The Light according to Forbes'
review L16 camera
Interesting review. (Is that a passive-aggressive way of saying, "Yeah, but why all the bullshit about your expectations"?
)
Much of what he says is true, particularly about Lumen. HOWEVER, he makes the same mistake as so many other reviewers do: he's applying expectations based upon marketing hype and a background in other high end cameras (for the size/performance/etc) with those expectations in mind.
Lumen is still beta software. The L16 firmware is still beta firmware. The camera certainly has a number of problems when compared to something like my Olympus E-PL7, which is a totally mature, very small, very fast, very proficient picture producer.
BUT: the Light L16 is a totally different thing. It doesn't have "16 lenses" which I heard him say about three dozen times, it has 16 CAMERAS that are being coordinated together to do the focal length simulation, the image production, etc. Each of these cameras has a very small sensor and one of three focal length lenses. The means to generate a full image is to integrate and synthesize the capture of up to ten of these cameras, working together, into a whole. For little sensors, you want to pack in as much light as you can per exposure to keep noise low, which cuts out some sharpness (we all know that lenses generally always work best at one or two stops down from wide open).
The larger problem is the matter of expectations. The very nature of this process means that images made with the L16 will have a different look and feel, a different range of sharpness and other attributes, compared to ANY camera with a good lens and a single sensor. They're simply not directly comparable in any real way.
I've said this somewhere before: Shooting with the L16 is kind of like shooting with a Polaroid SX-70. If you compare the output of an SX-70 to that of a Nikon F with a lens that gives you a square crop enlarged to the same size image, the Nikon beats the Polaroid hands down in every possible technical analysis of the image. An SX-70 in use is large, a bit funky to hold, and slow; the limits of sharpness and quality in the photos it makes are the limits of its amazing "live in front of your eyes image processing" recording medium. BUT the SX-70 folds down to an easily carried package, is very simple to make photos with, and the emotional/aesthetic appeal of being able to make a photo and hand it to the person who you photographed right on the spot overwhelms any technical demerits. It makes beautiful photos in a sense of the word "beautiful" that is utterly different from how you would use that word with the Nikon. The same is true of the L16, modulo the clearly seen flaws in the image processing at the present time.
For me, I had no silly fantasy that the L16 was going to replace my Leica SL and its two zoom lenses, an 18lb lump of gear to carry about. I see the L16 as a digital replacement for the SX-70 ... something easy to carry, flexible enough to make a wide range of interesting photos, and producing a unique look and feel that is appealing and aesthetically right. Its 28-150mm effective FOV range gives it an additional flexibility in a smaller to carry package than my SX-70 with wide and tele lens converters, and higher technical quality too, and its speed of operation is remarkably about the same.
You always have to shoot subjects and use shooting techniques that fit the camera you're using for best results. That's always been up to you to figure out as a photographer. I certainly wouldn't bring an iPhone X to the race track to capture cars speeding by at 200 mph a quarter of a mile away just like I would never bring a Nikon D4 with a 100-400 mm lens out to dinner hoping to catch a nice picture of my date while having dinner. It's simple common sense. I don't care if the marketing hype that they trying to use to pique people's interest says that the L16 is going to replace my DSLR and a bag of lenses, it's simply common sense that that is just hype and the realities of the technology make it impossible.
(And how to hold the camera... Sheesh! I have no problem whatever holding the camera with both hands and not getting my fingers in front of a lens. It's simply not the same as holding my SL to do that job and requires your hands me in a different position. That comment was just silly. Same for the "how to put it down when connected" comment. He already found the solution: put something under it when you put it down. You're not going to do that while balancing your computer, your butt, and the camera on a rock in the field ... all it takes is a little swatch of cloth or the case itself to put it down on. And this is a major problem? :banghead
In other words, I liked the review and found most of his sensible complaints about the process, the software, and the state of maturity about right, but I question the reviewers assumptions and the details of his discontent. And beyond that, well, I am getting pretty darn good color and imaging qualities straight out of the camera despite all the problems...
Light L16
ISO 480 @ f/15 @ 1/45
Cropped, rotated, green tint reduced.
G