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

201–210 of 393 posts

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#201

Post by fhood »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #192
fhood wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be pretty easy. Lazy solution would basically to just stick an extra processor in the existing hardware that would just poll the camera for data and time critical operations would be handled by the original system

And now you're up to your neck in a networking swamp that also drains the battery like it's going out of style. But yeah, it's easy .

Quick google search tells me that I can power a model 2 b rpi for 5 hours off of a camera battery. And you can better than an rpi for power consumption. I could be missing something here, but I used to do a lot of work that boiled down to building linux control units for machines and it genuinely isn't that difficult most of the time.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#202

Post by nakedrobot2 »

brudgers wrote: post #149

I love 1/4-20 sockets. Attach my camera to a flash bracket? Yep. Attach an eyebolt to attach a carabiner to attach a neck strap? Yep. Attach a hand strap or a 40mm, 80mm, or 200mm Arca Swiss plate. Yep. Yep, Yep and Yep. There's nothing stopping a photographer from permanently attaching an Arca-Swiss plate to the bottom of a camera body with a bit of cyanoacrylate or some screws if it makes better photographs. For me…

I absolutely agree... While Arca-swiss is ok, having this as "the #1 dumb thing camera companies do" really made me lose confidence in this article. I mean, seriously - it is the one thing that remains compatible with every single camera in the whole world made for the last 80 years...

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#203

Post by nakedrobot2 »

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #200
wazoox wrote: post #164

As said in this [1] article, one of the worst thing camera makers are guilty of is not slapping Android on their cameras to open up th instant publication, photo manipulation, etc. It's a shame that a professional camera is 90% of the time simply not as useful as a smartphone, even ... as a camera. [1]: https://mondaynote.com/memo-to-camera-makers-put-android-in-...

The issue is startup time. Do you want to wait 30 seconds after you turn on your camera?

By the way, some cameras do run linux, and they take 5-15 seconds to start up. If a camera does take long to startup, it is because it's running linux. These are typically security cameras, which are switched on basically only once, or as a periodic power cycle. Consumer cameras always use a RTOS. Ambarella makes chips for both cases. for example the H2 is for linux, while the S5 is the same chip but for RTOS.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#204

Post by sliverstorm »

fhood wrote: post #201
Piskvorrr wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now you're up to your neck in a networking swamp that also drains the battery like it's going out of style. But yeah, it's easy .

Quick google search tells me that I can power a model 2 b rpi for 5 hours off of a camera battery. And you can better than an rpi for power consumption. I could be missing something here, but I used to do a lot of work that boiled down to building linux control units for machines and it genuinely isn't that difficult most of the time.

A DSLR can "sleep" with the power switch on, waiting for a shutter press for weeks. I actually have no idea how long it can go, because the drain seems to be practically zero...

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#205

Post by nakedrobot2 »

tpeo wrote: post #93
jamesrcole wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not choosing to compete with smartphones - smartphones are eating into their market thus forcing competition. As smartphone cameras have improved the more they've eaten into the market. Note that this argument does not require that all users of their cameras would ever consider using a smartphone instead.

What market? Smartphones and high end cameras aren't really comparable. They compete in the sense that they're both able to take pictures, but they don't compete across all possible dimensions. I mean, I could be wrong, but these don't look like substitute goods. Smartphones and crappy cameras certainly are, but not not smartphones and high-end cameras. But using cheaper parts does make cameras crappier, so doing so…

>I mean, I could be wrong, but these don't look like substitute goods.

Smartphones have destroyed the compact consumer camera market. There is no hyperbole there. Professional cameras? Sales of those are going down also, depending on how you define them of course (SLR is probably appropriate to call "professional")

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#206

Post by petepete »

muro wrote: post #133
petepete wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Which phone? Works fully automatically for me with Android. No need to ever open the app.

A Google Nexus 6P. Once I've touched SnapBridge it appears to work ok, but until I have, nothing.

Perhaps when I upgrade in a few months the situation will improve.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#207

Post by dguaraglia »

IgorPartola wrote: post #193
dguaraglia wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Battery life could be a concern. While using my Nikon DSLR I won't turn it off at all until I'm done for the day and that seems to barely affect the battery. I can leave it in a drawer for months, pick it up and snap a hundred pictures and put it back in the drawer for a few more months and the battery is still fine. In fact, I'd be surprised if I charge it more than once a year (mind you, since phone cameras became…

I don't understand. A phone that's 7mm thick and the size of your hand can operate for like 16-24 hours on a charge. A 1.5 lb hunk of plastic that's nearly a cubic foot in volume can't? Maybe we need better camera batteries.

A lot of the "hunk" and weight in the camera comes from needing a certain amount of room for the mirror and sensor, plus a solid coupling mechanism for the lenses, plus a good amount of surface to provide comfortable grip, plus a number of slots for all kinds of connectors (for your tripod, for you external flash), etc.

I'm not saying the design can't be improved, or that every empty recess couldn't be filled with extra battery capacity, but personally I find the current state of affairs (where you can just get an extra battery for $20 and throw it in your camera bag) better than a phone-like model with non-replaceable batteries.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#209

Post by petepete »

arghwhat wrote: post #122
petepete wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Duracell make a really wide range of camera batteries that all come with a 3 year warranty. http://www.duracelldirect.co.uk/

Others do too (Watson, Wasabi, ...), but they're all made by reversing the bloody DRM, and those companies state that they're having problems reverse-engineering the DRM of the newer batteries (the actual battery management/protection circuitry is entirely standardized, and costs nothing). LP-E17 is an example of a still non-reversed battery. Duracell doesn't have one, and those that do sell third-party clones preten…

Yes, it's the highest order of shitty behaviour. For the record, I have two Duracell EN-EL15's and they both work (including the gauge) with my Nikon D500.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#210

Post by cjbillington »

arethuza wrote: post #191
fhood wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be pretty easy. Lazy solution would basically to just stick an extra processor in the existing hardware that would just poll the camera for data and time critical operations would be handled by the original system

Would that "extra processor" not be better off just being your phone?

Sure but you'd wanna duct tape the phone to the camera so you don't have to hold two devices simultaneously. I can see the merits of putting android in the actual camera.
Post reply on HN