Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

dslrbodies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 393 posts

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#101

Post by l33tbro »

mikeytown2 wrote: post #29
l33tbro wrote: post #8

My pet-peeve with modern DSLR's is that none of these manufacturers seem to care about motion-cadence with their video offering. There's been amazing leaps with 4k video and now 10 bit image depth with the Panasonic GH5, but the footage looks so damn robotic and souless compared to cinema cameras from Arri and Red. I obviously don't expect a $2000 dslr to match a $50k Alexa in image quality, but surely they must be a…

Using an ND filter to get a slower shutter speed is the way to go. The more expensive cameras usually have a ND filter built in. Shooting at 24fps is possible on most modern cameras these days. If you want to have the ability to adjust the amount of blur in post shooting at 120fps+ allows for that workflow but it’s a pain to do. Or is it something else like a bad video codec?

It's more to do with the way motion is captured by the sensor than shutter rates, ND or applying motion blur. Someone else posted an article about global-vs-rolling shutter, which gets to the heart of that jittery video look common to CMOS sensors found on DSLRs.

Also, in film, people generally keep the shutter angle at 180 degrees. So for 24 frames per second, the shutter speed is usually 1/48 of a second.

As for codecs, that's actually where some of these cameras are making leaps and bounds. The GH5 I mentioned is capable of 10 bit recording, which means you could record ProRes HQ with an external recorder.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#102

Post by alkonaut »

web64 wrote: post #96

I have a Canon DSLR and my biggest frustration is with the software. I do a lot of night photography and the longest exposure possible is 30 seconds. To go beyond this you need to buy an external shutter release. It should be a simple thing to add a few more options with longer exposures to the menu. Also, doing things like HDR or stop-motion can be a pain. Better software or the ability to run apps could solve this.

If you are a tinkerer, you could (most likely, depending on model) use a custom firmware such as Magic Lantern. Gives you basically anything you could imagine, but that Canon couldn't imagine. http://www.magiclantern.fm/

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#103

Post by petepete »

cm2187 wrote: post #9

I'd add to the list geotagging. It is extremely useful to embed in the Exif the coordinates where the picture was taken.

My first DSLR, a Nikon D5300 had this built-in. I don't think any Nikon has had it since, thanks to SnapBridge, which is junk.

It doesn't geotag my D500 photos unless I've opened SnapBridge already on the phone, despite it being marketed as always on.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#104

Post by coldtea »

l33tbro wrote: post #8

My pet-peeve with modern DSLR's is that none of these manufacturers seem to care about motion-cadence with their video offering. There's been amazing leaps with 4k video and now 10 bit image depth with the Panasonic GH5, but the footage looks so damn robotic and souless compared to cinema cameras from Arri and Red. I obviously don't expect a $2000 dslr to match a $50k Alexa in image quality, but surely they must be a…

There's not much to capturing motion besides shutter speed and frame rate. Mostly the latter.

Rolling shutter aside, given the same settings, there should be no real differences between Arri, Red and those DSLRs in motion capture (and not in image depth, dynamic range, resolution, and color science), and I don't think there are.

All kinds of movie, TV and documentary work use high end DSLRs from Canon and co, and the motion is just fine.

Of course the idea is that motion is usually set to 24fps in both those cameras and Arri, Red etc. If you want "smooth" motion of the hi-fps variety, jack up the fps. But then it would be soap-opera like and not what most people associate with cinematic motion.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#105

Post by throwanem »

dom0 wrote: post #89
throwanem wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I carry my camera all the time, so I'm not super upset about it being made of plastic rather than metal. The plastic of which it's made has a higher tensile strength than any casting-grade aluminum; machined aerospace aluminum would be stronger, but would also cost a lot more to make and thus to buy, and I don't mind having paid an entry-level price for my entry-level DSLR.

DSLR camera bodies aren't cast aluminium; they're cast magnesium (which contain 10 % aluminium or so).

Which DSLRs? All the ones I've seen and handled have been PC-GF30 or something very similar.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#106

Post by Sharlin »

web64 wrote: post #96

I have a Canon DSLR and my biggest frustration is with the software. I do a lot of night photography and the longest exposure possible is 30 seconds. To go beyond this you need to buy an external shutter release. It should be a simple thing to add a few more options with longer exposures to the menu. Also, doing things like HDR or stop-motion can be a pain. Better software or the ability to run apps could solve this.

Canon have finally added a builtin bulb timer to many of their latest-gen models, as well as an interval timer. Of course, the most likely reason for not doing it sooner had to do with wanting to sell remotes rather than any technical difficulty.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#107

Post by Sacho »

mysterypie wrote: post #51
tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like an iPhone with a bigger camera chip. I don’t think Apple will venture into dedicated camera equipment. The iPhone camera is one of the big selling points and keeps people upgrading. Apple will not sacrifice their cash cow for a comparatively niche market. A dedicated device also goes against the unification that Apple seems to pursue.

> Apple will not sacrifice their cash cow for a comparatively niche market. I never understood that reasoning. As an individual, I can't simultaneously develop 10 different products, but a large company sitting on billions in cash could develop 1000 niche products simultaneously. In fact, some large companies (Procter & Gamble, 3M, General Electric) have thousands or tens of thousands of products. To use your Apple e…

I think there's several arguments why Apple would not want to attack this niche market.

The strongest one is talent dilution. If they poach talent from existing teams, then the new project must be more profitable to make that a good idea. Building a new team from scratch is not an easy task - you need management that can guarantee the same level of productivity/QA that other teams have. The team leads that can produce this kind of top quality are rare - why would you spend them on the niche market instead of advancing your main product? (unless they can find a leader who is only interested in the camera niche)

The second one would be the profitability of this niche market. Why wouldn't Apple just invest money in P&G stock(or whatever, I don't know much about the stock market) - do they really expect the investment into the camera niche market to bring better gains?

I know Procter & Gamble owns a ton of brands, and I don't know if there's any cross-effect when one brand fails. My suspicion is that Apple won't be able to get away with low scrutiny, even if they spin off their own "NotAppleAtAll" cameras. This may be a third concern for them.

Less related, but many of P&G's products are direct competitors, e.g. Ariel and Tide laundry detergent. Perhaps that's just not a business model that Apple is interested in pursuing?

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#108

Post by petepete »

mschuster91 wrote: post #73
Terretta wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you didn't purchase yet, did you consider the a9 mentioned a few times in this blog? You might not need the extra MP of the a7s II. Comparison for video: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2661726126/alpha-better-so... Field notes: Used one on a trip in Europe. The light gathering is astonishing, both photos and video. Street shooting at night in dimly lit rural towns, almost every shot looks better than it did to…

Yep, and the A9 is, with ~3k4€ just for the body, outside of my price range unfortunately :( The A7s2 costs ~2k€, I'll have to spend at least a grand on lenses and another grand for the XLR/mike head and the external battery pack... thanks for the heads-up on the performance though, hope the A7S will live up to expectations ;)

I think that a more-realistic competitor of the A7SII is the Fuji X-T2. The Fuji has a wonderful feel, the UX is really impressively simple and just 'feels right'.

Had I not already invested in another system, I'd probably have gone Fuji.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#109

Post by dom0 »

jorvi wrote: post #94
CrystalGamma wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And good plastics are plastic in the traditional sense of the word: if you drop them, they'll absorb the force by deforming and then spring back into place. That's not what I was taught plastic meant. I was taught both plastic and elastic materials deform under force, but the elastic ones (not the plastic ones) return to their original form once the force is gone …

If you drop an iPhone hard enough it wil dent. Drop a polycarbonate phone: no problem. Windows phone wasn't a great OS, but the Lumia line were absolute tanks.

PC is a very impact resistant material, but you can also form it cold, a bit like mild steel, actually.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#110

Post by akvadrako »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #58
oblio wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big companies usually work either by C-level exec fiat or by middle management promotion plans. Neither of which usually want small fish. If you work for a $100 billion company and you say: I need $25 million to pursue an idea that might make the company 2x or 3x, there's a good chance they'll say: no, sorry. We prefer to invest that $25 million to either improve our $5 billion product or invest in an idea that could…

That's why they should take that 25 million and invest it in startups that might become competitors one day.

It's just not elegant to try to put everything under one company. Better to buy back 25 million of stock from an investor, who can then buy one of those startups and run it independently.
Post reply on HN