Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nick Devlin's article  (Read 9349 times)
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 330


« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2011, 04:40:04 AM »
ReplyReply

The only one in the list that would interest me is ETTR, the rest - meh, I guess it depends on what you shoot. I have no desire to carry a bulky tablet into the field and even less desire to draw zone system stuff all over it while shooting.

1) Better manufacturing tolerances on bodies and lenses, no more 'fine tune' and less sample variation issues
2) Failing (1), bodies and lenses are profiled before release down to the aperture and zoom setting (lenses) which are electronically readable and can be compensated for when focusing
4) Built in electronic module for radio flash triggering (think radio CLS)
5) Histogram based on RAW data
6) Live histogram in the viewfinder (a la Fuji X100, it's so useful)
7) Wireless settings sync between bodies for multiple camera shooters
Logged
telmorrf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 16, 2011, 05:07:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I would really like to see DNG raw support.
Instead of having the stupid "Portrait", "Landscape", "Netral", etc... modes, cameras should have the ability to be uploaded with lrpresets or XMPs, so that we could shoot with our favourite presets.
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 585



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2011, 06:47:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting article and a little overstated at times, but in general I have also been wondering why the powerful computer in the camera have not been used more and why "advanced" features were not available for those who wanted them and not by default. It's reasonable to expect that camera makers don't want to make the cameras (even professional ones) frightening to use because of all the options, but then let the rest of use them and enable them at our hearts content.

A couple of things in the article that I'd like to comment.

Why can’t Canon even master the art of mirror lock-up?

In the later cameras the SET button can be assigned to MLU and you can place the MLU command in mymenu. But the most important is that Canon has made the MLU redundant in the later cameras via live view and silent mode. With silent mode the first curtain is electronic and therefore no shutter movement which even with MLU can create vibrations. Alas on my 1Ds mkIII live view does not have electronic first curtain .... However live view is a god send for using TS-E lenses and for DOF preview. And this came only 4 years ago.

The megapixel race is largely over.

Really? Since the expectation is that the next round of full frame cameras will be in the mid 30MP range and what we have now is 21-24MP can we say that the MP race is over? Already in 2002 the 1Ds came with 11MP and now 10 years later Canon 1Ds mkIII has 21MP and we expect 30+MP. Isn't that a continuation of the MP race? The Medium format has moved from less than 20MP (cropped sensor) to now 80MP (full frame) in a few years. The pixel density of the APS-C cameras are now close to 20MP (18MP on Canon 7D, 60D, 550D and 600D) which is equivalent to 46MP on full frame. This likely will come in a full frame from Canon (Nikon and Sony) in 5-6 years time.

Voice control.

It would be a good option to have, but I'm not sure this appeals that much to me. I never used it with any mobil phone. But what I would like to have is customization such that I can program the camera much more than I can now. The 1Ds mkIII can save all camera settings on the CF card given a name. E.g. "tripodmlu" (note the limit of 8 characters!!) However what a thought saving them on a CF card! This means that I have to synchronize all my CF cards with these camera settings files and never format the card in the camera as otherwise my settings have gone. Also loading the settings is slow like h*** and not suited for a quick change when a new situation occurs. So in essence not thought from the photographers needs. The 5D mkII, 7D etc. is much better in that regard having custom settings on the program wheel (C1, C2 and C3), but then of course you need to remember what settings is on e.g. C1! So yes, I agree that this sucks.

Live View Focus Masking

This would be a cool feature and especially in live view. But in all fairness live view is pretty good already to check focus and to check DOF as long as there is light enough. I find AF on the 1Ds mkIII to be very precise as I hardly ever have to change focus when checking in live view if I have a suitable subject to focus on with AF. Of course this requires a single AF point for focussing and notice if the AF got the focus where you wanted it (if at all possible like e.g. an animal behind some vegetation). I have always been wondering why a simple thing like a DOF calculator with live DOF limits were not displayed in the viewfinder (if enabled) since the camera knows the aperture and focal length and where the focus is (e.g. focussed with the AF-ON button or manually as long as this is transmitted to the camera).

Expose to the Right Exposure Mode

Yes, this would be really great to have as long as it is based on analysis of the RAW file and with thresholds that can be set by the user. It's clear that any camera will have the minimum noise at base ISO and exposed optimally. The fact that newer cameras have a linear curve of signal to noise as a function of ISO does not mean that ETTR is irrelevant. The imprecision of the histogram (although slightly helped by setting color space to Adobe RGB) makes it difficult to ETTR without bracketing. In difficult scenes I will bracket with one stop between and choose 2, 3 or 5 pictures in a bracket sequence. A challenge to step through these with MLU and a cable release at low shutter speeds that may cause vibrations from the shutter. Fortunately exposure blending have become more practical than the painting on layers method in Photoshop via updates to Photomatix Pro and other HDR programs where you can choose a relatively natural look and work from there in e.g. Lightroom on the blended image. In many cases I find an optimal exposure on a high DR scene can even be tweaked in Lightroom to show the entire dynamic range (1Ds mkIII and some are better like D3X).

Now…..give it all to me on my iPad

Well certainly this would be great to have, but I would prefer this on an iPhone or even better having the LCD on the camera act like an iPhone wrt. zooming in and out of live view and picture already taken and with histograms that could be based on the part visible in the zoom so one could investigate an area of highlights and indicators for how many stops over or underexposure. The reason I don't like the iPAD is yet another gadget to bring when I always already have the iPhone in my pocket so why not use the iPhone over Bluetooth or WiFi next to the camera for control. But the basic idea is the same.

Touch-Pad Based Zone System

If we had the proposed type of ETTR then it is simple to bracket e.g. 5 stops down from perfect exposure using todays camera technology and then blend the pictures in programs like Photomatix Pro using the exposure blending option. I'm the opinion that what we need is even more refined post processing options that makes it easy to do the blending without having to paint layers in Photoshop. I love to take the pictures but have no aversion what so ever about post processing at the computer. In my view that's when the picture emerges and the real potential comes out and even in ways that never was imagined at the time of capture. I do realize that some people never want to sit behind a computer screen and for them this proposal may make a lot of sense. So for me this proposal is not high on the list.

we have gotten for the last five years have been unimaginative products produced by a creatively stunted industry

Within the last 5 years we have got live view on almost all DSLR's. I don't know how many asked for this feature before it came, but I do remember how many (including myself Wink ) who didn't think this was something special. All DSLR's now also have auto ISO which is a great feature and even Canon can now spell to auto ISO! It amused me reading the manual for the 1Ds mkIII and didn't find the word auto ISO anywhere although this camera does have a decent implementation of auto ISO (although not in manual mode). The "not invented here" syndrome seems to be powerful and alive Smiley We also got micro adjustment within the last 4 years so we could fine tune the AF precision on the given camera body and lens combination. Although the comment above about the industry seems to be related only the camera manufacturers, the tools we have on our computers have been vastly improved within the last 5 years. So yes, we would like to see more innovation and I would hope that the camera manufacturers have prototypes in their labs that contains some of what is being discussed here and hopefully also some that we haven't even thought about yet.

Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7234


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 16, 2011, 11:50:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A lot of good points.

I'd just add that I see lot of good reason to increase megapixels as this can give us true resolution without aliasing, so we can say good bye to both Optical Low Pass filters and Moiré at the same time. The disadvantage is some loss of DR (in the DxO sense) and larger files sizes.

Best regards
Erik

Interesting article and a little overstated at times, but in general I have also been wondering why the powerful computer in the camera have not been used more and why "advanced" features were not available for those who wanted them and not by default. It's reasonable to expect that camera makers don't want to make the cameras (even professional ones) frightening to use because of all the options, but then let the rest of use them and enable them at our hearts content.

A couple of things in the article that I'd like to comment.

Why can’t Canon even master the art of mirror lock-up?

In the later cameras the SET button can be assigned to MLU and you can place the MLU command in mymenu. But the most important is that Canon has made the MLU redundant in the later cameras via live view and silent mode. With silent mode the first curtain is electronic and therefore no shutter movement which even with MLU can create vibrations. Alas on my 1Ds mkIII live view does not have electronic first curtain .... However live view is a god send for using TS-E lenses and for DOF preview. And this came only 4 years ago.

The megapixel race is largely over.

Really? Since the expectation is that the next round of full frame cameras will be in the mid 30MP range and what we have now is 21-24MP can we say that the MP race is over? Already in 2002 the 1Ds came with 11MP and now 10 years later Canon 1Ds mkIII has 21MP and we expect 30+MP. Isn't that a continuation of the MP race? The Medium format has moved from less than 20MP (cropped sensor) to now 80MP (full frame) in a few years. The pixel density of the APS-C cameras are now close to 20MP (18MP on Canon 7D, 60D, 550D and 600D) which is equivalent to 46MP on full frame. This likely will come in a full frame from Canon (Nikon and Sony) in 5-6 years time.

Voice control.

It would be a good option to have, but I'm not sure this appeals that much to me. I never used it with any mobil phone. But what I would like to have is customization such that I can program the camera much more than I can now. The 1Ds mkIII can save all camera settings on the CF card given a name. E.g. "tripodmlu" (note the limit of 8 characters!!) However what a thought saving them on a CF card! This means that I have to synchronize all my CF cards with these camera settings files and never format the card in the camera as otherwise my settings have gone. Also loading the settings is slow like h*** and not suited for a quick change when a new situation occurs. So in essence not thought from the photographers needs. The 5D mkII, 7D etc. is much better in that regard having custom settings on the program wheel (C1, C2 and C3), but then of course you need to remember what settings is on e.g. C1! So yes, I agree that this sucks.

Live View Focus Masking

This would be a cool feature and especially in live view. But in all fairness live view is pretty good already to check focus and to check DOF as long as there is light enough. I find AF on the 1Ds mkIII to be very precise as I hardly ever have to change focus when checking in live view if I have a suitable subject to focus on with AF. Of course this requires a single AF point for focussing and notice if the AF got the focus where you wanted it (if at all possible like e.g. an animal behind some vegetation). I have always been wondering why a simple thing like a DOF calculator with live DOF limits were not displayed in the viewfinder (if enabled) since the camera knows the aperture and focal length and where the focus is (e.g. focussed with the AF-ON button or manually as long as this is transmitted to the camera).

Expose to the Right Exposure Mode

Yes, this would be really great to have as long as it is based on analysis of the RAW file and with thresholds that can be set by the user. It's clear that any camera will have the minimum noise at base ISO and exposed optimally. The fact that newer cameras have a linear curve of signal to noise as a function of ISO does not mean that ETTR is irrelevant. The imprecision of the histogram (although slightly helped by setting color space to Adobe RGB) makes it difficult to ETTR without bracketing. In difficult scenes I will bracket with one stop between and choose 2, 3 or 5 pictures in a bracket sequence. A challenge to step through these with MLU and a cable release at low shutter speeds that may cause vibrations from the shutter. Fortunately exposure blending have become more practical than the painting on layers method in Photoshop via updates to Photomatix Pro and other HDR programs where you can choose a relatively natural look and work from there in e.g. Lightroom on the blended image. In many cases I find an optimal exposure on a high DR scene can even be tweaked in Lightroom to show the entire dynamic range (1Ds mkIII and some are better like D3X).

Now…..give it all to me on my iPad

Well certainly this would be great to have, but I would prefer this on an iPhone or even better having the LCD on the camera act like an iPhone wrt. zooming in and out of live view and picture already taken and with histograms that could be based on the part visible in the zoom so one could investigate an area of highlights and indicators for how many stops over or underexposure. The reason I don't like the iPAD is yet another gadget to bring when I always already have the iPhone in my pocket so why not use the iPhone over Bluetooth or WiFi next to the camera for control. But the basic idea is the same.

Touch-Pad Based Zone System

If we had the proposed type of ETTR then it is simple to bracket e.g. 5 stops down from perfect exposure using todays camera technology and then blend the pictures in programs like Photomatix Pro using the exposure blending option. I'm the opinion that what we need is even more refined post processing options that makes it easy to do the blending without having to paint layers in Photoshop. I love to take the pictures but have no aversion what so ever about post processing at the computer. In my view that's when the picture emerges and the real potential comes out and even in ways that never was imagined at the time of capture. I do realize that some people never want to sit behind a computer screen and for them this proposal may make a lot of sense. So for me this proposal is not high on the list.

we have gotten for the last five years have been unimaginative products produced by a creatively stunted industry

Within the last 5 years we have got live view on almost all DSLR's. I don't know how many asked for this feature before it came, but I do remember how many (including myself Wink ) who didn't think this was something special. All DSLR's now also have auto ISO which is a great feature and even Canon can now spell to auto ISO! It amused me reading the manual for the 1Ds mkIII and didn't find the word auto ISO anywhere although this camera does have a decent implementation of auto ISO (although not in manual mode). The "not invented here" syndrome seems to be powerful and alive Smiley We also got micro adjustment within the last 4 years so we could fine tune the AF precision on the given camera body and lens combination. Although the comment above about the industry seems to be related only the camera manufacturers, the tools we have on our computers have been vastly improved within the last 5 years. So yes, we would like to see more innovation and I would hope that the camera manufacturers have prototypes in their labs that contains some of what is being discussed here and hopefully also some that we haven't even thought about yet.


Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2011, 12:12:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Um, if you aren't a landscape photographer that article is rather reduntant and if you are then most here are thinking the technology of the new IQ P1 backs is so cutting edge they're spending tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade!  Tongue Tongue Tongue

Seriously though, iphone look technology is all very nice but it's hard to moan about lack of funky features when we're still stuck with a single useable focus point, horrific shutter lag and mirror blackout, etc on a 5DII or a stone age screen and max useable iso 800 on a 1Ds III. The FF lineup at least from Canon wasn't even up to the current technology when they were released so I'm doubting much will be different when the new models are released never mind exotic goodies like focus peaking. Expect 'smart' technology on these cameras around 5 years after they became normal on phones and p&s cameras, it's been the model until now...
Logged

image66
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2011, 01:46:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I like Nick's suggestions. The iPad like control device is specifically useful to me since I occasionally set up remote controlled cameras. What I am currently doing is running the camera tethered to a laptop and then using a screen sharing app, I'm using my iPad to control the camera from wherever I am. This comes in handy for event shoots where I have a lockdown camera up on stage someplace hidden or when photographing birds. With my own Wifi hotspot tied in, I can shoot from hundreds of feet away. I would greatly welcome not needing the laptop.

I recently wrote a dissenting opinion on zone-10.com about ETTR. It is a metering method for some limited applications. Is it useful? Absolutely, but in the end it still comes down to skillful usage of the tools at hand. No different than having a spot meter--you still gotta know not only where to point the thing but know when to disregard the suggested setting. It also comes down to the noise patterns and color mapping techniques of the particular camera. No two types of cameras will respond to pulling the exposure the same way.

For me, is it too much to ask for a focus screen which you can actually use for manual focusing?

Is it also too much to ask for a digitized analog display such as was perfected in the Olympus OM-4Ti? I don't have a clue what F7.1 1/387 means, but I know what it means when the bar graph moves halfway across the display from where I'm expecting it to be. The eye detects movement in the perepheral, but reading a digital display requires looking away from the focus screen--even for a quick glance and then the brain has to interpret it.
Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2011, 03:22:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Seriously though, iphone look technology is all very nice but it's hard to moan about lack of funky features when we're still stuck with a single useable focus point, horrific shutter lag and mirror blackout, etc on a 5DII or a stone age screen and max useable iso 800 on a 1Ds III. The FF lineup at least from Canon wasn't even up to the current technology when they were released so I'm doubting much will be different when the new models are released never mind exotic goodies like focus peaking. Expect 'smart' technology on these cameras around 5 years after they became normal on phones and p&s cameras, it's been the model until now...

Are we talking about the same 1Ds 111 that I use almost daily and have done for the last three and a half years.  Its a brilliant camera and if I had to use it for the next 20 years I'm sure it would continue to produce excellent pictures.  Do some newer cameras have better features?  Sure they do, but to claim it has a maximum useable ISO of 800 is just plain wrong.  I photograph a lot of weddings with mine, and if I had to shoot the whole day at 1600 I doubt anyone would notice in the pictures.  Would I like it to be better? Of course I would, but camera technology is a moving target and I for one cannot afford to upgrade yearly for some incremental improvements.  In fact I seriously doubt a 1Ds 1V would tempt me because the existing camera does what I want to a good enough standard. Ok, I might be tempted if it had voiced control.  But then again it's bad enough with guests shooting over my shoulder without giving them my camera settings too! Smiley
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 585



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2011, 03:58:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree, that this statement about the 1Ds mkIII makes little sense unless the conditions and requirements are clear. I have taken numerous pictures at ISO 1600 that had very good details and sharpness with quite a small amount of noise. Especially with Lightroom version 3 pictures come to life in a new way. In fact this is also true for pictures from my older cameras. A real advantage of shooting RAW that you can be really pleased by going back and redevelop old pictures at a new standard. Especially it is important to understand how capture sharpening and noise reduction goes hand in hand.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7234


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2011, 11:55:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A very good point about RAW-processing!

Regarding the Canon sensor I have the impression that it is lacking a bit at low ISO dynamic range, but works well with higher ISOs. So I'd suggest that a revision of the camera electronics is needed to keep up with the new Sony sensors also used by Nikon and Pentax. But from the data I seen the Canons are very competitive at high ISO and most pictures are not about extended dynamic range.

My assumption is that we are going to see more and more of mirror-less designs, that is cameras optimized for live view. With live view, focus masking makes a lot of sense. Using an auxiliary device like iPhone or iPad as advanced remote control may also be a good idea.

Best regards
Erik

I agree, that this statement about the 1Ds mkIII makes little sense unless the conditions and requirements are clear. I have taken numerous pictures at ISO 1600 that had very good details and sharpness with quite a small amount of noise. Especially with Lightroom version 3 pictures come to life in a new way. In fact this is also true for pictures from my older cameras. A real advantage of shooting RAW that you can be really pleased by going back and redevelop old pictures at a new standard. Especially it is important to understand how capture sharpening and noise reduction goes hand in hand.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #49 on: August 17, 2011, 03:56:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Guys, I owned and shot weddings with a 1DsIII, went back to 5Dc's where I really can shoot iso 1600 all day. Why don't you look at my point rather than argue the details. The point is that before we complain that we aren't having 'modern' technology how about we get current technology such as decent screens and iso which is better than a camera 3 years older than it. It just seems silly to me that we're complaining about not having cutting edge technology when we have never once gotten even current technology in a Canon camera.
Logged

msmsql
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



« Reply #50 on: August 17, 2011, 04:12:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Just found this interesting thread ... from Devlin's list I would seriously consider ETTR - the other points are of lesser interest for me.

I'd put a greater priority on some other enhancements:
1) An automatic hyperfocal focusing mode - one should be able to set CoC, aperture and focal length and the camera should autofocus the lens to the correct distance
2) An automatic focus stacking mode - one should be able to set nearest and farthest focusing distances, the increment and the camera should expose the correct number of frames
3) True, mechanical MLU - what is the problem with this?
4) An automatic HDR mode - one sets the EV delta and the camera shoots as many frames as are necessary to record both shadow and highlight details

All the above should be quite easy to implement IMHO.

What do you think?
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 585



WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 17, 2011, 04:59:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Guys, I owned and shot weddings with a 1DsIII, went back to 5Dc's where I really can shoot iso 1600 all day. Why don't you look at my point rather than argue the details. The point is that before we complain that we aren't having 'modern' technology how about we get current technology such as decent screens and iso which is better than a camera 3 years older than it. It just seems silly to me that we're complaining about not having cutting edge technology when we have never once gotten even current technology in a Canon camera.

Sorry, but there is really no difference between a 1Ds mkIII and a 5D mkII at ISO 1600 as long as you shoot RAW and they are exposed the same. The 1Ds mkIII in my experience is a bit more conservative, but if you normalize exposure there should not be a difference since the ISO SN curve is pretty much linear at that point. At low ISO values the 1Ds mkIII (and 5D mkII) has more noise and lower DR than desired, however good technique can pretty much compensate for that. This is not an excuse for not making it better, but it's always good to put things in perspective.

You are of course right that some aspects of the 1Ds mkIII shows off the age and it is up for a renewal which we all expect to be likely this fall. This is not an argument, but just a natural part of the product cycle.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #52 on: August 17, 2011, 08:21:52 AM »
ReplyReply

My point was that the screen on the 1DsIII was a disgrace at the time of release, ditto the AF of the 5DII. When these companies stop crippling their bodies then perhaps we can look to a future possibilities but we're still waiting for basic useabilty features by modern standards at the time of release! In 2011 that will mean a touchscreen as standard and superior LV focus like in a Panasonic or Olympus but don't expect it....
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 08:27:00 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 585



WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2011, 09:40:24 AM »
ReplyReply

The LCD on the 1Ds mkIII was not the higher resolution that came out around the time when the 1Ds mkIII was released. This we can argue about if this was a good move from Canon or not, but don't forget how much time goes from the time when a new product is signed off and goes into testing and during that time you will change such things. What is perhaps a bigger issue is that during the life time of the camera no change is made even to the LCD screen when you buy a brand new one e.g. 2011! Also that very little is/was improved through firmware upgrades.

The 5D mkII has a rather good AF system as long as we speak about the central AF point and the assist points around it. Using only a single of the outer AF points is less precise. I used the 5D for two years from 2006 until I bought the 1Ds mkIII in 2008 and found the AF system in the 5D much better than many claimed it be! However there were missed opportunities since the AF in the 5D requires a good focus to allow you to shoot the picture.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


« Reply #54 on: August 19, 2011, 02:22:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Something that used to be present on film SLRs from Canon was an "A-DEP" selection on the mode dial.

Why not take that a step further and with touch panel displaying a live view of the scene, allow the photographer to select 1 or more points on the screen that need to be "in focus" and then have the camera work out what aperture is required to deliver that?

To that end, I'd promote the idea that the aperture should be treated as a continuous field of real numbers, rather than a small set of integers.

To follow on from that idea, when it comes to "spot metering", when tripod mounted, a touch anywhere on the screen should either be able to focus the camera there or use it as the location for spot metering or both. I'm not sure that multiple spots would deliver any benefit.

I want to suggest the idea that you can use a touch screen showing a live image to select a particular object to always be in focus (for example, something swinging in the wind or an animal/child) but I'm not sure if that makes sense for tripod mounted photography. I'm not sure how useful that type of focus tracking would be if you're not tripod mounted.
Logged
aduke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360


« Reply #55 on: August 19, 2011, 03:34:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Something that used to be present on film SLRs from Canon was an "A-DEP" selection on the mode dial.

Why not take that a step further and with touch panel displaying a live view of the scene, allow the photographer to select 1 or more points on the screen that need to be "in focus" and then have the camera work out what aperture is required to deliver that?

...

Why compromise on the focus? Allow the user to select 2 or more points and have the camera set the focus point to each of the points, producing the requisite number of images to be combined via focus stacking?

Alan
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


« Reply #56 on: August 19, 2011, 04:37:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Why compromise on the focus? Allow the user to select 2 or more points and have the camera set the focus point to each of the points, producing the requisite number of images to be combined via focus stacking?

Alan

Because this only works for photographs where there is almost no motion in the frame.

I've had enough issues with HDR and motion to know that having to use multiple frames is always a compromise.

Logged
mikefulton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #57 on: August 23, 2011, 03:12:33 PM »
ReplyReply

The article was interesting, but most of these five items he suggested are nowhere near the top of my list.

1) Voice control - interesting but many problems.  First and most obvious is use in noisy environments.  Also a problem in QUIET environments -- how many wedding photographers are going to want to be talking to their cameras when they're already concerned about the noise from the shutter?  This feature may not be completely useless, but there are enough problems with the idea that it doesn't make the top 5.


2) Live View Focus Masking -- An interesting idea but I don't know if the capability to do this really exists.  Part of the logic behind this request is that autofocus isn't good enough, but any focus masking system would by necessity be based on that same exact system. I'm also not convinced that a camera's focusing system really knows specifically what areas are in focus or not, not on a pixel-by-pixel basis.  Really, all the electronics can ultimately measure is image contrast.  Even in a camera with multiple focus points, it's really only weighting it's contrast measurements towards the desired focus point.


3) Expose to the right mode -- This one I like.  But as with focus masking I'm not sure if the idea is really supported by the hardware at this point.

First, keep in mind that the "blink the overexposed areas" trick we see on the LIVE VIEW mode of many cameras is something that's done AFTER the frame has been captured.  The only way we can apply this idea to auto-exposure is going to require multiple captures of the sensor.

Second, also keep in mind that while the camera can tell if certain pixels are maxxed out exposure-wise, it has no way to know by how much.  It could be half a stop or it could be 4 stops.  The only way the camera could bring those areas back down would be to take another exposure that's a little less than the previous one, and then check the results.  If the areas were still blown out, then it would iterate the process until the blown-out highlights are no longer blown out.

Keep in mind that any exposure system that relies on processing LIVE VIEW-style frames is going to introduce a certain amount of shutter lag, because the camera is going to have to capture 1 or more frames and process them to determine the exposure, before actually taking the picture.


4) I like the idea of controlling everything from my iPad.  No reason why this can't be done now.  But it's something one would use only when the camera is locked down on a tripod.


5) I like the feature idea, and there's no reason it can't be done in-camera, or via iPad control, but also not much reason why it needs to be done in-camera.  Combine this idea with #4 or just do it in post.



My own list would look like this:

1) Built-in WiFi -- If I can buy a little USB adapter for $15, there's certainly no reason at all why this needs to be a $600 add-on.  Anything beyond the basic entry-level DSLR should come with built-in WiFi and software to automatically stream off your images as you shoot.

2) High pixel density display - No more 60 DPI displays, please!  Something along the lines of the iPhone 4's retina display is what we really need.

3) Automatic HDR -- I think some cameras have already started to do this, but it's something that should be as standard as automatic bracketing.  In fact... it *IS* automatic bracketing, just with an extra post-processing step.

4) Built-in radio flash sync -- Ideally, this should be programmable to trigger PocketWizard or other existing systems.  But even if it's proprietary, you could still connect your receiver to another radio trigger if needed.  Should support whatever's needed for E-TTL flash.

5) Built-in GPS -- This comes in just about every $30 cheapo cellphone, so just like WiFi it should be a standard feature in anything but the most basic cameras.

6) Autofocus range limiting -- When shooting low-contrast subjects in low light, one frequently has to deal with the camera's autofocus system seeking from one end of its range to the other, trying to focus.  But if you know that your subject is always going to be within a certain range, you should be able to program that into the camera so that it doesn't waste time trying to focus out of that range.
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2011, 05:58:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Come on guys, think outside the box.

Innovation, R&D into the camera is only half the solution space for digital photography. The other half is post processing in tools such as LR.

At present, the post step is very ... manual, even when you're applying lens profiles, colour profiles, etc.

What do I mean by manual?

We have to sit there and adjust sliders until a picture "looks right."

If I've taken a picture of a building and that building is rectangular, why can't I tell LR that this trapezoid is actually a rectangle, please solve the equations necessary to "fix" the photograph. Or maybe a simpler approach is to say that these two edges that are curved should be straight and parallel to each other. Or pick 4 edges and say that those four should make up the top, bottom, left and right of a rectangle/square? Why can't the computer solve the equation instead of me fiddling with sliders?

With respect to colour, why can't digital cameras have an inbuilt grey card?
Put a small window on the front or back of the body that acts as a dedicated "white balance" meter?
Or a USB dongle that supplies such information to the camera digitally, so that I don't need to shoot a "grey card" photograph?
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2011, 03:44:07 AM »
ReplyReply

If I've taken a picture of a building and that building is rectangular, why can't I tell LR that this trapezoid is actually a rectangle, please solve the equations necessary to "fix" the photograph. Or maybe a simpler approach is to say that these two edges that are curved should be straight and parallel to each other. Or pick 4 edges and say that those four should make up the top, bottom, left and right of a rectangle/square? Why can't the computer solve the equation instead of me fiddling with sliders?
That's because it's hard for a computer to see which lines are the relevant ones, and which are not.

Our brains perform a lot of near-magical shortcuts to build effective illusions about reality.

A computer, however, does not  have the luxury of seeing things as they should be.

Your first example, telling the computer to convert a specifiz trapezoid to a rectangle, is something which is easy enough in itself. You find that in the perspective correction tool in Photoshop.

More complex shapes are far from trivial.

I'm not saying that we won't get any of the features you yearn for sometime in the near or distant future, just that these things are not easy to do.

Quote
With respect to colour, why can't digital cameras have an inbuilt grey card?
Put a small window on the front or back of the body that acts as a dedicated "white balance" meter?

Most DSLR cameras have such a meter working with the main sensor, and have had for a long time (photos courtesy of Canon of Nikon), the meter is between the grip and the lens mount:




What you want is one that magically "just works", I suppose.

But in real life, you have mixed lighting conditions, and need to pick what you think look natural or good.
Logged

Jan
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad