Some samples here: http://www.lytro.com/picture_gallery
And a Q&A here: http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/qa-with-lytros-beta-photographers-this-camera-is-a-game-changer/

Any thoughts?
For those of us who'll happily spend hours on a photo in LR or PS, surely this is just another element to sink time into?

Colour me sceptical.

I like focussing. It's part of the art. Knowing the whole thing can be refocussed in software later will surely just make photographers lazy. What could be easier than just pointing in the general direction of your subject and pressing the button?

I agree. I think this has the genuine potential to lead the user into uncertainty about what they're actually trying to show.
Or, on the flip side, (and assuming the software gets more refined that it appears to be in the gallery samples) it could be a very elegant art form where the viewer selects what works for them.
Of course, you're stuck with purely digital playback.

Next big thing? Perhaps, but not in the same way autofocus or facial tracking has been for the point 'n' shooter.

I could see it might have potential for video, too.

Face recognition, "smile" recognition... Seriously, I worry about using technology for things so simple. Humans are smart creatures, and we shouldn't let ourselves be programmed to be stupid.

I disagree

Going to buck the trend and say that I like the idea. I may take 3 or 4 shots of the same view focussing on different objects. Being able to take one "prime" shot and tinker with in post is appealing.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/19/lytro-camera-hands-on-video/

Hands on sorta review from engadget. At the moment, looks like a bit of a toy...

Yeah, I think the public version is a proof of concept. I suspect Lytro are after licensing deals with other manufacturers, which would prove much more lucrative in the long run.

Still, we'll see how it develops. Adobe are playing with a similar idea for Photoshop, so things are looking interesting.

Speaking of Adobe - have you seen the sneak of their deblurring technology?
Between that and this, there's no need to be competent any more!

I am firmly of the opinion that if you get the picture you want, you have succeeded. To me, it doesn’t matter if I’ve done that with the camera, or if I’ve done the majority of the work in post. It also doesn’t matter if the camera has knobs, and dials with f-stops on it, or if it has a control that kets you control how blurred the background is (the NEX cameras from Sony do this).

I have discussions with my sister about this, she’s involved with a camera club and is going for ARPS certification. From what I can tell, this seems to require doing everything in camera. It sounds interesting, but very alien to my way of working. To the camera club lot, it seems that competency is measured by your control of the camera in arriving at an image. To me, that sounds a bit too prescriptive. Yes, enjoy the craft and mechanics if you like.

For me, competency is around success at image creation. If you find that your best work comes from a Lytro camera, then who am I to argue? Similarly, if you’ve spent a few grand on a camera and that delivers your best work, then again, well done. If your best work has come from a second hand point and shoot film camera, then, again, well done.

Exactly right.

I want to see a nice picture and I don't care how you made it.

The Apple approach to photography!
Careful, the Linuxers may exile you.

This Linuxer cut his programming teeth working on pretty much exactly this problem.

Although I still think my solution was a lot more elegant tbh, even in Ada

I like to see people win at sporting events, I don't care whether they use performance enhancing drugs or smash their competitor's knee caps.

"I want you to make a new F1 Car but you can only use steel."