Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: HywelPhillips on July 31, 2018, 12:05:24 pm
-
Hi All,
We've moved from a camera being a light-tight box with some light sensitive gloop at the back to being a super-computer equipped with massive processing power and a whole heap of additional sensors (eg gyroscopes, GPS).
But in many ways we're taking little advantage of all that tech in terms of what we expect the camera to DO.
Sure, the ability to treat the supercomputer-with-sensors like it's a film camera from the 1950's is good in some ways. One definitely wants the ergonomics of picture taking to take a back seat a lot of the time.
But there are also a lot of things the camera could handle for us which are far from universal, and probably some things which they should do that no-one has implemented yet.
A few examples which I think should be there as options for all "pro" level cameras. Many cameras do some of these. As far as I know, none of them do all:
- The "don't fire the shutter until the vibrations have died down" triggering mode (I think someone said PhaseOne? have this).
- Proper live view and complete camera control from a remote screen, ideally wirelessly, but failing that via USB-C. The wifi implementations I've used on pro cameras are a bit naff compared with what a DJI Mavic Pro provides, for example.
- Intervalometer functionality properly integrated. One shouldn't need apps or dangling bits of wire to do a timelapse!
- Focus stacking. Maybe not assembling the actual composite, I don't know how difficult that is, but reliably acquiring the necessary images in camera with minimum fuss. I should be able to touch screen to show the two extreme focus points, say "go" and have the camera fire off a focus series in the same way as auto bracket lets you take an EV series.
- ETTR exposure mode (using a pre-shot to judge exposure if necessary). "Get the maximum exposure you can get whilst allowing no more than x% of pixels in any colour channel to clip" - and mark the metadata to say how that corresponds to the camera's best guess for "correct" exposure so when you open the image in post a suitable guess at the dial-back of exposure has been put in for you already.
- Pentax's night sky tracking using IBIS and GPS. If you're at all interested in astrophotography it's almost enough to tempt one to buy a Pentax just for this feature.
- In camera panorama stitching.
- In camera HDR (at least for simple cases- with the option to save the stack as well).
- Pixel shift (I don't use it myself, because I shoot people primarily. But since every camera should have IBIS, there's no reason not to have it).
- Uploadable picture profiles. This is coming in in the cine world (where they're called LUTs). The use case for stills would be to get out of camera JPEGs with your fave wacky post processing corrections and colour curves applied in camera, rather than having to choose from a relatively small range of in camera options via a limited control interface. Fuji film simulation on steroids; load up your camera with your own personal looks library.
- In camera frame stacking, for long exposures without ND filters and with much better signal to noise.
- A third option for in-camera output. RAW should be exactly that- the information from the sensor with calibration metadata but no processing. JPEGs for backwards capability. Then some lossless high-bit-depth file format for composite images and images processed in camera. Why should we be limited to having Fuji-like film simulations and image stacks in 8-bit lossy format? It's not appropriate to export them in RAW- that's not what it is for. But something that lets you use the camera's processing as a starting point and fine tune in post would be very useful. For example, an HDR stack image might well benefit from saving RGB channels separately and having pointers to the original RAW files in the metadata, and would certainly benefit from 16 bits per channel or more- why do we squeeze this down to a lossy 8-bit JPEG?
What else COULD the camera be?
What stuff do you do in post that the camera could facilitate much better than at present?
I'd also like to see some serious investigation into ergonomics and automation.
For example, Sony's auto ISO plus minimum shutter speed preference plus exposure compensation dial plus IBIS have completely changed the way I shoot in available light. I select my working aperture, tell the camera that I want a faster shutter speed one stop faster than 1/F as the minimum (so for a 50mm lens I get a min shutter speed of 1/100th of a second). The camera selects the lowest ISO necessary to get that shot, and the IBIS means that even at 42 megapixels my hit rate for critical sharpness is excellent. And if the exposure seems a bit over-cooked or under-exposed, I can control that with just one physical dial (the exposure compensation).
I agree with the online consensus that broadly, Sony ergonomics are not as nice as CaNikcon. But this one they're got just right, and I find it hard going back to a camera that doesn't work that way now.
What other ergonomic improvements might we reasonably ask for?
I think we've not really cracked the ergonomics for focussing yet. The closest I've come to perfection is a Canon 1Dx Mark II using live view. The functionality of Sony's eye focus is great, but I don't think we've quite hit the most effective way of controlling it yet. Tap-to-focus is the obvious way to go with touch screens, but I personally don't think we've got it right for viewfinder use yet. Maybe a return of Canon's look-to-focus? Joysticks and dpads are OK but still feel one step removed from the process compared with tap-to-focus on the monitor. For me it would be great to set eye focus, then just look at the appropriate person on screen and have the camera use that to drive it's selection of which face (and maybe which eye) to focus on, for example.
Global electronic shutter with super-fast flash sync speeds (without needing leaf shutters) is something else I think would really be a killer feature (I know a lot of people are thinking about how best to do that- global electronic shutter is also very desirable for video).
What do you think? What else could a camera be, now that it's a supercomputer and a bunch of sensors in a miracle box, rather than silver halide?
Cheers, Hywel
-
My cameras do little for me which is why I bought them, allowing me to retain control and make decisions.
-
My cameras do little for me which is why I bought them, allowing me to retain control and make decisions.
Yes, perhaps the problem is exactly that the camera is indeed becoming a supercomputer. On the one hand this is nice, because you can do more in camera and spend less time in post, on the other hand the camera has become a plethora of buttons, most of which get in the way of what you really want it to do.
So, perhaps a more modular design would be appreciated. Why is the lcd and evf fixed to the device? I totally imagine that the evf of the future is more like a wearable "bluetooth" device a la google glasses. Similarly the lcd. Or that functions like picture mode or movie mode are available in a different grip one can attach. Want minimal buttons? Purchase the minimalist grip. Want extra moviebuttons? Purchase the movie grip. Etc.
-
My cameras do little for me which is why I bought them, allowing me to retain control and make decisions.
I'm all for retaining control and making decisions. I'd just like to be able to take the decisions at a higher level of abstraction.
Take the example of shooting an available light portrait using Sony auto-ISO functionality.
I want to control the look of the image and the overall exposure.
The look I control primarily via aperture- so I choose to select that directly. (And by choosing which lens I put on the camera in the first place of course).
The overall exposure- I want to get a good ETTR exposure without blowing any colour channels. Nothing stops me from setting shutter speed and ISO manually if I so desire, but that's not actually what I want to be thinking about shooting sets of photos in changing natural light. I want to get the good ETTR exposure without going so low in shutter speed that I'm liable to incur camera shake, and without turning the ISO up any higher than it needs to go.
I can either do that by twiddling two interdependent camera controls (shutter and ISO), take a test shot, look at the histogram, apply a mental exposure correction, choose whether to dial it in via ISO or shutter speed, and take the shot.
Or I can keep an eye on the histogram, let the camera combine the two interdependent controls into just one (exposure compensation) - under my command, because I can set the parameters for how it chooses minimum shutter speed and maximum ISO. Then I just need to twiddle one dial, not two, to produce the same ballet of interconnected exposure control.
Once I've dialled in the compensation for the scene I rarely need to change it, even as the exposure value changes over several stops as the intensity of the sunlight ebbs and flows. It's significantly quicker and doesn't interfere so much with my shooting "flow".
I would ALWAYS advocate all cameras have a "act like a dumb 1950s film camera" mode.
But shooting a set of 100 pics of a model outdoors in dappled sunlight with the sunlight coming and going in a British summer- I really appreciate the higher level abstraction and automation. I shoot faster, get more correctly exposed shots, and therefore make more good photos (and at the end of the day make more money too).
Likewise, manual focus is all fine and dandy, and mirrorless/live view to zoom in and get precise manual focus shot by shot is great. I can still do that with pretty much all modern systems, although admittedly fly-by-wire is a bit of a compromise.
But what do I actually DO when shooting a set of photos of a model? Maybe 8 out of 10 shots, I want the closer eye to the camera in sharp focus. I can do that manually, focussing by hand shot by shot. Nothing stops me, although relying on both model and photographer to stay stock still when shooting with an 85 mm f/1.4 lens wide open is pretty challenging. (Judging it without live view/EVF and 1:1 zoom is beyond the capabilities of my eyesight and always has been).
I can turn on continuous autofocus with eye focus and get a much greater hit rate, and consequently take more good shots in less time. And therefore make more money from a day's shoot.
I'm still in control. If the shot needs to be focussed on her lips or her shoes or whatever, I can still do that. The camera provides controls to help me do so. I think we might be helped by better ergonomics in telling the camera AF where to focus, but I simply don't buy any argument against AF at this point so long as the "dumb 1950's film camera" manual mode is still there. I'm deciding what to shoot and where to focus. The camera is just providing me with a higher-level abstraction of how to control that than a ring connected to a helicoid physically moving lens groups while I squint through the viewfinder.
I care about getting the right thing in focus. The more the technology can help me do that, the better.
My question is what other possibilities are there? What other "advanced modes" controlling picture taking at higher levels of abstraction might we not really have dreamed up yet?
I totally agree that the ergonomics for all these "advanced modes" need a serious rethink, as opgr says. I'm trying to envisage what such a system might look like, what controls it might have, what might actually be useful to us rather than providing "just another button on the camera".
Cheers, Hywel
-
Yes, perhaps the problem is exactly that the camera is indeed becoming a supercomputer. On the one hand this is nice, because you can do more in camera and spend less time in post, on the other hand the camera has become a plethora of buttons, most of which get in the way of what you really want it to do.
So, perhaps a more modular design would be appreciated. Why is the lcd and evf fixed to the device? I totally imagine that the evf of the future is more like a wearable "bluetooth" device a la google glasses. Similarly the lcd. Or that functions like picture mode or movie mode are available in a different grip one can attach. Want minimal buttons? Purchase the minimalist grip. Want extra moviebuttons? Purchase the movie grip. Etc.
Get ready to shell out big bucks for modularization. I use my camera for multiple applications where shooting landscape I only want very minimal buttons, but when shooting travel, I like AF and all its options...and then when shooting sports, I want all the speed related features...and I always intermix some video...so I need the video options.
Personally that would be a nightmare...sort of like buying a car back in the 80's where everything was an option.
As far as wearing an EVF like google glasses...we already have idiots walking into traffic as they are texting...I could just see the mess as everyone is wearing their EVF and not paying attention what's around them.
My one want is to have the camera manufactures open up the firmware and provide access to the camera for 3rd party apps...like the iPhone.
-
For what it’s worth, one of the ways I like to use auto-ISO is in M mode which allows me to set both aperture and speed and let the camera adjust the ISO while taking into account whatever exposure compensation I set. This works very well, but exposure remains based on the camera meter.
It would indeed be neat to do this based on an exposure assessment done from raw histogram with adjustable degree of ETTR.
Without underestimating the potential of technology nor the value of discussing it, the more I photograph though, the more I think that planning, awarness, light, vision and timing make 90% of an image and I wouldn’t consider an AI algo to be able to contribute to making my images better.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Get ready to shell out big bucks for modularization. I use my camera for multiple applications where shooting landscape I only want very minimal buttons, but when shooting travel, I like AF and all its options...and then when shooting sports, I want all the speed related features...and I always intermix some video...so I need the video options.
Personally that would be a nightmare...sort of like buying a car back in the 80's where everything was an option.
As far as wearing an EVF like google glasses...we already have idiots walking into traffic as they are texting...I could just see the mess as everyone is wearing their EVF and not paying attention what's around them.
My one want is to have the camera manufactures open up the firmware and provide access to the camera for 3rd party apps...like the iPhone.
Then purchase the jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none grip.
The google glasses method has been used by helicopter pilots for ages, vastly different then people with their heads burried in a screen. You don't have to have the glasses engaged when not actually taking a picture.
Didn't Sony have the Sony apps solution that was supposed to become open to thirdparty options at some point, but has been removed from recent offerings? Not sure why though, it certainly makes sense if you consider the camera as a computing platform.
-
...I would ALWAYS advocate all cameras have a "act like a dumb 1950s film camera" mode...
Thanks but I'll take basic modifiable settings over camera modes, dumb or smart.
I'll admit that perhaps it's just me, but experience has taught me that the more the camera does for me the more my work suffers.
-
Thanks but I'll take basic modifiable settings over camera modes, dumb or smart.
I'll admit that perhaps it's just me, but experience has taught me that the more the camera does for me the more my work suffers.
It's not just you...I agree, basic manual never goes out of style. If you know what your doing.
Peter
-
Peter, perhaps the cameras of the future will be so perfectly automated that they won't allow us to make a bad image.
Now there's a nightmare.
-
Peter, perhaps the cameras of the future will be so perfectly automated that they won't allow us to make a bad image.
Now there's a nightmare.
Oh God forbid. I relish the awkward, clumsy and odd in all pictures. Including my work in camera and Canvas. Imagine perfect paintings?
Peter
-
Thanks but I'll take basic modifiable settings over camera modes, dumb or smart.
I'll admit that perhaps it's just me, but experience has taught me that the more complex and automated the camera the more my work suffers.
By "mode", I mean the ability to operate the camera as if it were a 1950's film camera, with the physical controls thereof.
1950s era film cameras were that way for good reason- it is the necessary and minimal set of controls for manual picture taking.
But we now have other options and opportunities which in the correct circumstances go from nice optional extras to "so useful you'll hardly find a pro who doesn't use it". The poster child for which is autofocus- I doubt you'll find many people on the sidelines at a sports game with manual focus lenses. Eye focus AF is already heading that way for people photographers.
I'm advocating adding options on control dials and in menus, like the "Auto" selection for ISO which facilitates using the Sony auto exposure mode I talked about above. How do we make them unobtrusive when their use is not desired, but easy to control when they are desired?
I feel like there are better ways to control the advanced functionality than a million buttons on the camera. Customisable buttons (with little LED screen labels, ideally) are one way to go. In "1950's film camera mode" these could even be deactivated entirely- don't do anything, don't light up, no confusion.
As an example, control via the rear touch screens is pretty good as direct control interfaces go. It's direct, tactile- you poke your finger at the thing on screen you want to control. There's no easier way to select what you want to be in focus than poking it with a digit and the camera making it so. There are current limitations to do with brightness, glare, limited size and articulation, etc. but there's a reason the touchscreen interface has taken the world by storm. It allows you to present the most relevant control inputs to the current task without all the physical clutter.
One could literally have just the physical controls and nothing else. But can we make it so a different photographer- or the same one taking a different sort of photo with the same hardware- could switch on whatever they need for the job at hand? How do we supplement the interface for when it really helps (eg eye AF) without drowning in complexity?
I think we should consider what abstractions are most useful, photographically, and how best to control them- so we can enhance and extend the functionality of the 1950s film camera interface in the way that the high level abstractions help rather than hinder.
Which is why I think we've still not cracked control of focus when looking through the viewfinder, for example. It's still too many steps to shift the focus point and lock it where we want it.
Cheers, Hywel
-
It's not just you...I agree, basic manual never goes out of style. If you know what your doing.
Peter
Basic manual does go out of style when there is a reliable and better alternative.
Case in point-autofocus for fast-moving subjects, quintessentially sports and wildlife.
Sure, you CAN focus manually, and one wants to still be able to for some situations (like prefocussing where you know a car or a bird is going to be).
But the autofocus on a top-flight dSLR does a better and more reliable job in many situations and I strongly suspect that most photographers working with moving subjects now rely heavily on it, as I do when photographing people.
Similarly, writing computer programs in machine code is still the purest "meeting the metal" way to get a computer to do what you want. If you're really good, you may even be able to make the most performant code that way. But the arrival of optimising compilers meant that there was just no reason to do it in. In fact you'd be mad to- it's better to deal with your code at a higher level of abstraction. You get more done, more reliably, in less time. Machine code has gone out of style in all but a few specialised situations because writing high-level code is a more appropriate abstraction. You'd definitely not contemplate machine coding a quick web app or a macro to rename some files.
But... you still need a programmer to write the program. To decide what to do and how to do it. You're just dealing with the tasks at a higher level of abstraction.
The compiler just facilitates that. You still need to be a good programmer to make a good job of it.
Like "lock on THIS and keep it in focus" is a higher level of abstraction than manually twiddling the focus ring. You still need to be a good photographer to take photos where the most artistically appropriate and important thing is in focus. You need to be able to control that system, sure- that needs good technology and good user interface ergonomics.
But the truth is that few human beings can accurately focus a long telephoto lens or an 85 mm f/1.4 lens wide open on a moving subject as quickly or as accurately as a modern camera's autofocus can. So for many applications, manual focus has totally gone out of style. The main limitation now is controlling the initial lock-on, which is one of the things I think could do with a re-examination so we can just indicate to the automated system what SHOULD be in focus, and let it take care of the mechanics of keeping it so.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Basic manual does go out of style when there is a reliable and better alternative.
As far as moving subjects go...zone focus works perfectly. DOF is a great way to go.
Peter
-
As far as moving subjects go...zone focus works perfectly.
Peter
Really? With an 85 mm f/1.4 lens wide open and a moving model?
Hywel
-
Really? With an 85 mm f/1.4 lens wide open and a moving model?
Hywel
For my kind of work...yes. Zone focusing works fine. Your original question "What COULD a camera be in 2018?" For me Simple settings.
Peter
-
For my kind of work...yes. Zone focusing works fine. Your original question "What COULD a camera be in 2018?" For me Simple settings.
Peter
OK, I will rephrase my original post, having clarified in my mind what I'm getting at! ;)
What higher-level abstractions which have heretofore not been widely or universally implemented in digital cameras do you think would be useful and worthwhile?
If the answer is "none, I like my cameras with simple settings", you are cordially invited to be happy with what you've got! :)
Best regards,
Hywel Phillips
-
As far as moving subjects go...zone focus works perfectly. DOF is a great way to go.
Peter
What happens when you are shooting moving subjects using a very narrow DOF? This is where eye focus tracking kills zone focus.
-
For my kind of work...yes. Zone focusing works fine. Your original question "What COULD a camera be in 2018?" For me Simple settings.
Peter
Since you are not really using many of the advanced features in the camera...what is so complex after you initially setup the parameters. I know my TV has a lot of colour calibration and sound setup...but I did it once and now I just turn it on / off and change channels...all the complexity is not required anymore.
-
Since you are not really using many of the advanced features in the camera...what is so complex after you initially setup the parameters. I know my TV has a lot of colour calibration and sound setup...but I did it once and now I just turn it on / off and change channels...all the complexity is not required anymore.
Nothing is complex... I prefer a basic approach. For street photography this works well for me.
Peter
-
My cameras do little for me which is why I bought them, allowing me to retain control and make decisions.
That reminds me of the debates we used to have over programming languages. “I code in assembler, because it gives me more control”; “I use a high-level language, because I can concentrate on the bigger picture’. It’s a dead argument now.
Jeremy
-
That reminds me of the debates we used to have over programming languages. “I code in assembler, because it gives me more control”; “I use a high-level language, because I can concentrate on the bigger picture’. It’s a dead argument now.
Jeremy
And that reminds me of the gobbledygook in the manuals supplied for the supercomputers that we now call cameras.
-
As I've pointed out before in LuLa, my primitive digital pair is programmed to be as manual as it allows itself to be.
Both bodies share two wonderful features: Matrix metering; auto ISO that lets me set both aperture and shutter to any combination that I desire, and works perfectly well as long as I am not stupid enough to go to either extreme beyond the available sensitivity range unless I want to, for some effect.
The rest of the features represent added cost to no personal benefit.
As with Peter and Keith, cameras for me mean a tool for a fairly usual kind of image-making. If any of us scores something special with our pictures, it's not because of our cameras.
Another point I've made here before, that underlines what I wrote above, is that I really doubt that had I been born into the era of digital photography, I would have made it a career. I have neither a natural aptitude for thinking in digital science, nor any urge to know more about it; I have learned enough to do what I do, and only do that because of the love for photography nurtured long ago.
In essence, jumping in now has worked for me because of my early and very long experiences with film and darkrooms, and because of those years I have been able to carry forward a set of personal conceptions of what images can look like and appear "natural" or, if you prefer, convincingly un-effed to death with PS or whatever, even if some recent ones have stretched my imagination quite far into manipulation. But, I believe they have also looked realistic enough to work.
But none of that is thanks to a camera's set of tricks.
-
I would like my Sony to have the Live View Composite mode of Olympus. Great for astro landscapes.
-
Here's a few things I'd like to see:
- A camera OS SDK to permit third parties to customize the camera. I see this becoming more important as more computational photography techniques are employed, such as focus stacking. Magic Lantern for everyone.
- A swiss arca L bracket integrated into the body.
- Add a shutter just inside the lens mount that closes whenever you remove a lens and opens again when a lens is replaced. This would make it way easier to change lenses in hostile environments.
- Incorporate tiny LCD displays for each button and dial showing the current customized function. For example, if you have customized button FN1 to preview DoF then it should show DoF is the current function, not the ambiguous FN1. Using multiple cameras, I'm always forgetting what does what.
- The UI should be designed to work optimally using only the right hand wearing light gloves while looking through the viewfinder to adjust exposure and focus controls: shutter speed, aperture, ISO, Auto ISO on/off, focus location, focus mode, zoom focus check and custom modes C1 - Cn.
- When in manual exposure mode, I would like to be able ramp shutter speed and ISO to maintain the same EV. For example, I might have an action exposure of 1/1600 sec, ISO 1600, f/5.6 and I want to change to a static exposure of the subject. I want to reduce the shutter speed and ISO quickly to 1/400 sec and ISO 400. This must work using only the right hand while looking through the viewfinder. Note that this is different from using auto ISO, which may change the EV as you recompose or the light changes. I want to maintain the set EV.
-
When in manual exposure mode, I would like to be able ramp shutter speed and ISO to maintain the same EV. For example, I might have an action exposure of 1/1600 sec, ISO 1600, f/5.6 and I want to change to a static exposure of the subject. I want to reduce the shutter speed and ISO quickly to 1/400 sec and ISO 400. This must work using only the right hand while looking through the viewfinder. Note that this is different from using auto ISO, which may change the EV as you recompose or the light changes. I want to maintain the set EV.[/li][/list]
I need to double check on the D850, but I believe that Nikon bodies have been able to do this since at least the D800 with a combination of auto-ISO in M mode and exposure lock.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I need to double check on the D850, but I believe that Nikon bodies have been able to do this since at least the D800 with a combination of auto-ISO in M mode and exposure lock.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks Bernard! This works. I'll have to figure out a good way to implement this. I sure wish Nikon did not cripple the customize buttons feature.
-
RAW histograms? If one shoots RAW, a RAW histogram makes more sense than a JPG histogram, even though the preview image is in JPG. One should be able to toggle between RAW and JPG histograms.
I am afraid that I am a bit old-school, it is often easier for me to just dial in manually than to putz with exposure compensation. I would like the option of in-camera stabilization for use with lenses lacking image stabilization. No IBIS is going to be great at handling 1:1 macro, though...
-
For what it’s worth, one of the ways I like to use auto-ISO is in M mode which allows me to set both aperture and speed and let the camera adjust the ISO while taking into account whatever exposure compensation I set. This works very well, but exposure remains based on the camera meter.
It would indeed be neat to do this based on an exposure assessment done from raw histogram with adjustable degree of ETTR.
Without underestimating the potential of technology nor the value of discussing it, the more I photograph though, the more I think that planning, awarness, light, vision and timing make 90% of an image and I wouldn’t consider an AI algo to be able to contribute to making my images better.
Cheers,
Bernard
Amen.
-
Another point I've made here before, that underlines what I wrote above, is that I really doubt that had I been born into the era of digital photography, I would have made it a career. I have neither a natural aptitude for thinking in digital science, nor any urge to know more about it; I have learned enough to do what I do, and only do that because of the love for photography nurtured long ago.
In essence, jumping in now has worked for me because of my early and very long experiences with film and darkrooms, and because of those years I have been able to carry forward a set of personal conceptions of what images can look like and appear "natural" or, if you prefer, convincingly un-effed to death with PS or whatever, even if some recent ones have stretched my imagination quite far into manipulation. But, I believe they have also looked realistic enough to work.
But none of that is thanks to a camera's set of tricks.
I guess I have the opposite experience, having started photography and computing at about the same time: the late 1970's, as a child. My parents were academics- my father an Electrical Engineer, my mother a Pure Mathematician who made a living solving other university researchers' crazy hard-to-solve computer program bugs. Both also photographed as a hobby. I played with my first cameras around the same time I started playing with logic gates and oscilloscopes; the university film development labs and the electronics labs.
I become a professional photographer the same year Canon introduced their first dSLR. I realised on a photographic trip I'd done to LA that if I'd bought the D30 before the shoot, it would have paid for itself in film processing costs alone. And it saved the god-awful flog of getting film scanned.
My business model relies on the low cost and relatively high volumes that digital facilitates. Digital and the web are the reason I could go pro at all.
In the interim, I was a professional scientist- a particle physicist, working in experiments where digital data were everything and everywhere. It's probably not surprising that I just see the camera as the first step in the data processing chain.
I was also a hobbyist landscape and people photographer who was never really satisfied with the results. (Film's over-rated. I hate grain, and even Provia 100 had too much for my tastes. Heresy, but for my particular photographic style and business, true).
It's great that our current cameras support traditional working methods.
But what excites me more is that they've also democritized and opened up whole areas of photographic art that were previously prohibitively slow and painstaking for all but a few obsessives to really contemplate. And some which were flat out impossible.
A great example of this is multi-image capture. It was always possible to do image stitching, even in the darkroom. But making big panoramas was tough- matching the exposure to compensate for lens vignetting, for example. People used to do HDR by selective exposure of prints from different negatives: on relatively easy-to-cut-out subjects like the full moon and a moonlit landscape, say. They did the sort of tone mapping that selective dodging and burning represents to reduce the dynamic range to that which a print can comfortably hold.
Cameras have facilitated this sort of set-up for years. Marking the nodal point and film plane, for example. Auto-exposure bracketing. These have been around so long that you don't tend to hear people complain about them. They just use them or not, depending on whether they are useful for them.
Now we have genuinely new fields of photography which permit us to make images which were nigh-on impossible to get with film cameras before the digital post processing era. Like focus stacking for macro shots.
You probably could have done it in an analogue way combining a small number of exposures for a landscape, or using split dioptres. But now it is possible to stack tens or hundreds of images to render front-to-back sharpness of extreme macro shots. That's new.
That may not be the sort of photography that you are interested in.
But it is a great example of a place where a digital camera can make the whole thing a hell of a lot easier to do. This doesn't involve any crazy AI or anything else that people seem to be fretting about. It's a purely mechanical thing- automate the process of taking 20 or 30 or 50 shots making small changes to the focus point for each shot. This in no way compromises the photographer's skill or vision. It just automates a really dull and fiddly mechanical process.
And if you're going to do that, why not tag the shots in the metadata to facilitate the post-processing as well? And if the processing power is there in camera, why not build a JPEG preview of the focus stacked shot while you are at it?
I remember the complaints about being able to look at shots on the back of the camera, that it would erode the traditional skill of waiting with panic for the shots to come back from the lab to make sure you'd not made an unwitting technical cock-up on an expensive shoot. That was nonsense; we're now rightfully expecting better and better screens, the better to judge the shots as soon as we've taken them. For the vast majority of photographers, instant review is a significantly better way to work.
I remember the complaints about video features on dSLR, when video is a feature that you'd be hard pushed NOT to implement the moment you have live view (which lots of trad manual focus photographers were calling out for).
Sure, there's an argument that going too heavy on the video side might compromise the ergonomics on the stills side. Ergonomics is the thread that always runs parallel to new functionality. It takes time to get right, and it can be intrusive in the meantime.
But I'd have to say that my Panasonic GH4 is pretty nice ergonomically for stills and video. For sure not as nice as a full-blown digital cine camera, but also a whole lot nicer to carry up a mountain. The Sony video ergonomics are fine, and don't really impinge much on the stills ergonomics either.
Plenty of people said OIS and IBIS was a gimmick, who needed that when you've got a good solid tripod, after all? The answer is anyone who doesn't like shooting with a tripod, or whose photographic subject makes that difficult. A photojournalist moving fast, or a wedding photographer moving with the bride and groom, say.
The algorithms behind IBIS are pretty fearsome- but they don't impinge on the photo-taking experience for most photographers. At least not most of the time. There are a few edge cases like panning in video or using lenses which don't transmit focal length data, for which it is easy to turn off or control more manually. Many photographers, myself included, can just leave the IBIS on for 95% of shots... and get sharper results handheld as a result. And with each generation the algorithm improves to the point where it now deals acceptably well with panning shots for most practical purposes, and it doesn't seem to do much harm leaving it on for shortish exposures on a tripod these days, even. Can help with residual vibrations or wind, I find. Especially if it means I can take a 1 kg travel tripod up the mountain rather than a 5 kg monster.
It's the same with autofocus, especially eye AF. Ferociously complicated algorithms to implement a basic photographic task- focus on the closer eye. It sounds like a gimmick until you've experienced how well it works. But conceptually it's dead easy, and actually using it is so simple (push a button) that my regular assistants prefer using the Sonys to the Hasselblad these days.
So I guess for me I like the idea of the camera offering us higher level abstractions, facilitating manual control over the things that matter (like getting a complete focus stack with all the necessary shots) rather than insisting on the old abstractions as the only way to go (forcing you to adjust focus manually by the correct amount for each of those 30-ish shots in a focus stack).
I think it is really exciting that stuff which was out of reach or plain impossible 20 years ago is now within the realm of jobbing photographers and amateurs. Astro-landscape, for example. Sure, it gets trendy, then overused, then stale, then naff. But 90% of everything is crap, and the 10% can be AWESOME.
So honestly- I think you're mistaken about a CAMERA's bag of tricks. The camera's bag of tricks is there to facilitate getting the result that the photographer wants. I just don't see why that's a bad thing, so long as the ergonomics are acceptable. Finding the right control metaphors and streamlining the UI takes time, and this stuff is new. But the "tricks" themselves are facilitators, not obstacles.
You can't walk on to a sports field with a new dSLR and a 400mm lens and expect to outsell the 20 year veteran next to you. The photographer is still key, and he probably COULD shoot with a manual focus lens and still get more saleable shots than Joe Newbie. But you can also bet that the 20 year veteran is, in fact, using a top-flight camera with the best autofocus that money can buy. Because that automation is the right facilitator for their shots.
Like eye AF is the right facilitator for many people photographers, and focus stacking is for focus-stacking-extreme-macro photographers. Your first focus stacked macro shot will still be shit. And yet when you figure out what you are doing, having the camera automate some of the drudgery will become a feature that might decide your whole choice of camera system.
Cheers, Hywel Phillips
-
I guess I have the opposite experience, having started photography and computing at about the same time: the late 1970's, as a child. My parents were academics- my father an Electrical Engineer, my mother a Pure Mathematician who made a living solving other university researchers' crazy hard-to-solve computer program bugs. Both also photographed as a hobby. I played with my first cameras around the same time I started playing with logic gates and oscilloscopes; the university film development labs and the electronics labs.
I become a professional photographer the same year Canon introduced their first dSLR. I realised on a photographic trip I'd done to LA that if I'd bought the D30 before the shoot, it would have paid for itself in film processing costs alone. And it saved the god-awful flog of getting film scanned.
My business model relies on the low cost and relatively high volumes that digital facilitates. Digital and the web are the reason I could go pro at all.
In the interim, I was a professional scientist- a particle physicist, working in experiments where digital data were everything and everywhere. It's probably not surprising that I just see the camera as the first step in the data processing chain.
I was also a hobbyist landscape and people photographer who was never really satisfied with the results. (Film's over-rated. I hate grain, and even Provia 100 had too much for my tastes. Heresy, but for my particular photographic style and business, true).
It's great that our current cameras support traditional working methods.
But what excites me more is that they've also democritized and opened up whole areas of photographic art that were previously prohibitively slow and painstaking for all but a few obsessives to really contemplate. And some which were flat out impossible.
A great example of this is multi-image capture. It was always possible to do image stitching, even in the darkroom. But making big panoramas was tough- matching the exposure to compensate for lens vignetting, for example. People used to do HDR by selective exposure of prints from different negatives: on relatively easy-to-cut-out subjects like the full moon and a moonlit landscape, say. They did the sort of tone mapping that selective dodging and burning represents to reduce the dynamic range to that which a print can comfortably hold.
Cameras have facilitated this sort of set-up for years. Marking the nodal point and film plane, for example. Auto-exposure bracketing. These have been around so long that you don't tend to hear people complain about them. They just use them or not, depending on whether they are useful for them.
Now we have genuinely new fields of photography which permit us to make images which were nigh-on impossible to get with film cameras before the digital post processing era. Like focus stacking for macro shots.
You probably could have done it in an analogue way combining a small number of exposures for a landscape, or using split dioptres. But now it is possible to stack tens or hundreds of images to render front-to-back sharpness of extreme macro shots. That's new.
That may not be the sort of photography that you are interested in.
But it is a great example of a place where a digital camera can make the whole thing a hell of a lot easier to do. This doesn't involve any crazy AI or anything else that people seem to be fretting about. It's a purely mechanical thing- automate the process of taking 20 or 30 or 50 shots making small changes to the focus point for each shot. This in no way compromises the photographer's skill or vision. It just automates a really dull and fiddly mechanical process.
And if you're going to do that, why not tag the shots in the metadata to facilitate the post-processing as well? And if the processing power is there in camera, why not build a JPEG preview of the focus stacked shot while you are at it?
I remember the complaints about being able to look at shots on the back of the camera, that it would erode the traditional skill of waiting with panic for the shots to come back from the lab to make sure you'd not made an unwitting technical cock-up on an expensive shoot. That was nonsense; we're now rightfully expecting better and better screens, the better to judge the shots as soon as we've taken them. For the vast majority of photographers, instant review is a significantly better way to work.
I remember the complaints about video features on dSLR, when video is a feature that you'd be hard pushed NOT to implement the moment you have live view (which lots of trad manual focus photographers were calling out for).
Sure, there's an argument that going too heavy on the video side might compromise the ergonomics on the stills side. Ergonomics is the thread that always runs parallel to new functionality. It takes time to get right, and it can be intrusive in the meantime.
But I'd have to say that my Panasonic GH4 is pretty nice ergonomically for stills and video. For sure not as nice as a full-blown digital cine camera, but also a whole lot nicer to carry up a mountain. The Sony video ergonomics are fine, and don't really impinge much on the stills ergonomics either.
Plenty of people said OIS and IBIS was a gimmick, who needed that when you've got a good solid tripod, after all? The answer is anyone who doesn't like shooting with a tripod, or whose photographic subject makes that difficult. A photojournalist moving fast, or a wedding photographer moving with the bride and groom, say.
The algorithms behind IBIS are pretty fearsome- but they don't impinge on the photo-taking experience for most photographers. At least not most of the time. There are a few edge cases like panning in video or using lenses which don't transmit focal length data, for which it is easy to turn off or control more manually. Many photographers, myself included, can just leave the IBIS on for 95% of shots... and get sharper results handheld as a result. And with each generation the algorithm improves to the point where it now deals acceptably well with panning shots for most practical purposes, and it doesn't seem to do much harm leaving it on for shortish exposures on a tripod these days, even. Can help with residual vibrations or wind, I find. Especially if it means I can take a 1 kg travel tripod up the mountain rather than a 5 kg monster.
It's the same with autofocus, especially eye AF. Ferociously complicated algorithms to implement a basic photographic task- focus on the closer eye. It sounds like a gimmick until you've experienced how well it works. But conceptually it's dead easy, and actually using it is so simple (push a button) that my regular assistants prefer using the Sonys to the Hasselblad these days.
So I guess for me I like the idea of the camera offering us higher level abstractions, facilitating manual control over the things that matter (like getting a complete focus stack with all the necessary shots) rather than insisting on the old abstractions as the only way to go (forcing you to adjust focus manually by the correct amount for each of those 30-ish shots in a focus stack).
I think it is really exciting that stuff which was out of reach or plain impossible 20 years ago is now within the realm of jobbing photographers and amateurs. Astro-landscape, for example. Sure, it gets trendy, then overused, then stale, then naff. But 90% of everything is crap, and the 10% can be AWESOME.
So honestly- I think you're mistaken about a CAMERA's bag of tricks. The camera's bag of tricks is there to facilitate getting the result that the photographer wants. I just don't see why that's a bad thing, so long as the ergonomics are acceptable. Finding the right control metaphors and streamlining the UI takes time, and this stuff is new. But the "tricks" themselves are facilitators, not obstacles.
You can't walk on to a sports field with a new dSLR and a 400mm lens and expect to outsell the 20 year veteran next to you. The photographer is still key, and he probably COULD shoot with a manual focus lens and still get more saleable shots than Joe Newbie. But you can also bet that the 20 year veteran is, in fact, using a top-flight camera with the best autofocus that money can buy. Because that automation is the right facilitator for their shots.
Like eye AF is the right facilitator for many people photographers, and focus stacking is for focus-stacking-extreme-macro photographers. Your first focus stacked macro shot will still be shit. And yet when you figure out what you are doing, having the camera automate some of the drudgery will become a feature that might decide your whole choice of camera system.
Cheers, Hywel Phillips
Good analysis of your priorities, and like you say, a very different set of criteria to mine.
Your early experience and background certainly explains your duck-to-water delight with tech, which as I mentioned, leaves me out in the cold because my natural instincts lie at the polar opposite!
Guess we need different cameras.
:-)
-
Interesting, Hywel.
"3D camera" for beginners is an obvious choice for powerful in-camera processors.
Rapid landscape focus stack capture, rapid close-up focus stack capture could be easily automated in camera with AF lenses - essentially "give me x frames over y distance" - Magic Lantern add-on has been able to do this for at least 6 years. I would think that a lot more capture tasks could be automated. Pentax has the pixel shift technology, and apparently it is quite good if your subject is still - runs into expected problems if wind is blowing. Automated capture interests me more than fancy in-cam processing, because I want the control possible with different RAW converters, noise reduction programs, stacking and pano programs, etc. Who wants to peer closely at the tiny camera LCD (says the photographer on the wrong side of 60)? Much easier to choose image and then work on it on a decent sized monitor. And of course the deep-sky astro folks have been automating capture for ages now, so the photographer can get some sleep.
As for landscape, astro-landscape, etc being trendy - well, yes, but sometimes you just want to image Your Favorite Hike / campsite / etc. It is nice to travel to exotic locales, but I have plenty to do just within a 150 to 200 mile radius.
In film days in large format, Polaroid was pretty popular as a pre-check before imaging the film. Or - the only image made - remember positive-negative Polaroid? Before cheap digital capture, I burned through a lot of Polaroid film recording fluorescent bands in agarose and acrylamide gels.
-
Good analysis of your priorities, and like you say, a very different set of criteria to mine.
Your early experience and background certainly explains your duck-to-water delight with tech, which as I mentioned, leaves me out in the cold because my natural instincts lie at the polar opposite!
Guess we need different cameras.
:-)
Nah...for you there are plenty cameras from the 60's in pawn shops...that should keep you happy. ;)
-
Nah...for you there are plenty cameras from the 60's in pawn shops...that should keep you happy. ;)
At least we know he is a photographer. I'd bet the results he'd get from using those pawn shop cameras would put most supercomputer camera wielding contributors here to shame.
-
At least we know he is a photographer. I'd bet the results he'd get from using those pawn shop cameras would put most supercomputer camera wielding contributors here to shame.
So you equate being a photographer by the gear they use. Interesting.
I guess then "real drivers" were back in the 60's and today's drivers with their computerized vehicles are just wannabes. And I guess those scientists that run simulations on computers when they are designing rockets are not "real scientists" since the "real scientists" used slide rulers to do their computations.
I always get a kick out of the cave dwellers when they emerge into today's world.
-
Vision and ability + Simple box = Images to relish.
Peter
Why does the box have to be simple in order to get images to relish. I constantly see amazing images captured with today's cameras that could just not be possible with those simple boxes. But the opposite is not true...today's cameras could create all those images from yesteryear.
-
So you equate being a photographer by the gear they use. Interesting.
I guess then "real drivers" were back in the 60's and today's drivers with their computerized vehicles are just wannabes. And I guess those scientists that run simulations on computers when they are designing rockets are not "real scientists" since the "real scientists" used slide rulers to do their computations.
I always get a kick out of the cave dwellers when they emerge into today's world.
Not at all, I was suggesting Rob is a far better photographer than most here regardless of the camera he chooses to use. At least we know he is a photographer.
-
Not at all, I was suggesting Rob is a far better photographer than most here regardless of the camera he chooses to use. At least we know he is a photographer.
But that's not what we are talking about. Do you feel technology has made people worse photographers?
-
Not at all, I was suggesting Rob is a far better photographer than most here regardless of the camera he chooses to use. At least we know he is a photographer.
+1
Now, there is no doubt that technology opens up possibilities, be it DR, AF, eye AF,... but there is a threshold somewhere that may be defined in terms of who decides some important aspect of a photograph: the photographer or the camera.
We probably all agree that a camera mounted on a motorized tripod with an AI based algo deciding instead of the photographer the composition and timing of exposure isn’t photography anymore?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But that's not what we are talking about. Do you feel technology has made people worse photographers?
Not at all, if a photographer needs the tech then more power to their elbow. Not everyone does and describing those photographers who don't as cave dwellers is just insulting.
Peculiar as it may seem I tend to make judgements on image makers based on their images. If they can walk the walk I'll then listen with interest when they talk the talk.
-
Though many of those abilities appeal, I would start with a fast wireless interface with the more powerful computer with bigger screen and far more advanced software that I also carry, meaning a phone or tablet or laptop—then much of that fancy stuff could be done there, or at least using that device as a fancy remote control (and the newfangled stuff would be more easily ignored by those who don’t want it).
-
Not at all, if a photographer needs the tech then more power to their elbow. Not everyone does and describing those photographers who don't as cave dwellers is just insulting.
Peculiar as it may seem I tend to make judgements on image makers based on their images. If they can walk the walk I'll then listen with interest when they talk the talk.
I also find it insulting insinuating that because a photographer uses an advanced camera with a lot of automation...they are somehow not a "real photographer"...which has been implied by a few here. Would I love an option in a camera to do photo stacking in a camera to gain depth of field and clarity...yes I would. Manually taking images and slightly adjusting the focus has ZERO to do with being a great photographer...if the camera can take this drudgery out of the process...that's a win.
My A7R2 has an app that removes the need for ND filters by taking multiple images and merging them...another win as I don't need to fiddle around with filters. I have a flip screen on my camera enabling me to get lower to the ground without having to put my face into the mud in order to view through the viewfinder...another win. I can transfer images from my camera to my phone and share the images with friends and family...another win.
Tell me, from these technical advancements...which ones make me less of a photographer?
-
I also find it insulting insinuating that because a photographer uses an advanced camera with a lot of automation...they are somehow not a "real photographer"...which has been implied by a few here. Would I love an option in a camera to do photo stacking in a camera to gain depth of field and clarity...yes I would. Manually taking images and slightly adjusting the focus has ZERO to do with being a great photographer...if the camera can take this drudgery out of the process...that's a win.
My A7R2 has an app that removes the need for ND filters by taking multiple images and merging them...another win as I don't need to fiddle around with filters. I have a flip screen on my camera enabling me to get lower to the ground without having to put my face into the mud in order to view through the viewfinder...another win. I can transfer images from my camera to my phone and share the images with friends and family...another win.
Tell me, from these technical advancements...which ones make me less of a photographer?
Not by me. See my previous post.
-
Not by me. See my previous post.
No...but some others.
-
No...but some others.
Not by me either.
Automated focus stacking is clearly useful and isn’t taking away any significant decision from the photographer.
Robotic stitching ism’t either.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At least we know he is a photographer. I'd bet the results he'd get from using those pawn shop cameras would put most supercomputer camera wielding contributors here to shame.
Thanks for the defence, Keith, but as you know from your own long experience, it's what's in your head at the time that counts.
For myself, the less I have to consider apart from how the the image looks, the better!
Another poster writes:
1. "So you equate being a photographer by the gear they use. Interesting.
2. I guess then "real drivers" were back in the 60's and today's drivers with their computerized vehicles are just wannabes. And I guess those scientists that run simulations on computers when they are designing rockets are not "real scientists" since the "real scientists" used slide rulers to do their computations.
I always get a kick out of the cave dwellers when they emerge into today's world." ... chez
........................
1. How this conclusion is arrived at is anybody's guess; mine would be that it's due to a half-grasped interpretation that is only half-grasped because the mind was unable to go further into the true meaning of the post because of a panic reaction of recognition that blurred the rest of the message. Happens all over the place, especially in ancient locked threads. (In relation to which, I recommend reading Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.)
2. I gather the reference to drivers was about those who race? If so, then perhaps not such a clever one. If driving skill is related to man's ability to handle a vehicle, then I fail to grasp how making the vehicle more capable of taking care of itself adds to the skills of the driver. But what do cave-dwellers know, especially those from Scotland? Need to consult a certain J. Stewart for that information.
;-)
-
Sigh.
I didn't intend this thread to descend into traditionalist-vs-supercomputer-camera-user rivalry. LL is notable for the high proportion of working professionals to keyboard warriors, and we all work the way we like to work.
All that matters is the final image (modulo the ethics of making it- being kind, not putting anyone in danger!)
It doesn't really matter how we get there.
For me, more options for removing drudgery from making of the images are great. As new features evolve we do need to be mindful of the ergonomics to make them useable and controllable, though.
Personally, I would NEVER go back to the darkroom. I'm far too used to be able to hit CTRL-Z!
But if you are a different sort of photographer, the darkroom might be your palette and playground.
The sweet spot will be different for different people, shooting different subjects, in different styles and in different positions.
Even for the same photographer in different conditions, actually. I have a raw shooting/manual control app for shooting on my iPhone. I never use it. If I want more control, I reach for a Sony. And yet others can make beautiful art with their iPhone.
A bad workman blames his tools... but a professional workman will show up with the right tools for the job.
Cheers, Hywel
-
After reading all of this thread and most good points of view...I would like, across the board, for all camera folks to adopt DNG.
You would think simple, but not so! Why?
Peter
-
After reading all of this thread and most good points of view...I would like, across the board, for all camera folks to adopt DNG.
You would think simple, but not so! Why?
Because controlling the format is perceived by many companies as being a step towards controlling an industry and that Japanese manufacturers don’t see why an American company should control an industry to which they only contribute marginally?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Because controlling the format is perceived by many companies as being a step towards controlling an industry and that Japanese manufacturers don’t see why an American company should control an industry to which they only contribute marginally?
Cheers,
Bernard
Plus, I may be completely wrong here, but would a universal format (DNG or other) be able to preserve some of the corrections/profiles/other type of data that is stored in proprietary RAW formats?
-
In addition to the original post, before the thread lost it's way for a while ;) here are a few that come to mind after just a minute thinking about it. Some may or may not have been mentioned...
- I'd like to see is to use AI and quantitative imaging to correct for diffraction based on the aperture in use automatically as part of the image processor in camera.
- Global shutter for all sensor sizes
- Longer term, a complete elimination of the Bayer sensor using technologies that haven't even been demonstrated yet that allow all colors to be sensed at a single pixel site without any trickery and weird color gain algorithms to balance the luminance for every color (which is unlike Foveon)
- 16 bit color capture comes down to most pro-sumer and above cameras
- Completely user configurable menu structures. The way I envision this is to provide a website or other online service that allows you to build the menu any way you want and then checks the integrity, checks if you left anything out that the camera is capable of, etc. and then allows you to upload the menu to the camera. A fully customizable UI basically.
- Vastly improved EVF dynamic range.
-
Agreed 100% with all the points in your list!
Those would all be solid contributors and seen aligned with valid technological developments manufacturers will be interested in investing in.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A great list - the RGB sensor is going to be hard, since you either have to have three adjacent sensors and a prism splitting the light (video cameras used to work this way, but it would be very bulky with even APS-C sensors, let alone full-frame) OR some way of compensating for the fact that some wavelengths of light will be recorded on the top sensor of a stack, some will go through one sensor, and some unlucky wavelengths will have to go through two sensors (Foveon).
I think the new Nikon Z series take a first look at the diffraction issue?
Global shutter seems possible and useful - can it retain the dynamic range of present sensor designs?
16 bit capture is useful - the best current sensors (below medium format) are pushing right up against the limits of 14 bits of data...
User configurable menus should be easy - why has nobody done this?
Not sure about the technical prospects on EVF DR - great idea...