@alirtariq Thanks for the comments Ali! In our research, we found that half of all people who'd ever bought a "nice" camera (DSLR, mirrorless, etc., a ~$25B annual market) had abandoned it - primarily because of size, weight, and complexity. The L16 solves those problems for that audience. Will the person who firmly believes their mobile phone pictures are "good enough" take on a standalone camera? Perhaps not. But I'd challenge those people to look back on the last several years of their photo libraries and ask whether they are really happy with those pictures. I, for one, am not. We are definitely expecting the L16 to be picked up by "photography buffs," as you say. But the mission of Light is to make high quality photography accessible to all. We've recently licensed the technology to the largest manufacturer of mobile phones in the world, and expect phones with the Light technology embedded to begin shipping in late 2016 or early 2017. It's through this channel that we reach our long term mission. The L16 is only the beginning... Hopefully we'll find the Light technology in your hands one way or another next year!

@drrajivlaroia @alirtariq thanks for the detailed response, Rajiv! I have a few thoughts. "... half of all people who'd ever bought a "nice" camera (DSLR, mirrorless, etc., a ~$25B annual market) had abandoned it - primarily because of size, weight, and complexity. The L16 solves those problems for that audience." I'm not sure it does. Ultimately, I think, all those factors you mention are about convenience. Carrying a second unit is still less convenient than carrying one device which you already use to pretty much do everything else these days, i.e. a phone. Not saying no one will carry a second device - just saying it may not be something they'd want to carry everywhere they go, which puts it in the same bucket as a DSLR, whichever way you cut it, imo. "I'd challenge those people to look back on the last several years of their photo libraries and ask whether they are really happy with those pictures. I, for one, am not." Neither am I. But, would I pay top dollar to carry a second unit that takes awesome pictures ... only to find that I have to sync those pictures to my primary device in order to share them with my friends? Would I, for example, be able to share a picture from the L16 directly with my Whatsapp contacts without having to sync them elsewhere first? If so, that's awesome. If not, this could lead to some costly friction. If you want to target the mass market, then it's imperative to understand why people take photos to begin with. And the mass market has many different segments of photo takers that each have their own psychographic qualities. People who value taking selfies will be quick to realize that they can't do so with the L16. There goes a customer segment! From a functional perspective, and for argument's sake, I'm comparing the L16 with my Canon G9. I love my G9. My primary uses for it are taking concert and travel photography, which I hate taking with my phone because I can't get the quality that I'm looking for. So I tradeoff the convenience of a phone for the quality of a superior camera. But I also love taking portrait photography, which I use my Nikon D3200 for, in order to get the granular control that I want. Now if the L16 can replace BOTH my G9 and my DSLR, then I'm a happy camper. But it'll be a tough act, because those devices are used for specific use cases. And I predict that I'll still be using my phone to take quick snaps that I want to share right away with my contacts. All that said, I think your licensing the tech to a large manufacturer is your ticket to success. If widespread adoption is your goal, getting the tech into phones will be a huge boost. Congrats on taking that step! Really excited to see how it pans out (excuse the pun). :)

@alirtariq I don't think they are targeting the mass photo market. Apple does that with the iPhone. They are targeting a serious (albeit big) photographer market that would be otherwise buying a lot of bulky high-end gear. This looks like it delivers all the tech pros demand, but at the size of a smartphone. Size / weight is obviously a huge pain point for pro photographers who would otherwise be carrying around multiple cameras and/or lenses

@joshbarkin @alirtariq A great example of this from their CEO "I have a pro photographer friend who went on a week long "bucket list" hike last summer. He said he WANTED to take his camera gear, but "am I going to take 20lbs of gear? or am I going to take water?"

@bryantchou It's not. It creates a flat image just like a normal camera (can even post directly to FB via the Android app because it's an Android device)

@joshytsui Hey Josh! We're a little too early in the video development to say. We plan to publish a full spec next year.

@jmy Thanks Jimmy! We'll offer as much creative control as you want. It's important to understand there are a few paradigm shifts in this device. While we'll offer some of the same features you're used to from a big camera (such as depth of field control), how we get there is quite a bit different. For example, since our master aperture (all 16 cameras together) is synthetic, we calculate and render depth of field effects after image capture. So rather than requiring an aperture setting before exposure, this creative choice remains flexible well into your editing process. [To get even more technical: we have f/2.4 lenses, and because the lenses are defraction limited, we do not stop down the aperture, because doing so would blur the whole image. Because of this, depth of field is not coupled to aperture.] We can also offer all sorts of new effects related to time because we can control the exposure time on each camera module independently. For instance, one module can expose for shorter time to capture highlights, while one module can expose for longer time to capture the shadows. This gives the opportunity to do simultaneous HDR shots, versus the sequential HDR you might be used to on a mobile phone or DSLR. We're excited to get the camera in your hands next year!

@jptn my first thought was to compare to the Lytro, which, AFAICT, isn't doing that well in the market. I'm curious how these two products compare?

@chrismessina @jptn This is nothing like the Lytro light-field style camera. It uses all those cameras (+ software) to create a RAW, JPG, etc just like DSLRs at a range of focal lengths, just without the need for expensive/heavy glass the DSLRs use. You end up with JPGs or RAW files, and you can even post direct to Facebook's Android app, because it's an Android device.

@jptn @chrismessina What @staringispolite said. ^

@staringispolite @drrajivlaroia Now if only any of your responses actually addressed any part of my question... The Lytro does output in JPG, it's live photos are viewable in Facebook, and as a photographer, posting directly to Facebook is (very) low on my list of priorities.

@eddiedaroza Having seen the example images I think it's clear to see that it's not the Light for the video on the homepage unfortunately!

@alexsloansa I came in to say this. It would help to have those pictures side-by-side with some more well-known cameras, a DSLR, an iPhone, a average to top of the line compact camera. I'm pretty sure these will follow shortly at least in reviews, right after the camera will be released.