn't apparent at the time.)

Regardless of whether you were serious or joking, are the other participants in the conversation supposed to just hold their tongue if they disagree? Politely acknowledge your rant and tell you to "grin and bear it" or "hang in there"? What's the correct play?

I greatly appreciate your stance that the community should be what people make it, and what people have made it is a place where you can take any position on any issue you like, as long as you're able to defend that position. The way I see it, if someone has the time and energy to make a controversial statement, but suddenly doesn't have the time and energy to back it up when others question it, that person is a fraud, plain and simple. It doesn't boil down to a difference in "free time", it boils down to who is willing to back their opinions up with supporting evidence.

Bleh. Enough with the "forum going downhill" mental masturbation. It is what it is and talking about it won't change it. Let's get back to phones or apples or cameras or whatever the heck we were talking about.

I don't remember the exact details of the conversation clearly enough, nor do I really care to at this point. The basic gist from what I do remember is that there was an amusing e-mail thread about them at work, mostly due to the number of them, located on every floor of a 6 floor parking garage. A parking garage that serviced the building that at the time had us as the only tenants. And the requirements for these fuel efficient spots were so low, a 2011 Mustang could park in one. The overall humor at work about the situation was more about how sad the attempt to "appear green" seemed, vs actually doing something properly green.


Sometimes a controversial statement may just be a lighthearted attempt at humor. And indeed, text (be it here or via IRC) is not always the best way to try and convey this. However, a quick response back that puts someone on the defensive quickly can sometimes result in them not making the most rational response. I did feel like I was put into a defensive mode, possibly before I could explain the humor of the situation as me and my coworkers saw it. Cris also appears to be going into a defensive mode rather quickly here, possibly due to the tone of others peoples comments.

I also personally wouldn't call someone a fraud as quickly as you appear to be willing to do so. Sometimes people do have things come up that cause them to prioritize those things above an internet discussion thread. The rush to prove someone right or wrong sometimes pushes people away from the desire to participate. It's mostly why I personally have been backing away from more and more political discussions these days. Nothing meaningful seems to come from them, because people get stuck on having to prove or defend some little basic points that it turns into a waste of time. Not everyone has the time to be an expert in every field they have an interest in, or a position they may hold. Being called a fraud before having a chance to change my stance would probably push me away from learning the truth if I was on the wrong side of a situation.

And on the flip side, I can understand the frustration that occurs when you present something, and most people gloss over the facts and draw the wrong conclusions. Using your own statement about being a fraud, I could assign that very label to the folks at O'Reilly that caused the location outrage earlier this year with iOS. They didn't do their research, made a big deal out of something based on incorrect information they had, and the internet echo chamber caused such an uproar that even congressional members managed to forget they already knew about this from a previous congressional inquiry in 2010.



With all of that said, I don't want to slide this thread further off topic from the issue at large about the community here. My main point is to try and ensure that some people here recognize that not everyone has the same amount of free time to dedicate to posting here. Their lack of time compared to others to respond shouldn't be seen as a weakness in their stances on a particular issue. I do hope Rob has time to respond and in the future has the desire to remain around a bit more then he has recently. But if he doesn't, I'm not going to hold it against him.

Sorry. I can't find the post, so I'm probably wrong about who posted it. I apologize for jumping the gun there. I will look a bit more, but it's like finding a needle in a hackstack without knowing the exact combination of words.

I'm not here to make enemies. I've just been checking the board over the past few days because I feel the need to back-up Cris. I know he can handle himself, but it's nice to know someone else is on your side. When I would get into arguments on this BBS in the past, people would PM and IM me showing their support, but showing that support in the public forum means more to me.

I'm not a talking head, so I can't articulate my objections to some of the political speak here. I'm really just offering insight into what turned me off to this BBS. Perhaps it's led to the loss of others here, or maybe not. You can take my experience for what it's worth since I tend to come and go these days. Lots have left never to be heard from again. Whether you want them back is really up to the board as a whole. If it continues down this path, I think more and more people will leave. That's all I'm saying.

I get what you're saying, Tom, and like you, I don't remember every detail of that conversation, so I'll just apologize for my role in it, and leave it at that.

There are a few different issues being conflated in this "meta" discussion, though. There's no one single community view of what the BBS should be. I think we could all do with fewer ad hominem attacks, but as long as we can avoid those, I think there are a lot of people who enjoy a serious, passionate discussion of issues, but also some who don't. If someone is bullshitting, though, how exactly is the community served by letting the bullshit go unchallenged?

I agree that people should be allowed to opinions on issues they're not experts in, but I don't think everyone else is required to sit idly by if they disagree, under the guise of being polite. What I usually see around here is people raising objections on the substance of the disagreement. How is that ever a bad thing?

Let me respond specifically to this:



Yes, real life often intervenes, and "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET" is not the most important thing in the world. But I can't help but lose a bit of respect for someone who's perfectly willing to engage in a debate early on, but becomes too busy when asked to defend their position. Of course we all have dozens of other things that are more important than posting here, but if I engage someone in a conversation, I feel like I owe them the courtesy of a thoughtful response -- even if it doesn't come at the best time for me personally. If I'm not able to respond, then other participants are right in thinking my argument is weak, because the right way to judge arguments is on their merit, as they are presented to the community.

I don't consider myself an expert in anything -- not even in my own profession. I do try to learn as much as I can about issues before I share my opinion, and I enjoy hearing from people with different points of view. Being uninformed on foreign policy matters back in the early 2000s led me to supporting U.S. intervention in Iraq, something I'm very ashamed of to this day. After that, I promised myself I'd work as hard as I could to understand issues before forming a strong opinion on them, which necessarily requires hearing from people with differing views. I really enjoy that aspect of the BBS, and I feel like people are cheating the community if they simply use it as a place to proselytize instead of engaging in a real discussion.

Yeah, I think you confused me with someone else, but I'm still interested in knowing what was said that offended you so much that it made you want to come here less. Can you give us more to go on than "asking if that had made up for 8 years of Bush"? Because I don't really even know how to interpret that.

Heh. That sounds like a great start for a stand-up comedy routine.

Trying to get back on the track of discussing the actual technology:

Can someone explain why there's not an option to have all focal planes in focus simultaneously in the final photograph?

Because that, to me, would be the real future market: Point, shoot, everything in frame is always in focus without needing to wait for the autofocus.

I agree that a true photographer would always want to have control over the focal depth, but the *market* for non-photographers, who just want their happy snaps completely in focus all the time, would be massive.

I want to say that it isn't feasible, and as an example reference the demo picture with the bicycle wheel in the extreme foreground, where you can kind of see "through" the spokes when focusing on things in the distance …

but

If each pixel in the image is clickable and focuses around that pixel, what would happen if you clicked on each pixel and then copied that one pixel? I'm almost inclined to write an AutoIt script to do exactly that.

I'm not convinced of this. I suspect the end result would be a bunch of non-photographers who are unhappy with their happy snaps, but don't know why. I don't think most happy snaps would be improved by infinite depth of field.

As a software matter, I'm sure that Lytro could offer an "infinite depth of field" option. Of course, if all you want is a camera with exceptional depth of field, just use your smartphone. The focal length is so short on those things that they have effectively infinite depth of field already.