> Well, if you just want the ultimately sharpest photo, this isn't a camera for you (it won't do 22 megapixel photos like my Canon 5D MKII will, and the images are generally good enough for on-screen use but if you want to blow them up to wall sized images, this isn't a camera for you).

> If you like having a huge choice of lenses, this isn't a camera for you.

> If you want to shoot action sports, this isn't a camera for you.

> If you want to see through the viewfinder to choose your own focus point, this isn't a camera for you.

> If you want the best low-light performance, then this isn't a camera for you.

Sounds like a great camera for actual photographers.

1) Megapixels != sharp photos. In terms of visual perception, contrast == sharpness. Soft edges means lack of sharpness. What's the leading cause of soft edges, you ask? Poor focus. Yes, some sensors and lenses produce sharper images than others, but in the vast majority of the cases, the photographer blaming the camera for soft images is actually to blame for poor focus or aperture selection. Choosing a large aperture causes tight DoF. I've shot with plenty of beginner photographers who went out and spent a fortune on fast glass with large apertures (f2.8 or lower), but fail to understand just how tight the focal plane will be when shooting at that large of an f-stop. The Lytro will be great for the type of photographer that wants to capture a scene or subject without worrying about focus. This will result in a lot sharper photos than rushed, out of focus shots.

2) Lenses are a means to an end. Want to shoot photos of birds? You need a very long lens. Want to shoot sports from the sidelines? You need a fast, moderately long lens. For the types of photos that most of us take, you don't need a lot of lenses. You just don't. Many of the greatest photographers ever to snap a shutter used tiny range finder cameras with a single, prime lens. The equipment is not the photo.

3) If you want to shoot action sports, get out your pocket book. It's that simple.

4) Not having used a Lytro, I'm not sure what he means here. As I understand it, you look at a Lytro like you would a telescope. A small screen on the back shows your composition. Since you can change focus later, I'm not sure why you'd need to choose a focal point.

5) Same rules apply here as they do for action sports. Having said that, advances in noise reduction algorithms have produced some pretty amazing results in the last few years, as have advances in sensor technology. I have no doubt that the first gen Lytro won't be a strong performer in low-light performance. This is a consequence of it's sensor design. Everything in life is a trade-off though. If your goal is to produce great photos, you won't mind a little noise. If your goal is to produce some kind of pixel-circle-jerk, 22 MP, xerographic copy of the scene, then by all means, go buy a Canon 5D ($2,500), an EF 50 f/1.4 prime ($350) [don't waste your money on the f/1.2], and a decent Manfrotto tripod ($150). For about $3,000, you'll have equipment that can capture photos as sharp as you could ever wish for.

I find the Lytro intriguing because it allows a photographer to snap the photo before all the decisions are made. This is a good thing. Great photos only present themselves for a moment. Focus is probably the hardest part of capturing these moments.

With today's software, a photo that is under/over exposed can be pushed about a full-stop in either direction without ruining the photo. When it comes to focus, there's absolutely nothing that can be done (until Lytro came along). The Lytro is a tool unlike any other, and I believe it will allow an average photographer to salvage photos that they might otherwise have to trash. By the numbers, this will produce more good photographs.