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

261–270 of 393 posts

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#261

Post by iamatworknow »

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #205
tpeo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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")

Sales of prosumer and up SLRs are going down primarily because newer models don't add enough useful features to justify the price. The new Nikon D850 looks like a great camera, but if you have a D810 that's working just fine the minor improvements that the D850 bring could be hard to justify for the price tag ($3.3k US).

People who buy that level of camera understand, moreso than the general public, that, for example, an increase from a 36 to a 45 megapixel sensor may be nice, but in the end the photos both cameras produce are still great and whoever sees them in print or exported for the internet would never be able to tell the difference.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#262

Post by balls187 »

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-...

From the article, the use case is being able to post photos to Instagram?

Rather than junk up my camera with Android, why not just enable it to easily sync with the smartphone of choice, and I can Instagram/Fb the pic from there?

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#263

Post by brudgers »

rrauenza wrote: post #168

I really want the focus information in the display. Tell me the DOF, and make finding the hyperfocal distance easier -- a button to just take me there, or a calculator that tells me the ideal distance and a display that shows me my estimated focal distance.

In the manual film days, all that information was often engraved on the lens. Some currently manufactured manual focus lenses also include depth of field scales as well. These make zone focusing easier...not that I don't like autofocus.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#264

Post by iamatworknow »

clra wrote: post #44
ioulian wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bodies of modern DSLRs are jampacked with every kind of knob, control, button, dial, and dongle that you can possibly think of. That's what I actually like on the more "expensive" camera's, the ability to control everything just with single click/rotation. I'm mostly shooting manual, on my Canon 5D I have a dial for apperture, smaller dial for shutter speed and a knob for the focus point(s). When I used Canon 5…

Yeah, I'd definitely concede that some people are making pretty frequent use of this stuff, but I meant to suggest that if you really started looking around, you might be in the minority. Optimizing for the majority of buyers would probably involve removing a few things that most people are probably never going to use. > But then again, this all goes to personal preference, and most users will buy a camera that they…

>Optimizing for the majority of buyers would probably involve removing a few things that most people are probably never going to use.

You think people aren't buying cameras on the level of the 5D because there are too many buttons and knobs, and not because the market for a $2.3k US camera is small to begin with? The thing could be completely smooth and still only dedicated camera aficionados or professionals would buy it at that price.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#265

Post by shagie »

dpark wrote: post #256
shagie wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some QR plates have set screws that can be tightened down to reduce twisting. For example, you can see them in https://uniquephoto.azureedge.net/resources/uniquephoto/imag... These positions line up with some locations on various medium and large format cameras (where there is a lot of weight in play).

That's a pretty good idea, especially if the camera body has indentations that the set screw can really bite into. A second screw socket in the camera body would be better, though. It would be 100% backward compatible and solve the issue completely.

If you look at a Pentax 7 bottom plate, http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/271_PENTAX67BOTTOM_1.jpg you can see that additional screw location. I am certain one of the holes in the hex plate matches it.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#266

Post by iamatworknow »

the_af wrote: post #213
jpatokal wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bodies of modern DSLRs are jampacked with every kind of knob, control, button, dial, and dongle that you can possibly think of. ... But in practice, 95% of users aren't using 95% of these adjusters 95% of the time. Amen. I've been casually shooting with a Nikon D70 and now a D7000 for around 15 years now. Here's an illustrated guide to every single physical control on the D7000, which isn't even a high-end came…

> But in practice, 95% of users aren't using 95% of these adjusters 95% of the time. Not a snark: maybe 95% of users didn't need a semi-pro DSLR and should have gone with a smartphone or a point-and-shoot instead? The remaining 5% need those knobs and controls, and would be left with a less useful camera if they were removed or simplified.

I'm in that 5%, for sure. When looking for a smaller camera than my DSLRs to carry around I was tempted by the Ricoh GR and Sony RX100 series, but ultimately their lack of manual controls turned me away and I went with Fuji's X100T.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#267

Post by tomc1985 »

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-...

Ew. Open up the OS but please don't replace it with Android.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#268

Post by FireBeyond »

ksk wrote: post #214
dkrich wrote: post #179

Call me skeptical, but this guy's rants sound to me like a super demanding, high-end user. No doubt his complaints are well-reasoned for him , but I have to say that as an amateurish photographer, I disagree with a lot of what he says. First of all, what's wrong with having a standardized mount size? I like knowing that I can fit my camera onto any standard mount I want to buy without issue. The quick-release and pla…

They made sense to me. Practically, it would be easy for camera makers to add these features on their pro bodies as they're not intended to be appealing to amateurs/casual shooters. >Sure, this might not pass the "smack the lens and there shouldn't be a single iota of movement test", but that's a very narrow use-case, That is a mainstream usecase for pretty much every single professional! A more secure interface betw…

> Bluetooth LE devices can have upto a year of battery life !

Bluetooth LE is highly unsuitable, if not impossible, to use with high bandwidth applications (like dumping a 40MB+ file to a remote destination potentially dozens of times a minute or more).

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#269

Post by jwr »

The problem is the lack of competition. Yes, you read that right: even though we have several "major competitors", they have reached a state of equilibrium, where they try to preserve the status quo as much as they can.

This isn't much different from the automotive market. All the cars are pretty much the same, except for Teslas. The DSLR world is waiting for their Tesla.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#270

Post by Animats »

The camera people described are living in the past. They're talking about rigid mounts and tripods, not active stabilization. They're talking about aiming the camera, rather than taking a full spherical picture and selecting from that.

Here's a 360 degree camera on a gimbal mount [1] and a video taken with a similar rig.[2] View the video in 2160p, and click and drag the image to change the direction of view. No need to focus. No worries about depth of field. No need to aim. Not even that expensive.

Pointing the lens is so last-cen.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P69-mh-Jw6k [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTcx0OHehdE

Post reply on HN