Live data from Hacker News

Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

dslrbodies.com

291–300 of 393 posts

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#291
Here's another one: the 30-minute recording limit for video recordings. Apparently Panasonic fixed this in their GH4R [0], but it doesn't seem that Canon and Nikon have.

I was looking for a camera to record meetup talks, and I almost bought a new Canon 80d until I realized it couldn't go more than 30 minutes without restarting.

[0]: http://cameras.reviewed.com/news/panasonics-gh4r-finally-kil...

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#292
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…

> this guy's rants sound to me like a super demanding, high-end user. Yes. He is. He's a respected professional photographer, and most of his readership are also serious photographers, with many pro or semi-pros among them. His site is largely read by people looking to optimise for the best IQ their equipment can deliver, and he doesn't really write all that much that's targeted at more casual photographers. > First…

Okay, fine, that's exactly what I said- that I'm sure his points are valid for his use case, which is the upper, upper end of the market.

But surely he must understand that what's good for him and his very particular use cases isn't necessarily good for the other 98% of camera customers out there.

I engineer advanced web applications for a living. There are lots of things about OSX that would make my life easier for my use cases. That doesn't mean I think that all Macs should come preloaded with Atom, Slack, dual Thunderbolt displays, advanced Git integration built into the user interface or a host of other things that would make my use case easier out of the box. Because my use case isn't what moves 99% of laptops. If you want to outfit your setup with high end technology so your camera won't budge in a cat 5 hurricane, go nuts. I don't think it would be the best decision for mainstream camera makers to address it. If it were, then they would be doing it.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#293

I disagree with this article in a lot of ways; the tripod mount is about the closest thing to mattering to a field/wedding/studio photographer. - IR Remote; Works in the studio (or in the field) because your lighting is to the sides or front (if it's behind the camera, you have shadow) - USB/Wifi version. The typical pro is taking 300-3000 clicks before uploading to lightroom for post; between this there are many oth…

D500 owner. Clearly the original post was directed at the high end and reads much like first world problems and to the extent that much of his wish list is not on all cameras can be attributed to profit margins.

I agree with the raw stuff and perhaps the focus as well (though what he asks is just a function of modern day laziness).

I disagree with the wifi and usb issues. I can count how many times I have used wifi. And only at home. Really do not want to be having to set up wifi access at every location, do not want the security risk of wifi, and most imporant - do not want the battery drain of wifi.

As to USB - give it a couple years and the usb connections will be type C. Camera companies are very conservative and won't punt on the traditional until they are certain it won't be a hardship. USB 3.0 is already available on the d500 and d850.

The d500 and d850 for sure have UHS-II, I'm sure similar Canon models do as well.

Which brings up another point - I don't transfer files over USB either. For the most part, I take the card out and use a reader with laptop or desktop. The USB is nice to have when using other equipment but I find it no inconvenience to use the card manually.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#294
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…

I am also a Sony Alpha user and the interface seems anti-designed. Like, willfully obtuse and user-hostile. I know UI is not easy, but relative to the scope/scale of Sony, how hard would it really be for them to cop even a few best practices in software design?

Agreed. The Alpha software reeks of "design by committee" for the entire mass of camera users to allow anything to be controlled with equal weight. It's a major problem.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#295
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-...

I wish the Moto Z's mods became a standard - an Android phone that you can slap onto a device to make it "smart" would be best of both worlds.

Sadly, the Hasselblad camera mod available for the Moto Z is widely considered an overpriced joke, but it demonstrates how you can make a "have your cake and eat it too" design using the Mods concept.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#296
post #279
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 camera doesn't need to run Android itself, and Android is probably too slow and power hungry to make sense in dedicated cameras. Instead think of the camera as a peripheral to the user's existing smartphone. There is a lot of room to improve connectivity and usability for that mode.

In that case the question becomes how? Bluetooth? USB? A proprietary solution like Moto Mods?

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#297
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-...

I don’t think people really want or need that. A big pro DSLR is a big investment, it will last 5-10 years easily. Any SoC will be ancient by the time it’s 5 years old, and no one will want to support it. And who would want to edit photos on a big, heavy DSLR when they have a much more convenient smartphone, or iPad with a better screen? The battery drain is also an issue. DSLRs use a mechanical shutter, which is sor…

The challenge then is that quality camera chips historically vastly outdid the ability of corresponding communication chips. So if you went for the "camera as peripheral" approach, its ability to talk quickly to the phone is critical... and my 8-year-old camera produces large file sizes that would be painful over slow bluetooth of its day.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#298
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.

I feel like we need a good standard "light" OSS OS to fill the role for such devices - both for IOT and peripheral devices like this.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#299

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…

Another thing with the 1/4" socket is that it's so easy to whip something up real quick to attach the camera to whatever. It could literally be as simple as pulling a hex bolt out of a box and tightening it in.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#300
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-...

I don't want android on my camera. I just want it to be able to send all data that it's curating to my android device (which has an actually useful screen size and powerful enough cpu/gpu to do real editing) in a browsable fashion where I can see what's on the camera, and pick what to transfer. Kind of like, say... FTP over bluetooth/wifi? (or sFTP, of course).

And of course, a full input mapping for all "buttons" on the camera so that I can "press" any of them from my android device. Don't even bother labeling them appropriately, just have a button signal protocol that says "the following numbers will work, and have the following N-step granularity" and then simply supply the relevant profile both on-camera (it's a USB device after all) and as download for each camera model that can be used to resolve "number" to "name of actual button on the camera".

In fact why stop there: I want that standard to be so open that any windows, linux, osx, raspi, android, iphone, etc. user can communicate with any camera. Got a Sony and a Nikon? Why would you care, just switch profile, done.

While Android on the camera itself would be a terrible idea (it would only be useful in such a stripped down config that user apps would be pretty much impossible), seemless interoperability backed by at least two open standards would be fantastic.

I guess we'll see how long it takes IKEA to make a good camera. None of these things are new, they've all been around for decades, camera makers just can't be bothered to make cameras for people. They purely make them for money.

Post reply on HN