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

81–90 of 393 posts

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#81

Post by jaggederest »

Steve44 wrote: post #36
jaggederest wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My other bugbear is many cameramen appear to have forgotten what a tripod is. The camera wobbling about can occasionally at to the atmosphere but most of the time it is just annoying and distracting. Again a combination of lack of skill and production values. With projection and home displays lagging camera technology, I'd be surprised if the opposite didn't happen. You can do a lot of shake reduction with 2x the p…

It's not camera shake creating blurry images I'm talking about, it's the cameraman 'wobbling' about so the image isn't steady. The images will still be sharp, just the camera moving about a bit.

Ah, you mean displacing rather than rotating, yes, I see what you mean, there's no way to correct that perspective shift.

Though perhaps with two cameras and/or some grid projection...

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#82

Post by oblio »

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.

I don't think they're that afraid of digital camera startups :)

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#83

Post by stefanve »

I feel that a lot of these problems are not purely born out of lazy engeniering but has to do with the review culture. In camera land as well as any other consumer products reviewers have quit a lot of power. If you get a bad review it can destroy your product. As most reviewers converse to the same opinion it is very tempting to please the reviewers. So if you create a semi pro camera is had to have a tripod mount even if most buyers have to use it. For a long time and party true today a simple interface was not something the reviewers would like.the interface should look like the Pro DSLR to be taken seriously. When Sony launched the original Xperia z every reviewer said the waterproofing was a gimmick now day's you get faulted for not having it. In the car world reviewers are constantly patting the top op the dashboard no other human does this as a result more car companies are making an effort to give it a nice feel, but stuff like a good feeling steering wheel seem more important to me. There are countless examples f reviewers dictating what is important with out looking at true usability but by looking at an spec sheet and see if it is 'better' than before

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#84

Post by jamesrcole »

tpeo wrote: post #79
wjnc wrote: post #43

As an economist: isn't this 'just' an example of software eating the world? One the one hand, quality camera's should keep upgrading the periferal hardware to keep match with modern IT-supplies and on the other hand keep a focus on durable products. Why wouldn't producers do this? Cost savings and probably price competition. The competition (smart phones) have a whole different market. They have a product that people…

Why would they try to compete with smartphones? Dropping product differentiation when the competition comes from "a whole different market" doesn't really make sense. This seems more like an issue of quality control.

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.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#85

Post by wjnc »

jamesrcole wrote: post #84
tpeo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they try to compete with smartphones? Dropping product differentiation when the competition comes from "a whole different market" doesn't really make sense. This seems more like an issue of quality control.

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.

Indeed. 'Big corp' would find it very hard to react when a profitable segment of their portfolio drops out (smartphone vs. simple camera / so you're struggling financially), while competition or complexity ramps up in another part of their portfolio (high end camera / I figure a new market structure is needed, but never before tried out).

Snarky: It's just not thaught that way in business schools. Lookup Nikons financial trouble. Canon has no financial trouble, but seems to be quickly moving to other markets that are profitable (medical supplies). So perhaps they will just drop out of this market in a few years.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#86

Post by icebraining »

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…

what's the harm in trying many things at once?

Bad PR when you eventually close them down. See Google: they ran Reader for eight years and gave people plenty of time to migrate. Half a decade later, it's still used as an example of why they can't be trusted. Regardless of whether that's justifiable or not, it's an harm to the company's image. Better to just dump money into external startups (see Google Ventures) and then acquire them if they're interesting.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#87

Post by dom0 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #68
thinkMOAR wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time that was my deciding factor picking between canon rebel something vs nikon d80 (2006, when it was brand new). Photo quality-wise they were so well matched, until i read a review where the author said, the canon is plastic and the nikon metal and the metal makes you feel you have a real tool in your hands instead of toy. (also i'm not the most careful person metal stronger then plastic, typically)

Given that you're often hand holding a camera, being lighter is a significant advantage, it can often be the difference between a stable or a blurred shot. 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. Metals deform permanently. In a car that's an advantage, you can just hammer it back into place. With a pre…

> Given that you're often hand holding a camera, being lighter is a significant advantage, it can often be the difference between a stable or a blurred shot.

Lighter camera ~ more vibrations.

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#88

Post by CrystalGamma »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #68
thinkMOAR wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time that was my deciding factor picking between canon rebel something vs nikon d80 (2006, when it was brand new). Photo quality-wise they were so well matched, until i read a review where the author said, the canon is plastic and the nikon metal and the metal makes you feel you have a real tool in your hands instead of toy. (also i'm not the most careful person metal stronger then plastic, typically)

Given that you're often hand holding a camera, being lighter is a significant advantage, it can often be the difference between a stable or a blurred shot. 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. Metals deform permanently. In a car that's an advantage, you can just hammer it back into place. With a pre…

> 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 …

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#89

Post by dom0 »

throwanem wrote: post #76
thinkMOAR wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time that was my deciding factor picking between canon rebel something vs nikon d80 (2006, when it was brand new). Photo quality-wise they were so well matched, until i read a review where the author said, the canon is plastic and the nikon metal and the metal makes you feel you have a real tool in your hands instead of toy. (also i'm not the most careful person metal stronger then plastic, typically)

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).

Re: Dumb Things Camera Companies are Still Doing

#90

Post by dom0 »

jaggederest wrote: post #24
Steve44 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the problems relate to the experience of the person behind the camera. Often you can see the choppiness when things are moving. That to me looks like they are using a high shutter speed which is inappropriate for cine work. In still photography if you take a picture of a waterfall on a bright day at 1/1000 you'll see every crisp drop, shooting at 1/30th will give a little bit of smoothing motion blur…

> My other bugbear is many cameramen appear to have forgotten what a tripod is. The camera wobbling about can occasionally at to the atmosphere but most of the time it is just annoying and distracting. Again a combination of lack of skill and production values. With projection and home displays lagging camera technology, I'd be surprised if the opposite didn't happen. You can do a lot of shake reduction with 2x the p…

> Also I think a lot of the shake these days is added in post

That's easy to check; if there is no parallax then it was definitely added in post.

Post reply on HN