Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Telecaster on January 29, 2015, 05:57:12 pm
-
Posted today:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/panic-is-setting-in.html
In addition to the wireless capabilities Thom advocates I'd add another: firmware updates. Why do I need a desktop or laptop for this?! Cameras should be able to download new firmware via WiFi and install it untethered. Sheesh!
-Dave-
-
Interesting read.
This year will be very interesting watching the main players and their response to current market conditions.
Tony Jay
-
Thom makes a good point about cameras not being able to share pictures in an easy way as phones do.
Still phones have 3G/4G, so will always have that advantage over camera's, wifi or not.
A lot of people do not care for high quality pictures, as long as they can recognize who is on it, it is good enough,
So i think the point and shoots will disappear and the higher end cameras will remain.
-
I asked the guy in local Best Buy when I needed a memory card how the camera sales were going. "Slow, can't even give away the P&S cameras from last generation. The cells are taking a serious toll, even with the larger cameras."
As print media wanes, it could follow with the DLSR too ans it just needs to look good on a screen. No more desktop computers with big boxes and cables, laptops maybe for a while until the tablets kill them off too. So many cellular and tablet apps for editing now too. Cellphone screens are pushing to go to 4K quality within the year maybe with Samsung and their built-in cameras will get there sooner. No need to learn f/stops, shutter speeds, flash G/Ns, depth of field, color temperature as the cellphone will do it all for you automatically. Everyone is a now photographer and videographer now with what's in their pocket. Why carry all the other heavy and expensive stuff.
Spend some time looking at the Flickr cell site: https://www.flickr.com/groups/73532194@N00/ (https://www.flickr.com/groups/73532194@N00/) It's beginning to rival DSLR work.
SG
-
Yes, interesting reading and Thom makes some good points. I guess the majority of cell phone camera users are completely happy sharing and viewing their images on a laptop or computer screen, or on a TV. These folks will probably never want to print large or post process in order to squeeze every fraction of potential out of their (jpg) images. And that will be fine for them and a great deal of the market.
But there are others, who use cell phone cameras as reminders or to get GPS info or simple documentation. They'll have dedicated gear which will far better suit their photographic needs. I can't think of shooting those macros or landscapes I do (and print) with a tiny sensor or cell phone. Try holding a split neutral density filter in front of an iPhone lens! What about the requirements we place on Zeiss (as an example) lenses and then find cell phone images so great?
Where my wishes completely differ to Thom's is all those automatic features of transfer and download. That's all fine and dany if all batteries are (constantly) fully charged. Also, experience shows, that not all those automatic operations actually operate as intended. I'd rather kick off the function or action and make absolutely sure that it was done. We take backups and security so serious and want to rely on automatic transfers and such? I foresee major disappointment and complaints. I'm not convinced about that automation.
-
Yes, interesting reading and Thom makes some good points. I guess the majority of cell phone camera users are completely happy sharing and viewing their images on a laptop or computer screen, or on a TV. These folks will probably never want to print large or post process in order to squeeze every fraction of potential out of their (jpg) images. And that will be fine for them and a great deal of the market.
Bahahaha! Most cell phone users are happy to view their images on a itty bitty iPhone 5. Hell, my daughters don't even let the screen rotate so you can get a small image and you are stuck with itty bittty. When we need to see something, like show a photo to a few people, I have to pull out my phone, nicknamed The Plasma (Samsung Galaxy Note II). As I'm 50 years old, most of my cell phone photos are shot so I can enlarge them on screen and read something like product directions or serial numbers.
Where my wishes completely differ to Thom's is all those automatic features of transfer and download. That's all fine and dany if all batteries are (constantly) fully charged. Also, experience shows, that not all those automatic operations actually operate as intended. I'd rather kick off the function or action and make absolutely sure that it was done. We take backups and security so serious and want to rely on automatic transfers and such? I foresee major disappointment and complaints. I'm not convinced about that automation.
While the ability to wirelessly transfer images from my camera to something else would be nice, I don't need or want a bulk function. It would normally be selected images and that would require me to do the kickoff.
-
Don't care about wireless or updates.
What is sorely needed is a Japanese Leica knockoff rangefinder for $2500 - $3000
A 6mp FF back for the Hasselblad film cams for $2500 - $3000
-
Posted today:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/panic-is-setting-in.html
In addition to the wireless capabilities Thom advocates I'd add another: firmware updates. Why do I need a desktop or laptop for this?! Cameras should be able to download new firmware via WiFi and install it untethered. Sheesh!
-Dave-
I agree that many camera manufacturers still have a lot to learn from smart phones even 7 years after the first iPhone. I can't believe that my new D810 does not even have a GPS built-in, not to mention WiFi or touch screen. It's a wonderful sensor but the rest feels like from the last century. Even though my relatively new Sony RX100 III does have WiFi, it is somewhat clunky done and no touch screen. And no updates of firmware via WiFi from the camera. I just did a firmware update and it was the first time and it took me probably about 30 minutes to find the website, read the instructions, install an extra thing since I run Yosemite on my Mac, then find out that the firmware download is at the bottom of the page which was not obvious, download it, install the firmwareupdater, connect the camera via a USB cable, then run the update. The update itself was instructed via the firmware update, but ran very very slow. I didn't time it but I think it was about 15 minutes to just run the firmware update as the progress bar slowly moved to completion. At least it did complete....
No surprise that new cameras does not fly of the shelves ;)
I doubt very much that camera sales will come back to previous high levels. I think it will stabilize at a level where there is a balance and that this will be quite a bit lower than the sales today. Yes, the things Thom mentions would be nice to have, but I don't think this would change much. The key is that most people are not interested in the details of photography, the just snap some pics and share them and never print, so a smartphone with the excellent sharing capabilities is enough. Yes, anybody knows that they could get better quality and they could start zooming if they got a real camera, but it seems these days that a 28mm iPhone camera has become the normal lens :)
-
Not sure wi-fi is going to be faster than copying off the memory card. We had a wireless transfer gadget for a D3 a few years back, it was part of an event printer set up, that was the top of the range at the time but it was painfully slow, and every know and then it "dropped" an image, we ended up switching to tethered.
I can see why sales are down, if you've got a camera in your pocket why lug a big proper camera around, and as someone already said most people only put them on facebook or twitter, they don't need decent quality for that (and to be fair some phones are half decent)
-
.... I can't believe that my new D810 does not even have a GPS built-in...
I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?
-
geotagging
Frank
-
I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?
If I'm lost somewhere, at least I'd like to know where :)
-
Not sure wi-fi is going to be faster than copying off the memory card.
It should be. In fact, "tethered" should be wireless, secure, fast, and glitch-free. The Canon WFT wireless transmitters are all abysmal in performance and reliability given what they cost. And the fact that Canon doesn't make one WFT for all their cameras is a sign they don't care about wireless convenience.
>:(
-
I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?
You kidder!
Actually I like geotagging images. I have lots of chromes shot in NYC in the 80s, many of them I have idea where they were shot except for some where I wrote the location on the mounts (obviously I did not keep a shot log). It's not like I really need to have that information, but I do wish I did. (Then there's the time I forgot I was working with a scan and went to check the EXIF for exposure information, but that's another story....)
-
"What has to happen is simple, and I’ve been saying it for seven years now: the camera needs to be reinvented."
The camera has been reinvented, as he says a few paragraphs earlier -- It’s that smartphones are fast, fun, and convenient for dealing with images. Plus the image quality is “good enough.”
-
I've found some of my best subjects and locations when lost.
And that is exactly my point. Geotagging should be prohibited by law. Find your own damn spot, don't search for AA's tripod holes (or anyone else's, for that matter).
-
I agree that many camera manufacturers still have a lot to learn from smart phones even 7 years after the first iPhone. I can't believe that my new D810 does not even have a GPS built-in, not to mention WiFi or touch screen. It's a wonderful sensor but the rest feels like from the last century. Even though my relatively new Sony RX100 III does have WiFi, it is somewhat clunky done and no touch screen. And no updates of firmware via WiFi from the camera. I just did a firmware update and it was the first time and it took me probably about 30 minutes to find the website, read the instructions, install an extra thing since I run Yosemite on my Mac, then find out that the firmware download is at the bottom of the page which was not obvious, download it, install the firmwareupdater, connect the camera via a USB cable, then run the update. The update itself was instructed via the firmware update, but ran very very slow. I didn't time it but I think it was about 15 minutes to just run the firmware update as the progress bar slowly moved to completion. At least it did complete....
No surprise that new cameras does not fly of the shelves ;)
I doubt very much that camera sales will come back to previous high levels. I think it will stabilize at a level where there is a balance and that this will be quite a bit lower than the sales today. Yes, the things Thom mentions would be nice to have, but I don't think this would change much. The key is that most people are not interested in the details of photography, the just snap some pics and share them and never print, so a smartphone with the excellent sharing capabilities is enough. Yes, anybody knows that they could get better quality and they could start zooming if they got a real camera, but it seems these days that a 28mm iPhone camera has become the normal lens :)
Why? Two reasons: Mindset and onboard power! Camera manufacturers think a DSLR should be a digital version of a film SLR! Hence, they have no idea how to break out of that box and incorporate new functionality. In addition to space and weight, all these things take power.
Wireless will never be as fast as wired given the same level of technology. There is just way too much overhead in wireless. I much prefer downloading the cards. Compare the fastest real world attainable wireless technology with USB3 speeds.
-
Hi,
My philosophy is much about sharing.
Regarding tripod holes. I place my tripod with about 15 cm precision, GPS is accurate to 10 m perhaps. So I am not that concerned about folks reusing my tripod holes.
Would I be a commercial photographer, my view may be different. But I am no commercial photographer… simple as that.
Best regards
Erik
And that is exactly my point. Geotagging should be prohibited by law. Find your own damn spot, don't search for AA's tripod holes (or anyone else's, for that matter).
-
Regarding tripod holes. I place my tripod with about 15 cm precision, GPS is accurate to 10 m perhaps. So I am not that concerned about folks reusing my tripod holes.
Would I be a commercial photographer, my view may be different. But I am no commercial photographer… simple as that.
It's one thing for someone to go out and try to duplicate a photo they have seen. And for a professional that is earning money from that image, especially a unique take on a well shot subject or a totally new subject, I can understand the consternation if it is another professional trying to take his sales.
But...If you allow 10 people to place their tripods in a particular set of 'holes', you are going to get 10 pretty different images. That is only 1 decision among dozens that are going to impact the results. Things like elevation of the camera, pitch, tilt, yaw, focal length (field of view), sensor size, filtration, shutter speed, ISO, aperture, lighting, etc.
As an amateur, I like other people shooting in the same location, especially if I get to see the results and compare them to my own. Figure, I might actually learn something or have my own choices affirmed.
-
Look at the history of photography from day one to present and understand the different types of non user and user across the range of competences, wants and needs and it is easier to understand why things change as technology progresses and disruptive developments like roll film, format options/types, digital, video and camera phones take place. If the makers he seems to target want to focus on specific groups at different levels in their market then so be it. They have their reason for being what they are and the types of Customer they wish to serve with their own skill set of manufacturing and development curve.
The Yen has dropped and if it stays down long enough it could explain some of their own optimism and site of production moves
The real problem occurs when users better served by the entry level gimmicky products want to dictate to the makers they obsess over what the high end and flagship models should be like. Then we see lots of internet ranting... If it goes on long enough to affect shareholders then the makers may be forced to squirt out a "like that" product or two, knowing full well what they are best at and what they really need to focus on to stay in the business they want to be in...
The laws of physics and current technology will dictate what cameras will be like for specific specialist user groups, no amount of "works today but maybe useless in the future" additions will change that. What it would achieve is delay and disruption to more important developments
We should be happy that these makers can now focus on specialist camera types rather than exponential growth in manufacturing demands for the mid to low end products of the market. Crying over the buying habits of people who prefer Camera phones and their negative impact on a part of the Camera market that had undergone recent boom years solves nothing...
Everyone’s whishes are important, but the higher you go up the product level the less likely those extra non essential features and function will be adopted. Some people will never be satisfied as they want it all their own way ;-)
-
Wireless will never be as fast as wired given the same level of technology. There is just way too much overhead in wireless. I much prefer downloading the cards. Compare the fastest real world attainable wireless technology with USB3 speeds.
It's not a question about speed. My comment was about elegance and convenience in implementation. Like e.g. being able to download and install a firmware update via WiFi directly into the camera. Shouldn't be that difficult, should it? regarding downloading it is fine for me to put an SD card into my MacBook, but for others I think a lot could be learned from smartphones in terms of convenience and smartness, simply.
-
It's one thing for someone to go out and try to duplicate a photo they have seen. And for a professional that is earning money from that image, especially a unique take on a well shot subject or a totally new subject, I can understand the consternation if it is another professional trying to take his sales.
But...If you allow 10 people to place their tripods in a particular set of 'holes', you are going to get 10 pretty different images. That is only 1 decision among dozens that are going to impact the results. Things like elevation of the camera, pitch, tilt, yaw, focal length (field of view), sensor size, filtration, shutter speed, ISO, aperture, lighting, etc.
As an amateur, I like other people shooting in the same location, especially if I get to see the results and compare them to my own. Figure, I might actually learn something or have my own choices affirmed.
The key problem is that many people don't seem to realize that photography is at the core a terribly lonely occupation. ;)
Social sharing is about creating the impression for oneself of belonging, it is about killing loneliness.
Sharing is a mean to an end that, in this case, is probably at the very opposite of the essence of photography.
So the gap may be with the misunderstanding that people buying cameras have come to terms with the intrinsic loneliness they are committing to? Would camera manufacturers somehow have a hard time accepting the fact that they need to design cameras for people who don't like a key component of photography?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
If we look at cameras as picture taking devices they have in general long been good enough. OK sometimes we want/need more. Me, for instance I have been buying Sony SLRs for live view capacity. Would the Sony Alpha 900 have live view when it arrived, I would not buy three cameras.
There may be a feature/function/capability that we want/need. But, other than that cameras are pretty much good enough. So the traditional market is near saturation. Now, most people, that is potential customers, are actually not living in the west or in third worlds countries. More like in China and India. So I guess that part of the world will play a greater role, as those markets probably have less saturation.
I would guess that systematic improvements will still sell cameras but the replacement cycle is getting longer.
Best regards
Erik
-
I would guess that systematic improvements will still sell cameras but the replacement cycle is getting longer.
Best regards
Erik
I concur. That is why from a manufacturers standpoint, functionality increases make sense. At a base level, will I take a 'better' photo in the technical sense with a new camera as compared to the D810 I have now? Probably not. So to get me to upgrade you have to make the new camera do something more. The hard part is figuring out what that more is and is your base willing to pay for it, or can I attract new buys to my product with it?
-
I concur. That is why from a manufacturers standpoint, functionality increases make sense. At a base level, will I take a 'better' photo in the technical sense with a new camera as compared to the D810 I have now? Probably not. So to get me to upgrade you have to make the new camera do something more. The hard part is figuring out what that more is and is your base willing to pay for it, or can I attract new buys to my product with it?
That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.
There are many photographers that believe they will take better pictures with a new camera. Mostly that is not the case. The money is much better spent on books, workshops, travel etc. to improve the skills and eye for photography in my opinion.
-
It is still not clear to me that the decline in ILC sales is anything more than maturing of the market, with the boom from ILC using photographers converting from film to digital mostly past, and digital ILCs with imaging [EDIT: typo!] performance good enough now that there is less reason than before to upgrade until the camera breaks. The "nova" scenario probably applies only to pocketable fixed lens digital cameras, and those are probably doomed no matter what the camera makers do: reducing their inconvenience compared to phones is irrelevant so long as the camera in a phone (or the one in the desktop, laptop or tablet) is good enough at effectively zero net size, weight, and cost. So to compete with phone-cameras, adding these convenience features would at best reduce "friction" with potential customers who have already been attracted by actual advantages, like more (optical) zoom or better handling of fast action + low light (sports, children).
Also, most of the features that Thom H. talks off might best be supported by the camera working wirelessly with a phone or tablet that can offer an existing cellular data connection, a powerful processor, and a far bigger and better touch screen than fits the ergonomics of a "stand-alone" camera. What ILC at any price offers a preview/review screen matching that of the latest iPhone or Samsung Galaxy S models?
As to ILC's; I agree with several above that for overall sales (not affected greatly by the profitable but far smaller high end sector) improving convenience will win many more sales than incremental improvements in IQ. I expect that the biggest change with interchangeable lens cameras and their lenses will be offering an overall reduction in the size and weight need to meet the user's goals for IQ -- for example, by making EVF-based systems good enough to displace the optical viewfinder for an increasing number of potential ILC buyers.
-
That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.
Yep, and what did Apple do about it? Effectively, it has rolled the iPad functionality into a so-called "phone", the iPhone 6S! (As Samsung had already done.)
-
Yep, and what did Apple do about it? Effectively, it has rolled the iPad functionality into a so-called "phone", the iPhone 6S! (As Samsung had already done.)
The 6+ which I have does not replace an iPad IMHO. The point made is that if the product is very good as the iPad is then the existing users of the product do not upgrade very often. The sales is then for new customers. The iPad's are not out of favor in my opinion, it is just already so soon after the launch a mature product. Probably it is also hurt by the cheaper products that compete now. Just like the iPad the higher end cameras that do not compete with camera phones will stabilize and likely at a lower volume than today.
-
That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.
It called becoming a commodity. Not quite there with DSLRs, but we are getting close. It's why a few months ago I suggest we were going to plateau. Comuters, operating systems, cell phones, etc
-
"What has to happen is simple, and I’ve been saying it for seven years now: the camera needs to be reinvented."
The camera has been reinvented, as he says a few paragraphs earlier -- It’s that smartphones are fast, fun, and convenient for dealing with images. Plus the image quality is “good enough.”
Exactly.
The other thing that does not get mentioned is that digital got people who thought £80-90 for a camera was pricey to happily pay several hundred pound for a digital P+S and also convinced many to get a DSLR who would not have bought an SLR. Until phones took that entire market away that is.
It would be interesting to see how the last decade's enthusiast/pro camera sales compare to pre-digital. Much higher I think and such cameras will probably go back to that way of spending after the boom where people upgraded their cameras every couple of years for better quality. Now even the lowliest camera can produce amazing pics, so maybe people will go back to using a camera until it wears out rather than upgrading ASAP.
It's exactly like the software market. I predicted a move away from the annual upgrade cycle 7-8 years back as it became obvious that software had become good enough for most people with most software maturing rather than dramatically innovating. Which made subscription or a much reduced income the obvious end point for software companies.
It is still not clear to me that the decline in ILC sales is anything more than maturing of the market, with the boom from ILC using photographers converting from film to digital mostly past, and digital ILCs with imagine performance good enough now that there is less reason than before to upgrade until the camera breaks.
Indeed..
-
That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.
But the new one is 0.5mm thinner and 2 grams lighter. It must be better!
Apple's obsession with marginal shrinking of gear particularly gets in the way of functionality with computers. Having extra clutter after connecting more external hard drives, DVDs and other bits that used to be inside a single elegant device is not progress in my view. But hey it is very slightly thinner and impossible to upgrade, so it again must be better. :-\
-
Obviously, the 2 things that make cameras in cell phones viable is 1) Convenience...People tend to have the with them most of the time and they are relatively easy to carry and 2) Connectivity...You can share them on screen or post and email them immediately. One other thing that also plays is the processing capability built into the phone to in some way manipulate the image.
There are segments of the market that would benefit from connectivity...consumer DSLRs and photo-journalists, for example.
My thing is more on the processing side. I use my phone with outboard photo related apps like Sun Surveyor and DOF and ND calculators. I also tether my phone to my camera to control my camera for focus stacking, long exposure and other reasons. If I could remove the cell phone from the process and do these things on camera, especially if the camera could automatically use the data/results. For example, lets say the camera had the ability to calculate ND exposure time factors. I set the camera to shutter speed X and tell it I'm adding 10 stops of ND, does it automatically calculate and set the new shutter speed?
The question for manufacturers is can they do this and will users pay for it?
-
The 6+ which I have does not replace an iPad IMHO.
Not for your purposes, and not for all iPad users (which is why Apple still sells millions of iPads every month), but these big phones do meet the needs of a large number of former iPad and Android tablet buyers ... in the same way that phones now meet the need of many (not all!) former compact digital camera buyers, and even of a good number of snap-shooters who enthusiastically bought a DSLR with a single slow kit zoom lens, and now find themselves mostly leaving the camera at home and using the phone instead.
-
Not for your purposes, and not for all iPad users (which is why Apple still sells millions of iPads every month), but these big phones do meet the needs of a large number of former iPad and Android tablet buyers ... nn the same way that phones now meet the need of many (not all!) former compact digital camera buyers, and even of a good number of snap-shooters who enthusiastically bought a DSLR with a single slow kit zoom lens, and now find themselves mostly leaving the camera at home and using the phone instead.
I have used a 5.5" Samsung Galaxy Note II for the last 2 years and resisted buying a tablet. My next phone most likely will be Note 4 and I still probably won't buy a tablet, especially something as limited as an iPad. My phone does about 90% what a tablet can do. The only downside is the smallish screen.
-
This is one part of the equation to make the next generation cameras more functional:
A Battery for Electronics That Lasts Twice as Long (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/534626/a-battery-for-electronics-that-lasts-twice-as-long/)
-
I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?
We are never lost.... just geographically dislocated ;)
-
And that is exactly my point. Geotagging should be prohibited by law. Find your own damn spot, don't search for AA's tripod holes (or anyone else's, for that matter).
Umm... for me it is more so I can build a map of where shots were taken, and be able to easily revisit a location if needed/desired. That said, few of mine are geo-tagged (seriously, Olympus needs to add it to their cameras...). You can always stirp the exif data before posting online if you want, but you can't magically create it if you never had it.
-
Doesn't having GPS on drain the battery faster?
-
Doesn't having GPS on drain the battery faster?
Probably. But I almost never run through a single battery on my E-M5, let alone the two spare batteries I have with me. If you have a habit of running through batteries, then yes, it could be an issue.
-
Doesn't having GPS on drain the battery faster?
So long as you can turn GPS off if/when you do not need it, why are you bothered by the fact that sone other people like a convenient record of where they took a photo?
I do not understand the habit of some people to argue against a popular feature simply because they personally do not want or need it, but can easily ignore with no harm. Especially when adding such a feature (like video in a CMOS camera) has a favorable ratio of popular appeal to cost, so that its presence is likely to move the camera to a higher volume, lower margin, lower price point, benefiting even those who do not use the feature.
(But a camera making use of the GPS in my phone via WiFi or Bluetooth would also be fine with me!)
P. S. As an old-timer used to changing film every 24 to 36 exposures, the possible need to swap in a spare battery once a day is very, very low on my list of worries when choosing a camera.
-
Hopefully the ubiquity of, and user satisfaction from, the smartphone camera market will free up the camera makers to shed all of the useless crap from some of their top-level "professional" dSLRs so someone who is interested in photography can have a tool that is meant for photography. Please remove useless controls on important dials, let JPEGs go to pasture (or at least offer the option to completely disable all of the JPEG-related options and menu items) and emphasize raw image acquisition, reassign printing from camera and other buttons that could be given more useful roles by the user, etc. Please include a streamlined menu system, a raw histogram, unlimited bracketing, intervalometer, etc. Thankfully, as a Canon user, the Magic Lantern Project has partially reclaimed the dSLR for photographers in this regard - in fact, it demonstrates what a dSLR could be if Canon gave priority to photographers who use the camera as a creative tool. Strip out the bloat, cut the fat and redefine photography for digital users based on the working assumption that digital photography has changed in the last 10 years. These changes don't need to be applied across all models, but please, define a level of camera that removes distraction and unnecessary "features" and adds important functionality for a modern digital workflow.
I am obviously being extremely picky, but this shift in the market seems like an opportunity for camera manufacturers to let go of the feeling of obligation to please everyone all the time and concentrate on meaningful innovation, especially for its long-time users. Of course, I can only imagine that some marketing strategist is noting the small the fraction of users that would like this approach in comparison to the gazillions of potential users that would like a slim, wifi and cell-enabled P&S that has a Facebook browser built into it and comes in 8 colors with cute names. Such is life and I realize that my 5DIII with Magic Lantern is good enough.
kirk
-
^^^ Amen, brother!
-
... I do not understand the habit of some people to argue against a popular feature simply because they personally do not want or need it, but can easily ignore with no harm...
Because there are two types of people, those for whom "less is less" and those for whom "less is MORE"?
-
Umm... for me it is more so I can build a map of where shots were taken, and be able to easily revisit a location if needed/desired. That said, few of mine are geo-tagged (seriously, Olympus needs to add it to their cameras...). You can always stirp the exif data before posting online if you want, but you can't magically create it if you never had it.
There are some other benefits as well. When the camera is synced to GPS time, you never have to worry about updating the clock when you change time zones. Keeps your EXIF cleaner for sequencing purposes. I imagine that would be very helpful for the guy who shoots high school yearbook shots in the park across from my house. The biggest problem he has is making sure he can tie each shot to the correct individual for ordering, uploading, etc. If you're trying to manage that with multiple cameras, accurate time is a big help.
Personally, I wish I had accurate times and locations for the many thousands of shots I took in the film days. I always geocode now when I can. And if you don't want it, you just turn it off.
-
Interesting article that serendipitously appeared in a feed of mine, sort of relevant to the topic:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/feb/03/instagram-generation-amateur-photographers-art-plagiarism
kirk
-
Because there are two types of people, those for whom "less is less" and those for whom "less is MORE"?
Slobodan,
I am well aware of that slogan "less is more"; but also note that it is often thrown out in the absence of actual concrete arguments relevant to the situation at hand, in order to support an irrational, sometimes puritanical mindset -- especially when the proposed "less" simultaneously makes products less capable and more expensive.
So do you have any rational arguments or evidence on the particular subject of the evil of offering GPS support to those who have a good use for it?
Kirk instead offers some reasoning:
... shed all of the useless crap from some of their top-level "professional" dSLRs so someone who is interested in photography can have a tool that is meant for photography. Please remove useless controls on important dials, ... (... offer the option to completely disable all of the JPEG-related options and menu items) and emphasize raw image acquisition, reassign printing from camera and other buttons that could be given more useful roles by the user, etc. ...
In the case of GPS, the claim of "useless" sits poorly with the number competent photographers who have stated a use for geotagging, so let's not equate "of no use to _me_" with "useless crap that does not belong on any professional camera". However, I do heartily agree that prominent buttons and dials should not be permanently wasted on functions that a good number of users rarely or never want, and so I like the solution that Olympus for example often uses: all but the most universally important functions are on programmable buttons (like "video record" becoming "activate manual focus" or "set white balance" or just "inactive"). An idea inspired by the Olympus E-2: have just a couple dials with core functions, and then have programmable (and deactivatable) buttons that when pressed turn the dials into the control for the more exotic setting assigned to that button.
One frontier (where Olympus is instead not so good) is reconfigurable menus, allowing each user to put the stuff that is used often readily at hand while burying the rest -- as with the "other ..." menu so common on phone apps, where minimizing interface clutter is far more advanced than in most digital camera design.
-
Kirk instead offers some reasoning:In the case of GPS, the claim of "useless" sits poorly with the number competent photographers who have stated a use for geotagging, so let's not equate "of no use to _me_" with "useless crap that does not belong on any professional camera". However, I do heartily agree that prominent buttons and dials should not be permanently wasted on functions that a good number of users rarely or never want, and so I like the solution that Olympus for example often uses: all but the most universally important functions are on programmable buttons (like "video record" becoming "activate manual focus" or "set white balance" or just "inactive"). An idea inspired by the Olympus E-2: have just a couple dials with core functions, and then have programmable (and deactivatable) buttons that when pressed turn the dials into the control for the more exotic setting assigned to that button.
One frontier (where Olympus is instead not so good) is reconfigurable menus, allowing each user to put the stuff that is used often readily at hand while burying the rest -- as with the "other ..." menu so common on phone apps, where minimizing interface clutter is far more advanced than in most digital camera design.
I think you may have conflated my grouchiness with the discussion of GPS, which I made no mention of in my post. That said, I have never considered it necessary enough to think about buying a camera that has it, so maybe I do not know what I am missing.
If you like GPS, more power to you. If your camera does not have it, you can carry a GPS unit around with you and insert geo-tagging after the fact, synchronizing your GPS breadcrumb with your images via time. In other words, GPS might be useful, but it is not necessary to have built-in to the camera (forensic or other validation-specific tasks or applications notwithstanding). Using an external GPS also takes the battery load off of the camera. With an actual GPS unit you can even navigate to your destination and find your way back if you get lost.
For example:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/gps
since there are many Lightroom users here. Jeffrey Friedl is apparently really into geo-encoding his images, as the initial part of the tracklog description notes:
The Tracklog Tab
Lightroom has tracklog support built in, but this plugin's tracklog support is far superior:
In addition to the latitude and longitude, this plugin actually fills in the altitude from the tracklog, which Lightroom's built-in support inexplicably ignores.
The plugin adds “speed” and “bearing” metadata to each image.
The plugin can automatically add map links (to a variety of online mapping services) to the metadata for each image, easily accessible via Library's “Metadata” panel (especially if you use my metadata-viewer preset builder to include the map link in the default metadata view Lightroom shows for each photo).
This plugin can handle multiple tracklogs at once.
This plugin has no built-in limit on the size of the tracklogs.
The plugin can handle almost any kind of tracklog format (not just GPX like Lightroom's built-in support) via automatic conversion with gpsbabel. The plugin also has built-in support for the incorrectly-formatted tracklog files produced by some popular phone location-tracking apps.
The handling of timezone offset is clear and actually works.
You can easily compensate for a camera clock that was off a bit.
You control the “fuzziness” for how close in time a photo can be affected by a tracklog data point.
You can easily view the tracklog in Google Earth.
You can automatically apply custom reverse-geoencode data as you apply the tracklog, so (for example) a photo taken at a park you frequent automatically gets the name of the park filled in to the “location” metadata item, as well as the city/state/country metadata items.
This plugin supported tracklog geoencoding for years before Lightroom supported any kind of geoencoding. (I've geoencoded all my photos with it since 2008; Lightroom didn't get built-in geoencoding until 2012.) The passion and care I have for geoencoding comes out in the many features this plugin has.
kirk
-
If your camera does not have it, you can carry a GPS unit around with you and insert geo-tagging after the fact, synchronizing your GPS breadcrumb with your images via time. In other words, GPS might be useful, but it is not necessary to have built-in to the camera (forensic or other validation-specific tasks or applications notwithstanding).
I know you were not arguing against in-camera GPS specifically, that was just the specifically example at hand.
Syncing GPS data after the fact seems like something that many people would legitimately prefer to avoid. However I agree that an external device might handle it, if it is wireless enable device like a phone that the camera can ask for GPS information and add to the image metadata without need for later effort by the user. Wireless connectivity (maybe Bluetooth low-energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_low_energy) for its minimal effect on battery life) plus a decent software environment in cameras might address many of Thom Hogan's wishes with negligible hardware effect on the camera itself.
-
I know you were not arguing against in-camera GPS specifically, that was just the specifically example at hand.
Syncing GPS data after the fact seems like something that many people would legitimately prefer to avoid. However I agree that an external device might handle it, if it is wireless enable device like a phone that the camera can ask for GPS information and add to the image metadata without need for later effort by the user. Wireless connectivity (maybe Bluetooth low-energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_low_energy) for its minimal effect on battery life) plus a decent software environment in cameras might address many of Thom Hogan's wishes with negligible hardware effect on the camera itself.
I think making the camera able to communicate with external devices in an SDK-supported way will have to be one tine in the fork of innovation. For exactly the kind of interconnected access that you proposed. I am not sure why geo-encoding after the fact is a big dilemma, but, again, I do not use it, so forgive my ignorance.
kirk
-
Slobodan,
I am well aware of that slogan "less is more"; but also note that it is often thrown out in the absence of actual concrete arguments relevant to the situation at hand, in order to support an irrational, sometimes puritanical mindset -- especially when the proposed "less" simultaneously makes products less capable and more expensive.
So do you have any rational arguments or evidence on the particular subject of the evil of offering GPS support to those who have a good use for it?
Kirk instead offers some reasoning...
Well, in the spirit of less-is-more, I refrained from elaborating ;)
Anyone who belongs to the less-is-more tribe, intuitively understand the arguments for, without the need to enumerate them. Besides, Kirk did offer some reasoning, rather eloquently, I and wholeheartedly agreed before posting my "slogan."
However, if you insist...
I believe that people should have the freedom of choice. So, if some find it useful (and I am not just talking about GPS), so be it, let them have it, but let me have my choice as well:
1. Either the same model as the crowd wants, but stripped down to bare essentials, i.e., no GPS, no damn video, no "creative" modes, no "art" filters, no direct-print button (oh, the horror of horrors), not Super Bowl light show in the viewfinder. The simpler it is, the less I have to think about it instead of what's in front of it. I would be even willing to pay a small premium for it, the likes of what Nikon charges to remove its OLP filter in 800e.
2. Or, as a minimum, let me remove all the unused menu items myself, so that I do not have to wade through the clutter of multi-level menus every time I need to adjust something
The ignoring argument: I can't ignore something that is permanently in front of me and clutters the dials or menus. Imagine that crowd wants to have a bobbing head permanently attached to new car's dashboard... would you be able to ignore it? I can't just ignore something on the menus that forces me to use the skip button repeatedly to get to the one I want. A plethora of menu options makes it more difficult to remember where are those that matter to me the most. Yes, I am aware of the "My Menu" option on many camera models, but they are typically limited to 5-6 options.
The cost argument: I am frankly impressed by your pretzel-twisted logical spinning, in which extra features do not result in extra cost, but in a cheaper product. What!?
The battery argument: GPS drains it, period. You say just switch the battery... during my amateur years, I never had the need for extra batteries. They are expensive, they need to be recharged, packed, etc., i.e., one more thing to worry about. I bought one when I started shooting professionally. And even then, switching it is not as simple as it seems. Certain camera models require to take them off tripod to do so. And it might happen just when I do not have those extra few minutes to fiddle with it. So, anything that reduces battery drain is welcome in my book.
Now, there are certain features that are not traditionally photographic that I do welcome: wi-fi and/or Bluetooth connectivity with my phone. Phones are always with us, and they have much better maps and GPS functions than cameras anyway. Or, if you really go into a deep wilderness, a separate GPS is much more useful and potentially life-saving. Connecting with a phone also allows for remote shooting.
Modern cameras are more like jumbo-jet cockpits: millions of blinking lights, instruments, needles, buttons, levers, handles, etc. It seems to me that some photographers confuse fiddling with it with photography.
-
Slobodan,
Since I agree with some of your points let me focus mostly on them.
1. I too am happy to be free of features that get in the way, like a Direct Print (or video) button that cannot be reassigned to another use, and as I mentioned already, I would love a configurable menu system that lets me bury items that I rarely or never need. But if that hiding/reassigning option is done right, this decluttering should not require having a separate stripped-down model, and running a second model for a smaller market could very well increase prices, due to lower sales volume, worse economies of scale etc. The cost benefits of economies of scale are hardly "pretzel logic". (As a possible example, the Nikon Df costs more than the Nikon D750, by far more than the cost of the shiny old-school knobs on top.)
2. ... so I like your option 2.
3. "Wi-fi and/or Bluetooth connectivity with my phone" sounds good to me too.
But please drop this "GPS drains batteries argument"; it has already been mentioned that a feature like this can be turned off if and when not needed!
-
The problem of falling DSLR sales is a general economic problem related to the requirements for continuous economic growth. Most people don't buy stuff because they need it. They buy stuff because it's 'cool', or fun, or enhances their status in the eyes of their friends.
This applies to all products. If products were manufactured with durability in mind, the economy would soon collapse. The car industry is one obvious example. We've all heard of that Henry Ford quote when he asked his engineers what part of the car never fails . The answer was 'the drive shaft'. Henry Ford's response was, 'Make it less strong'.
The clothing industry is another example. Modern technology is able to produce fabrics which will last a lifetime, excluding accidents which might tear the fabric. My own shirts and shorts are in this category.
Without a large percentage of the population motivated by concerns for fashion and appearances, the clothing industry would be in trouble.
On my recent travels in SE Asia, including Angor Wat in Cambodia which is completely over-run with Chinese tourists, I was amazed to see the proliferation of the 'selfie stick'. This is a device like a short walking stick which allows one to place one's iphone at a greater distance than arm's length, so one can photograph oneself and partner in front of any background.
My overall impression is that the vast majority of people with cameras are mainly interested in photographing themselves, wherever they may be. Vanity prevails.
I think there's a relatively small percentage of us who are motivated by fundamental image quality, and who get pleasure from processing RAW images in Photoshop to our individual taste
-
The problem of falling DSLR sales is a general economic problem related to the requirements for continuous economic growth. Most people don't buy stuff because they need it. They buy stuff because it's 'cool', or fun, or enhances their status in the eyes of their friends.
This applies to all products. If products were manufactured with durability in mind, the economy would soon collapse. The car industry is one obvious example. We've all heard of that Henry Ford quote when he asked his engineers what part of the car never fails . The answer was 'the drive shaft'. Henry Ford's response was, 'Make it less strong'.
This is a fallacy. You were more correct in the 1st paragraph. First, there are essential and discretionary spending. There are also durable and non-durable goods. Once a person's wages exceed his basic needs, it his then his discretion to save, invest or spend the remainder of his income.
For example, most people do not run the wheels off their cars. They sell them off and buy new at intervals shorter than the need and that interval is determined by personal preference and discretionary income. Higher income people tend to turn their cars over more quickly.
For some, upgrading cameras is a based on value. For a professional, they may have perfectly working cameras, but they perceive value and payback in the upgrade in some manner. It might be more DR, Higher MP, reliability, etc. For non-professionals, cameras are purely a discretionary purchase. For us, there must be something to entice us to upgrade AND we must have the discretionary funds to do so. In addition, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, all which has been fostered, at least in the US, by our political administration, plays. I may have the money now, but if I am uncertain of my future, I may hold on to it.
I would argue that a lot of discretionary spending has been curtailed for 2 reasons. Wage stagnation and unemployment is a real problem. People in the top 20 percent are doing pretty well, but the rest of the country have been stagnating. The 2nd is real inflation. The Government removed food and energy from the inflation numbers and those two items have seen, until recently tremendous inflation. 5 years ago, ground chuck was $2/lb. Today it is $4/lb. At least falling gasoline prices should help free up more discretionary spending.
-
In the film days, I tended to buy my more "serious" cameras used. I never once bought a new 4X5 or MF camera for example. So the pros who had bought those cameras new must have had good reasons, but also some idea in their minds that they could recover a good portion of the price if they sold them on later.
With digital, things are different. I still have my first digital camera, because it became completely obsolete (worthless) in a very short time. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think and research very hard before buying any new digital equipment, because I know I'll never be able to recover my investment later. I'm on my 3rd DSLR in 11 years, and if anything, I'll probably keep using the current one longer than the previous two. I can make the prints I need with it just the way it is, and it's hard to imagine needing more than that any time soon.
When I read about people switching brands because of incremental improvements, I always want to know where I can find the market where they're selling the slightly older stuff.
-
My overall impression is that the vast majority of people with cameras are mainly interested in photographing themselves, wherever they may be. Vanity prevails.
I think there's a relatively small percentage of us who are motivated by fundamental image quality, and who get pleasure from processing RAW images in Photoshop to our individual taste
What tosh. Is it at all possible that people aren't vain but simply want a picture of themselves on holiday? Perish the thought...
I was taking a picture of my girlfriend in the local park when a woman came up to us and asked if I'd like her to take a picture of us both... getting someone else to take a picture is one answer and the other is to take a selfie and neither option necessarily involves vanity.
I'm not so sure about your last comment either as I'm pretty sure it's possible to like or even love JPEG's and hate wasting your life in from of a computer running PS. That may not be your view but it's a valid one and maybe not just amongst Fuji owners.
-
This is a fallacy. You were more correct in the 1st paragraph. First, there are essential and discretionary spending. There are also durable and non-durable goods. Once a person's wages exceed his basic needs, it his then his discretion to save, invest or spend the remainder of his income.
For example, most people do not run the wheels off their cars. They sell them off and buy new at intervals shorter than the need and that interval is determined by personal preference and discretionary income. Higher income people tend to turn their cars over more quickly.
This is not quite correct. There are goods which are durable by their nature and some which are unavoidably 'not durable' by their nature, such as food.
When a manufacturer designs and engineers a product, a decision is always made regarding the intended durability of the product. I recall a revealing comment from a documentary I watched some time ago, relating to this subject. Apparently, the early manufacturers of the electric light bulb were very concerned about this issue of durability. Initially, there would have been a great lack of durability. However, after technological advances, such as the invention of the tungsten filament, and a general drive towards a more durable product, the board members of the major manufacturer of electric light bulbs at the time(can't remember the details) issued directives that the light bulbs should not be made 'too' durable, because this would affect future sales.
The same principle applies to the automotive industry, as expressed in the Henry Ford quote. Ideally, car manufacturers would like their customers to trade in their car for a new one every year, which is why they often introduce new models which have little improvement over older models, but just look a bit different. They have no incentive to produce durable cars that don't begin to disintegrate after the first 100,000 kms, but they could, technologically, if they had the economic incentive. Such a car might cost a bit more initially, but not nearly as much as the cost of a new car every 5 years or so.
Digital cameras are in the same category as computers. The driving force for new sales is an increase in performance coupled with a decrease in price. The increase in performance and the decrease in price over the past 15 years or so, has been staggering. Every DSLR I've bought, the first one about 12 years ago, has had a significant leap in performance over the previous model I owned.
As others have mentioned, we seem to have reached a plateau of technological improvement regarding the DSLR. I'm very satisfied with my Nikon D800E and have little incentive to buy a D810 for what appears to me to be rather minor improvements. However, if Nikon's next model were a 54mp full-frame with BSI sensor, had an additional full stop of SNR and DR at all ISOs, had 4K video capability including the facility to select individual video frames in RAW mode, and a LiveView system which worked like Canon's, I'd buy the camera in a shot, if the price were right. ;D
-
What tosh. Is it at all possible that people aren't vain but simply want a picture of themselves on holiday? Perish the thought...
I was taking a picture of my girlfriend in the local park when a woman came up to us and asked if I'd like her to take a picture of us both... getting someone else to take a picture is one answer and the other is to take a selfie and neither option necessarily involves vanity.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my comment. A picture of oneself on holiday is not necessarily vain, or even 2 or 3 or 4 pictures of oneself. However, the selfie stick is designed to facilitate only taking photos of oneself. Many tourists nowadays walk around with their iPhone continuously attached to such a stick. Most of the photos they take, and the impression I get is that sometimes it might be all of the photos they take, seem to be of themselves. Rarely do I see someone photographing just the place they've traveled to visit.
There seems to be a general ethos among the majority of people taking photos nowadays, that any place worth visiting is not worth photographing unless the scene includes themselves, sometimes obscuring the most interesting part of the scene.
I'm not so sure about your last comment either as I'm pretty sure it's possible to like or even love JPEG's and hate wasting your life in from of a computer running PS. That may not be your view but it's a valid one and maybe not just amongst Fuji owners.
I agree completely. If you're not really interested in photography, jpegs are definitely the way to go. Only those with an artistic streak would bother processing RAW files. Sitting in front of a computer, adjusting the contrast of an image, raising black levels, recovering detail in the sky and so on, is akin to sitting in front of a canvas and painting a picture. Not for everyone.
Of course, there are also good practical reasons for using jpegs. They're easier to transmit over the internet, ideal for the journalistic photographer, and great for those whose main interest is sharing images of themselves. It would be a complete waste of time taking a RAW selfie. ;)
-
Digital cameras are in the same category as computers. The driving force for new sales is an increase in performance coupled with a decrease in price. The increase in performance and the decrease in price over the past 15 years or so, has been staggering. Every DSLR I've bought, the first one about 12 years ago, has had a significant leap in performance over the previous model I owned.
I agree. Who would want to shoot with a Nikon D1? And is was like $7000. There were always 2 levels we were looking for. The first was image quality of film. For 35mm we passed that in MP terms at about 10MP. The next level is GOOD ENOUGH. That varies for everyone, but I think the D750 and D810 pretty much hit this point.
As others have mentioned, we seem to have reached a plateau of technological improvement regarding the DSLR. I'm very satisfied with my Nikon D800E and have little incentive to buy a D810 for what appears to me to be rather minor improvements. However, if Nikon's next model were a 54mp full-frame with BSI sensor, had an additional full stop of SNR and DR at all ISOs, had 4K video capability including the facility to select individual video frames in RAW mode, and a LiveView system which worked like Canon's, I'd buy the camera in a shot, if the price were right. ;D
I will disagree here. The D810 is a whole different camera than the D800e. First, it does not have the OLPF. The D800e has the effect of the OLPF filtered back out. In addition there are probably 50 upgrades in the camera. If you only use this camera in a methodical manner like landscape shooting, then yeah, there isn't all that much there. But if you use it as a general purpose camera, then the D810 is a standout while the D800 would be merely acceptable.
-
I will disagree here. The D810 is a whole different camera than the D800e. First, it does not have the OLPF. The D800e has the effect of the OLPF filtered back out. In addition there are probably 50 upgrades in the camera. If you only use this camera in a methodical manner like landscape shooting, then yeah, there isn't all that much there. But if you use it as a general purpose camera, then the D810 is a standout while the D800 would be merely acceptable.
Did you upgraded from a D800 (or D800E) to a D810?
I upgraded from a 12mp D700 to the 800E. The main reason I chose the D800E instead of the cheaper D800 was not because I was particularly impressed with the subtle increase in resolution of the D800E, compared with the D800, but simply because the D800E, at the time, was less popular and therefore available for immediate purchase. The D800 was on a long waiting list.
I've always thought it was a bit ridiculous to introduce an AA filter, then include a second filter to undo the effects of the first filter, and I would expect that the double filter would result in some slight reduction in the full benefits of a sensor with no AA filter at all.
However, I wouldn't expect the resolution differences between the D800E and the D810 to be greater, or even as great as the resolution differences between the D800 and the D800E.
As regards the other upgrades in the D810, are they not all relatively trivial? A slight increase in continuous frame rate is of little consequence for me. I shoot in manual mode using a single focusing square, constantly adjusting aperture and shutter speed to suit the occasion. I'd be interested in hearing what upgrades, out of those 50 you mention, you consider significant.
-
So long as you can turn GPS off if/when you do not need it, why are you bothered by the fact that sone other people like a convenient record of where they took a photo?
I do not understand the habit of some people to argue against a popular feature simply because they personally do not want or need it, but can easily ignore with no harm. Especially when adding such a feature (like video in a CMOS camera) has a favorable ratio of popular appeal to cost, so that its presence is likely to move the camera to a higher volume, lower margin, lower price point, benefiting even those who do not use the feature.
Indeed.
Selfishness and a complete lack of empathy combined with a dash of stupidity make up many posts online. So numpties moaning about 'bloat' when they really mean features that they do not use even though they are extremely useful to others are sadly all too prevalent.
-
Interesting article that serendipitously appeared in a feed of mine, sort of relevant to the topic:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/feb/03/instagram-generation-amateur-photographers-art-plagiarism
Jonathan Jones is simply a contentious troll that The Guardian use as clickbait it would seem. His ignorance is evident from the outset in that he talk about plagiarism, when it was actually potential copyright infringement.
It was however just an excuse for him to sneer at and decry photography. Again.
-
If you like GPS, more power to you. If your camera does not have it, you can carry a GPS unit around with you and insert geo-tagging after the fact, synchronizing your GPS breadcrumb with your images via time. In other words, GPS might be useful, but it is not necessary to have built-in to the camera (forensic or other validation-specific tasks or applications notwithstanding).
Same could be said about lightmeters. :P
Separating geotagging from the picture taking process means more work at end of day faffing around with ways to match data. That's even if you remembered to turn GPS on, had room for it in your pocket or remembered to take a shot with your phone at each location to get a very imprecise and variable location to then match to one's fancy camera.
Built in GPS saves an awful lot of hassle if you use geotagging. I'd like to use it all the time, but due it not being built in to my cameras I rarely do.
-
A picture of oneself on holiday is not necessarily vain, or even 2 or 3 or 4 pictures of oneself. However, the selfie stick is designed to facilitate only taking photos of oneself. Many tourists nowadays walk around with their iPhone continuously attached to such a stick. Most of the photos they take, and the impression I get is that sometimes it might be all of the photos they take, seem to be of themselves. Rarely do I see someone photographing just the place they've traveled to visit.
There seems to be a general ethos among the majority of people taking photos nowadays, that any place worth visiting is not worth photographing unless the scene includes themselves, sometimes obscuring the most interesting part of the scene.
Plus ça change. That's always been the case with snapshots. Nothing has changed other than the tool to do it. People used to ask strangers to take a pic for them, heck I've done that for folks on numerous occasions
BTW have you examined all the photos that people take to actually know that all the pics are of themselves? The reality being there'll be lots of snapshots pics that are not containing the photographer as well as some selfies and why even worry about what others are photographing?
-
Well, in the spirit of less-is-more, I refrained from elaborating ;)
Anyone who belongs to the less-is-more tribe, intuitively understand the arguments for, without the need to enumerate them. Besides, Kirk did offer some reasoning, rather eloquently, I and wholeheartedly agreed before posting my "slogan."
However, if you insist...
I believe that people should have the freedom of choice. So, if some find it useful (and I am not just talking about GPS), so be it, let them have it, but let me have my choice as well:
1. Either the same model as the crowd wants, but stripped down to bare essentials, i.e., no GPS, no damn video, no "creative" modes, no "art" filters, no direct-print button (oh, the horror of horrors), not Super Bowl light show in the viewfinder. The simpler it is, the less I have to think about it instead of what's in front of it. I would be even willing to pay a small premium for it, the likes of what Nikon charges to remove its OLP filter in 800e.
2. Or, as a minimum, let me remove all the unused menu items myself, so that I do not have to wade through the clutter of multi-level menus every time I need to adjust something
The ignoring argument: I can't ignore something that is permanently in front of me and clutters the dials or menus. Imagine that crowd wants to have a bobbing head permanently attached to new car's dashboard... would you be able to ignore it? I can't just ignore something on the menus that forces me to use the skip button repeatedly to get to the one I want. A plethora of menu options makes it more difficult to remember where are those that matter to me the most. Yes, I am aware of the "My Menu" option on many camera models, but they are typically limited to 5-6 options.
The cost argument: I am frankly impressed by your pretzel-twisted logical spinning, in which extra features do not result in extra cost, but in a cheaper product. What!?
The battery argument: GPS drains it, period. You say just switch the battery... during my amateur years, I never had the need for extra batteries. They are expensive, they need to be recharged, packed, etc., i.e., one more thing to worry about. I bought one when I started shooting professionally. And even then, switching it is not as simple as it seems. Certain camera models require to take them off tripod to do so. And it might happen just when I do not have those extra few minutes to fiddle with it. So, anything that reduces battery drain is welcome in my book.
Now, there are certain features that are not traditionally photographic that I do welcome: wi-fi and/or Bluetooth connectivity with my phone. Phones are always with us, and they have much better maps and GPS functions than cameras anyway. Or, if you really go into a deep wilderness, a separate GPS is much more useful and potentially life-saving. Connecting with a phone also allows for remote shooting.
Modern cameras are more like jumbo-jet cockpits: millions of blinking lights, instruments, needles, buttons, levers, handles, etc. It seems to me that some photographers confuse fiddling with it with photography.
I agree with you about a desire for simplicity in design of UI. I would very much like if camera manufacturers would introduce the possibility to adjust the menus and exclude what you don't need. That would include things you decided not to use like GPS, WiFi, tons of adjustments that you don't need. I do feel it obvious to include features that many would value. I my opinion that includes GPS and WiFi. If I choose not to use it, it should not be in the way.
I geotag all my pictures and I use an app on my iPhone that connects with Dropbox so when I have completed a shoot the tracklog gets uploaded to Dropbox and I can geotag in Lightroom using the tracklog. Quick and easy and works very well. The only thing is to remember to turn it on when I go on a shoot.
I even use geotagged photos together with my preferred navigation app on the iPhone to navigate to the spot I want to go to. I use this for my workshops but I also use for myself. I do remember most spots that I like but not always. I really like to go back to locations I have found previously and take new shots at new angles in light, clouds, fog etc. I have not seen before in that particular location. Others would never go back to a location they have already visited. Fortunately we are different :)
-
BTW have you examined all the photos that people take to actually know that all the pics are of themselves?
Of course not. I've got better things to do. If you re-read what I wrote, you should see that I implied that I got the impression that all the photos that some folks take, at least at many of the locations that I visit, are of themselves and/or partners or group.
The reality being there'll be lots of snapshots pics that are not containing the photographer as well as some selfies and why even worry about what others are photographing?
I don't worry about it, but I sometimes get annoyed and frustrated when I visit popular historical sites and find it impossible to photograph an interesting statue or carving, or shoot an interesting perspective of a temple without numerous strangers standing in front of me photographing themselves, with the object of interest in the background.
As you know, I'm a very patient sort of person, and very humble. Sometimes I just sit quietly, hoping there will eventually be a break in the continuous stream of ultra-vain people who insist on standing directly in front of every scene they photograph.
Sometimes I'm lucky and there's a break which is long enough for me to take my shots. Sometimes I just move on without taking any shots.
Sometimes I feel like shouting, "I'm a very important professional photographer who's been assigned the task of photographing this temple. Would you all please move aside for 10 minutes." ;D
-
... I really like to go back to locations I have found previously...
Wouldn't that require a separate GPS unit to get you there?
-
Wouldn't that require a separate GPS unit to get you there?
Have you not heard of maps? There's even a whole module with them in in LR. Also available on paper.
Also phones tend to make separate GPS devices redundant for most people.
-
As you know, I'm a very patient sort of person, and very humble. Sometimes I just sit quietly, hoping there will eventually be a break in the continuous stream of ultra-vain people who insist on standing directly in front of every scene they photograph.
Taking a photo of yourself in a tourist spot does not necessarily equal vanity. It's usually simply a record that you were there. The fact that somewhere is busy is simply a side effect of it's popularity. In those situations I photograph the people or maybe the dodgy vendors as that's usually far more interesting than some building. :D
-
Have you not heard of maps? There's even a whole module with them in in LR.
How would LR Maps get you back to a remote location?
-
How would LR Maps get you back to a remote location?
Very obviously it wouldn't. Maps which I mentioned in first sentence however would.
Also why assume locations have to be remote? They can be anywhere.
Take for example the photo above, here's a screengrab of where it was taken as shown in LR. Not hard to find. ;D
-
...Not hard to find...
Nor hard to remember where it is. I assume you can find Eiffel Tower without GPS? Or map, for that matter.
-
How would LR Maps get you back to a remote location?
It would give you an idea of where it was, and generally, you can get yourself back to the spot(ish) with a general idea. If you need the exact spot, then yes, you would need an external GPS. But if I just wanted to remember which trail something was on in Smoky Mountains National Park, then a quick cross reference with the maps and coordinates would do the trick, then off to the trailhead.
Why so combative to all of this?
-
It would give you an idea of where it was, and generally, you can get yourself back to the spot(ish) with a general idea. If you need the exact spot, then yes, you would need an external GPS. But if I just wanted to remember which trail something was on in Smoky Mountains National Park, then a quick cross reference with the maps and coordinates would do the trick, then off to the trailhead.
Why so combative to all of this?
You just saved me posting much the same thing.
-
Nor hard to remember where it is. I assume you can find Eiffel Tower without GPS? Or map, for that matter.
Point missed entirely.
-
...Why so combative to all of this?
So far, I simply asked two questions: 1. Wouldn't it drain battery power? and 2. Wouldn't you need a separate unit anyway? If asking questions is combative, so be it.
I am trying to understand the attraction people have to GPS (in cameras - I highly value them in cars or phones). So far (and in my humble, subjective, selfish, arrogant, opinionated opinion -- there you go, jjj, save you the trouble), I do see some:
1. for people like Hans (i.e., workshop leaders) they might have a rather practical value -- fair enough
2. coolness factor: "Look, mom, how cool this map is, it shows all the places I visited and photographed!" - cute, but not much to do with photography
3. anal-retentive need to have, collect and preserve more and more of everything, whether we really need it or not (of which I am occasionally as guilty as the next guy)
As for maps (paper ones, I assume) you would still need to either manually transfer coordinates from the camera, or keep a separate list with it, in order to cross reference it with the map. Which then can be easier accomplished with a phone or handheld device in the first place.
I am also positing that having more and more to think of and fiddle with in a camera detracts from its basic function, i.e., to be an extension of our vision. What we need is to immerse ourselves in the subject in front of us, not the camera in-between. To that effect, the simpler the tool, the better.
Ultimately, I never denied anyone the right to have whatever bells and whistles they need or even think they need in a camera. I am just pleading for a separate model without it. Whether it is economically feasible or not is a completely different subject. As far as wishes go, I'd like to think I have the same right to wish something, just as somebody else has the right to wish something else (like GPS in camera)
-
GPS data on an image is simply more EXIF data. Added in camera it is easy, exterior to camera it's a faff.
If you really need more explaination as to why location as part of metadata is useful to many people, then you probably still wouldn't understand the answer.
If you do not need GPS on a camera, then don't use it. It will make no difference to your of camera usage, at all. There are many features on camera superfluous to my needs, but I'm not so arrogant to think Canon, Nikon etc should make a camera with limited functions that won't sell very well just for me and my very specific needs. I ignore features I do not use and it is zero problem their being there. If such things bother you, then that is your very personal problem and unless you get a bespoke camera made, you are unlikely to stop complaining.
-
So far, I simply asked two questions: 1. Wouldn't it drain battery power? and 2. Wouldn't you need a separate unit anyway? If asking questions is combative, so be it.
I am trying to understand the attraction people have to GPS (in cameras - I highly value them in cars or phones). So far (and in my humble, subjective, selfish, arrogant, opinionated opinion -- there you go, jjj, save you the trouble), I do see some:
1. for people like Hans (i.e., workshop leaders) they might have a rather practical value -- fair enough
2. coolness factor: "Look, mom, how cool this map is, it shows all the places I visited and photographed!" - cute, but not much to do with photography
3. anal-retentive need to have, collect and preserve more and more of everything, whether we really need it or not (of which I am occasionally as guilty as the next guy)
As for maps (paper ones, I assume) you would still need to either manually transfer coordinates from the camera, or keep a separate list with it, in order to cross reference it with the map. Which then can be easier accomplished with a phone or handheld device in the first place.
I am also positing that having more and more to think of and fiddle with in a camera detracts from its basic function, i.e., to be an extension of our vision. What we need is to immerse ourselves in the subject in front of us, not the camera in-between. To that effect, the simpler the tool, the better.
Ultimately, I never denied anyone the right to have whatever bells and whistles they need or even think they need in a camera. I am just pleading for a separate model without it. Whether it is economically feasible or not is a completely different subject. As far as wishes go, I'd like to think I have the same right to wish something, just as somebody else has the right to wish something else (like GPS in camera)
Combative may have been too harsh a word, my apologies.
But, to add to your list:
4. People who like to have a record of location so they may revisit it. (although, maybe this falls under your #1?)
As easy as it may seem to dismiss it, when most of your photography happens while randomly wandering around aimlessly (as mine does), you don't always remember where you were.
"Dude, that is an awesome looking Barn, I should stop in the middle of Nebraska, and take a shot of it."
Sometime later: "I'll be passing in the general area of Nebraska, I want to reshoot that barn in different light, now where was it...."
To the point of something to fiddle with, GPS is probably not one of those options you are constantly turning on or off. You'll probably do it once when you set up the camera, and never touch it again. If even that.
As for superfluous features, I can agree to that, for the most part. I regularly take out old film cameras as the controls are simpler and the feel is not something digital has been able to reproduce. That said, I can't say any of the controls on my E-M5 ever got in the way, and many have opened up new ways to shoot. But it is all a matter of perspective, now isn't it?
-
Combative may have been too harsh a word, my apologies.
Most definitely the right word with Slobodan. He like to provoke people as here....
I am trying to understand the attraction people have to GPS (in cameras - I highly value them in cars or phones). So far (and in my humble, subjective, selfish, arrogant, opinionated opinion -- there you go, jjj, save you the trouble), I do see some:
Less directly nasty than he can be, but still unwarranted.
-
...You'll probably do it once when you set up the camera, and never touch it again...
Hence my original question: "Does it drain the battery?" (if permanently on). That was really a sincere question and so far I am not sure I heard a definitive answer, though I assume the answer is "yes." If phones are any indication, turing location services on does drain the battery faster, thus I keep it off until I need a map or driving directions.
-
Most definitely the right word with Slobodan. He like to provoke people as here....
Less directly nasty than he can be, but still unwarranted.
Really!?
You mean like "less directly nasty that you can be" as here:
... Selfishness and a complete lack of empathy combined with a dash of stupidity make up many posts online...
While you are disguising it as a general comment, it was your comment on BJL's question directed to me.
-
Hence my original question: "Does it drain the battery?" (if permanently on). That was really a sincere question and so far I am not sure I heard a definitive answer, though I assume the answer is "yes." If phones are any indication, turing location services on does drain the battery faster, thus I keep it off until I need a map or driving directions.
I can only comment on the 6D. As far as I can tell, while the camera is on, it doesn't add any measurable drain on battery life. However, the 6D has a weird piece of control logic (that could probably be fixed in a simple firmware update). For some inexplicable reason, if you just leave the GPS running, the camera will attempt to maintain GPS tracking, even with the camera turned off! That will definitely run down the batteries. So I put the GPS on/off menu toggle on the quick menu, where I can get to it instantly. Hard for me to understand why they might have set it up that way.
But, I love my geotagging. Really useful for aerial photography. I also use the hell out of the Wifi - it turns an iPhone or iPad into an excellent remote control, complete with LV, focus point selection, etc., etc. With my rapidly deteriorating near vision, having an 8" LV screen is rather helpful.
-
Really!?
You mean like "less directly nasty that you can be" as here:
While you are disguising it as a general comment, it was your comment on BJL's question directed to me.
No it was very definitely a general comment about the internet, not aimed at you at all.
I usually ignore your sniping/outright offensive posts and if I was to pass comment on you, I'd do it quite specifically. But hey, if that's how you see yourself.... ;D
This is the first thread I've even unhidden your posts in a long time to try and politely answer and I only did that later on. Sadly as usual, you are your normal charming self. :-\
-
Taking a photo of yourself in a tourist spot does not necessarily equal vanity. It's usually simply a record that you were there.
I see! Then such people are not really vain; they just have a reputation back home for being boastful liars. If they were to show a photo of a crumbling, 1,000-year-old statue in the jungles of Cambodia, covered in moss, with grass growing out of its ears, then their friends back home might say, "I don't believe you took that photo. I don't believe you've ever been to Cambodia. I think you filched that photo from the internet."
Is that what you mean, Jeremy? ;)
The fact that somewhere is busy is simply a side effect of it's popularity. In those situations I photograph the people or maybe the dodgy vendors as that's usually far more interesting than some building.
Of course! Whatever the situation is, one tries to photograph whatever one finds interesting, be it dodgy vendors or even people taking photos of themselves. However, I'm not in the habit of visiting places that are not intrinsically interesting and require the presence of dodgy vendors to make a photo worthwhile. ;D
-
I would think that, for folks who deem GPS and geo-encoding as critical to their photographic process, carrying a GPS-enabled device to record a track and provide redundant data is standard practice in the field, even if their camera is equipped with GPS.
Kirk
-
For some inexplicable reason, if you just leave the GPS running, the camera will attempt to maintain GPS tracking, even with the camera turned off!......
Hard for me to understand why they might have set it up that way.
Getting a GPS fix from cold can take quite a few minutes. Leaving the GPS tracking all the time means that there's a much greater chance of having the right data available when you turn the camera on to take a shot.
I doubt anyone wanting to use GPS would want to have to wait excessively for the camera to get a fix before allowing a shot to be taken, or waiting until it had got a fix before writing the EXIF data and being able to take the next shot, or getting home and finding no GPS data at all.
Yes, enabling a GPS feature would hit battery life, but maybe not so badly it would cause problems.
-
Speaking about the less-is-more concept... Mike Johnston, over at The Online Photographer, first quoted Jeremy Clarkson:
"First rule of being a bloke: more buttons equals better."
Then had this to say (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/02/quote-o-the-day-jeremy-clarkson.html):
"Made me laugh. Ya wish it weren't so. I still think there's a market out there for at least a few models of "alternative" simple cameras..." (emphasis mine)
The linked video, although entirely about hi-fi and cars, has a lot of relevance for the camera bells-and-whistles debate too.
-
Hence my original question: "Does it drain the battery?" (if permanently on). That was really a sincere question and so far I am not sure I heard a definitive answer, though I assume the answer is "yes." If phones are any indication, turing location services on does drain the battery faster, thus I keep it off until I need a map or driving directions.
Yes, definitely, a cheap inefficient unit decreases the battery life of a D800E by 50%, an efficient unit by 30% (personal experience). These are external units, of course, but I would expect an internal unit to have the same battery draw.
-
I would think that, for folks who deem GPS and geo-encoding as critical to their photographic process, carrying a GPS-enabled device to record a track and provide redundant data is standard practice in the field, even if their camera is equipped with GPS.
Kirk
You overlook the first rule of mobility: when it comes to the number of devices one must carry to get the job done, "less is more".
Between those who need a full-fledged GPS unit and those with no need for GPS, there is a middle-ground of many photographers who would like geo-tagging without the need to carry yet another device.
Aside: it is strange to read someone (not you, Kirk) arguing that the possible need to carry a spare battery is an argument against having and using in-camera GPS, and then offering a solution which involves carrying an additional battery operated GPS device!
-
... Aside: it is strange to read someone (not you, Kirk) arguing that the possible need to carry a spare battery is an argument against having and using in-camera GPS, and then offering a solution which involves carrying an additional battery operated GPS device!
Not so strange if you take into account that a separate GPS device is also so much more powerful, useful, offering additional functions, and potentially life-saving. Besides, there is also a middle ground of using one's phone as GPS. Having two multifunctional devices surely beats having just one plus extra battery.
-
Hi,
My take is that I want GPS in the camera. I have had a GPS logger for a long time, but it is just one more thing to care about. The in camera GPS is just a setup once and forget about thing.
The nice thing with the GPS-logger is of course that it works with everything, even old stuff…
Best regards
Erik
-
I see! Then such people are not really vain; they just have a reputation back home for being boastful liars. If they were to show a photo of a crumbling, 1,000-year-old statue in the jungles of Cambodia, covered in moss, with grass growing out of its ears, then their friends back home might say, "I don't believe you took that photo. I don't believe you've ever been to Cambodia. I think you filched that photo from the internet."
Is that what you mean, Jeremy? ;)
Of course! Whatever the situation is, one tries to photograph whatever one finds interesting, be it dodgy vendors or even people taking photos of themselves. However, I'm not in the habit of visiting places that are not intrinsically interesting and require the presence of dodgy vendors to make a photo worthwhile. ;D
I saw an oriental guy's blog that had him traveling all over and mimicking the person next to him getting his pix taken. A few was OK, but after half a dozen it was a turn off. That was his hobby I guess.
-
Not so strange if you take into account that a separate GPS device ...
Agreed that some photographers have use for a full-fledged GPS unit, but you seem to stubbornly ignore the many photographers who often need GPS data just for geotagging, and want that in the most convenient form: written straight into the metadata when the photo is taken. If and when cameras can seamlessly do this with data beamed in from some other device that every photographer will always be carrying anyway, then in-camera GPS becomes redundant -- but we are not there yet.
-
With all this talk about GPS facilities I'm beginning to wonder if some of you guys are surveyors or accountants rather than photographers. ;D
-
I see! Then such people are not really vain; they just have a reputation back home for being boastful liars. If they were to show a photo of a crumbling, 1,000-year-old statue in the jungles of Cambodia, covered in moss, with grass growing out of its ears, then their friends back home might say, "I don't believe you took that photo. I don't believe you've ever been to Cambodia. I think you filched that photo from the internet."
Is that what you mean, Jeremy? ;)
Not at all as you probably know.
Of course! Whatever the situation is, one tries to photograph whatever one finds interesting, be it dodgy vendors or even people taking photos of themselves. However, I'm not in the habit of visiting places that are not intrinsically interesting and require the presence of dodgy vendors to make a photo worthwhile. ;D
No you said you visit places that are too full of snap happy tourists just like yourself to get a photo without them in it. In those situation rather than photograph something that everyone else is shooting, take a more interesting picture. Anyway if you want to take a photos of some famous object without tourists in it take a load of shots with tourist milling around, mash together in PS and voila no more stinky tourists. (http://toomanyadapters.com/how-to-remove-people-travel-photos-photoshop/)
-
With all this talk about GPS facilities I'm beginning to wonder if some of you guys are surveyors or accountants rather than photographers. ;D
With all this talk online about naming and keywording photographs rather than simply using the file number out of camera, I'm beginning to wonder if those guys are authors or journalists rather than photographers.
-
Not so strange if you take into account that a separate GPS device is also so much more powerful, useful, offering additional functions, and potentially life-saving. Having two multifunctional devices surely beats having just one plus extra battery.
Can you not see the irony of arguing that people should use a second device because it has more features, whilst simultaneously complaining about extra features in cameras and arguing that less is more? GPS in camera is more certainly less and also less work/weight/effort.
-
Can you not see the irony of arguing that people should use a second device because it has more features, whilst simultaneously complaining about extra features in cameras and arguing that less is more? GPS in camera is more certainly less and also less work/weight/effort.
No, I do not see the irony. Each device excels in what it does best: cameras take photos, GPS devices guide. It is not simply about more features, but about more relevant features (relevant for its main purpose). A separate GPS device is an order of magnitude more useful for its designed purpose.
Lets reverse the example: lets add a camera to a GPS device (not inconceivable, given the size of phone cameras, and funny no one has marketed one yet). Would you take that contraption to take pictures? No way, right? You camera is so much better for taking pictures, you'd say, no?
Maybe one day your washing machine could reuse all that hot water and make a soup as an extra feature? I'd stick to my slow cooker.
-
You seem to have completely misunderstood my comment. A picture of oneself on holiday is not necessarily vain, or even 2 or 3 or 4 pictures of oneself. However, the selfie stick is designed to facilitate only taking photos of oneself. Many tourists nowadays walk around with their iPhone continuously attached to such a stick. Most of the photos they take, and the impression I get is that sometimes it might be all of the photos they take, seem to be of themselves. Rarely do I see someone photographing just the place they've traveled to visit.
There seems to be a general ethos among the majority of people taking photos nowadays, that any place worth visiting is not worth photographing unless the scene includes themselves, sometimes obscuring the most interesting part of the scene.
I agree completely. If you're not really interested in photography, jpegs are definitely the way to go. Only those with an artistic streak would bother processing RAW files. Sitting in front of a computer, adjusting the contrast of an image, raising black levels, recovering detail in the sky and so on, is akin to sitting in front of a canvas and painting a picture. Not for everyone.
Of course, there are also good practical reasons for using jpegs. They're easier to transmit over the internet, ideal for the journalistic photographer, and great for those whose main interest is sharing images of themselves. It would be a complete waste of time taking a RAW selfie. ;)
More tosh I'm afraid :D
Firstly, there's nothing inherently wrong or vain in wanting to be in a holiday photograph or even all holiday photographs and secondly shooting JPEG's is no more indicative of a lack of interest in photography than shooting raw is indicative of any talent.
Maybe a picture of the Pyramids is worthless unless I'M in it! :D And actually it's a poor picture unless I've taken it as a JPEG :D
Elitist clap trap. No offence intended though :D
-
No you said you visit places that are too full of snap happy tourists just like yourself to get a photo without them in it. In those situation rather than photograph something that everyone else is shooting, take a more interesting picture. Anyway if you want to take a photos of some famous object without tourists in it take a load of shots with tourist milling around, mash together in PS and voila no more stinky tourists. (http://toomanyadapters.com/how-to-remove-people-travel-photos-photoshop/)
You've misunderstood the situation again. The snap-happy tourists are not like myself. I stand back from the object I'm photographing. I don't place myself right in front of it, partially obscuring it. When a bus-load of tourists do that, one after the other, it's pretty frustrating, so I just walk away.
I'm aware of the process of stacking multiple shots in Photoshop, each shot slightly different from the other because someone has moved. But that process is too tedious for me. I'm not a gear-head, ya know! ;D
-
No, I do not see the irony.
Very obviously.
Each device excels in what it does best: cameras take photos, GPS devices guide. It is not simply about more features, but about more relevant features (relevant for its main purpose). A separate GPS device is an order of magnitude more useful for its designed purpose.
Still completely missing the point I see.
People want to add GPS data to their photos. A separate GPS device does not do that for you, however a camera can do it very easily, therefore an order of magnitude [which is a complete misuse of the term] better than separate devices. i.e. much easier and time saving. You also seem to be confusing sat navs with GPS devices which have a variety of uses/functionalities/abilities. I have a gps device for my bike. It doesn't guide me anywhere, it does however record where I've been and gives me live feedback of various things and it is very useful indeed.
Lets reverse the example: lets add a camera to a GPS device (not inconceivable, given the size of phone cameras, and funny no one has marketed one yet). Would you take that contraption to take pictures? No way, right? You camera is so much better for taking pictures, you'd say, no?
Maybe one day your washing machine could reuse all that hot water and make a soup as an extra feature? I'd stick to my slow cooker.
Your stance is more reductio ad absurdum that anything else. People don't want to add photos to their Sat Nav/GPS device, they want to add gps to their photos. Not to mention phones which have GPS functionality and have replaced sat navs for most people and can take photos, so that sat nav device with camera you mock is in fact most people's favourite camera. I wouldn't waste money on a separate Sat Nav device as my phone is a far better tool for my and most people's needs than a fancy sat nav device.
As it happens Garmin who are a big cheese in the world of GPS devices has added a sports cameras to which links into their GPS devices.
The point you are missing is this is a very useful feature that people actively want in their cameras. Nobody wants or has even suggested a device, bar yourself with the irrelevant washing machine comment, something that no-one wants or would even be of any use. You don't get it, we understand that but others do understand the use and would find gps in camera useful. Why even bother complaining about features other want and you do not?
-
...I photograph the people or maybe the dodgy vendors...
Glad to see I am not the only one with the same reaction in encounters with you ;)
-
You've misunderstood the situation again. The snap-happy tourists are not like myself. I stand back from the object I'm photographing. I don't place myself right in front of it, partially obscuring it. When a bus-load of tourists do that, one after the other, it's pretty frustrating, so I just walk away.
You are a tourist. You are taking photos. You are just like all of them, bar the framing of the shot. Their pictures make them happy, your pictures make you happy. Thinking you are better than them however is just snobbery. Others may look at your pics and sneer at them in a similar way because you are a mere tourist, whilst they are proper 'travellers'. :P
I'm aware of the process of stacking multiple shots in Photoshop, each shot slightly different from the other because someone has moved. But that process is too tedious for me. I'm not a gear-head, ya know! ;D
Possibly less tedious than and far quicker than waiting for tourists to clear a scene. That way you get to see more of the places you visit and it's quite a quick process in PS.
-
Glad to see I am not the only one with the same reaction in encounters with you ;)
Interesting that you equate yourself with someone who is breaking the law and acts in a threatening and unpleasant manner without provocation. ::)
-
A separate GPS device is an order of magnitude more useful for its designed purpose.
Exactly! But similarly, if all I want it for is to geotag, the in-camera solution is superior for it's designed purpose.
-
Getting a GPS fix from cold can take quite a few minutes. Leaving the GPS tracking all the time means that there's a much greater chance of having the right data available when you turn the camera on to take a shot.
I doubt anyone wanting to use GPS would want to have to wait excessively for the camera to get a fix before allowing a shot to be taken, or waiting until it had got a fix before writing the EXIF data and being able to take the next shot, or getting home and finding no GPS data at all.
Yes, enabling a GPS feature would hit battery life, but maybe not so badly it would cause problems.
That hasn't been a real problem for me for a long time. The GPS chips that are so common in phones and so forth now have an extremely fast time to first fix. I've never seen the 6D take more than a few seconds to fix, even after I've travelled the whole way across the continent. I'd really prefer they add a custom function or something that would allow for camera off = GPS off.
-
You are a tourist. You are taking photos. You are just like all of them, bar the framing of the shot. Their pictures make them happy, your pictures make you happy. Thinking you are better than them however is just snobbery. Others may look at your pics and sneer at them in a similar way because you are a mere tourist, whilst they are proper 'travellers'. :P
Nonsense! Such people are much, much better than me......in their capacity to display extremes of narcissism and vanity.
I'm simply making the point that something is seriously awry when people travel the world to visit exotic and fascinating locations, yet still find their own face more fascinating than the wonders they behold. I call it narcissism, or extreme vanity.
Here is the relevant dictionary definition of narcissism, in case you are still confused. ;)
Narcissism: an excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one's physical appearance.
It's not without reason that the 'selfie stick' is sometimes referred to as the 'narcissism wand'. ;D
-
I'm simply making the point that something is seriously awry when people travel the world to visit exotic and fascinating locations, yet still find their own face more fascinating than the wonders they behold. I call it narcissism, or extreme vanity.
It could also be that including one's self in the photo heightens our memories of being at that location.
Also, we are hardwired to recognize faces, and when we do, we form a bigger, more human bond with said image. I am beginning to think, for the sake of one's self and for friends, selfies are not really that bad, you just need to keep them in the proper context. Is it really any different than setting the self timer on the camera than running into the frame?
-
Nonsense! Such people are much, much better than me......in their capacity to display extremes of narcissism and vanity.
I'm simply making the point that something is seriously awry when people travel the world to visit exotic and fascinating locations, yet still find their own face more fascinating than the wonders they behold. I call it narcissism, or extreme vanity.
Here is the relevant dictionary definition of narcissism, in case you are still confused. ;)
Narcissism: an excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one's physical appearance.
It's not without reason that the 'selfie stick' is sometimes referred to as the 'narcissism wand'. ;D
Interesting. Could be right in that a four pound DSLR is a bit cumbersome for those engaged in narcissistic behavior to use on a wand.
Seems the behavior is leading to cell phone photography and could make DLSRs obsolete if one looks at sites like Tumblr and Instagram where there appears to be some self-indulgent behaviors that does not make a DSLR the tool of choice for the upcoming generation. Don't know if it is a fad or what.
Friend always hands me his DSLR to "Take his picture" which I find odd (Can't put it on a selfie-stick.). He posts himself all over the web and his own daughters tell him he posts more selfies of himself than all their girlfriends combined. Got so bad I blocked him on FB too, and FB may be part of this behavior too. Egos gone wild perhaps.
SG
-
One caveat to the built-in GPS that directly embeds location data into EXIF (or an attached external unit that permits direct embedding) is the fact that, if the data are incorrect (for whatever reason), you will have incorrect data embedded in your image. While it may not happen frequently, the caveat is included in Canon's manuals for GPS enabled cameras (like the 6DWG) and their external GPS logger. If you at least log a redundant GPS track (with your phone, or a GPS) you have back up. If you roll without backup, it would seem that embedded GPS data is a convenience but not a necessity. Interestingly enough, the 6D is offered in two variations, one with GPS and WIFI and one without. It appears that this is for reasons related to the legality of devices containing GPS in certain export markets. I have no idea if this is a burden to Canon's manufacturing and distribution practice, but it seems to indicate that it is possible to have it both ways. Another interesting aspect of this is that unscrupulous retailers apparently have advertised 6D's with GPS and WIFI (the 6DWG) at too-good-to-be-true prices and then sent the unwary buyer the 6DN (which does not have GPS and WIFI). Definitely a potential downside to having multiple flavors of the same model. Caveat emptor.
Look at that, I started and ended a paragraph with the word caveat.
kirk
-
A different "Kirk" responding here. The statement was made that "people want GPS in their cameras." I am a people and as a studio photographer I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in having GPS in my cameras. The idea that, when traveling, I will want to know the exact location in which I stood when taking each of my photographs is laughable and silly to the extreme. If I go to Lisbon and shoot in Lisbon I don't need to know which cobblestone I stood on the make an image. What the heck do people do with all that worthless data attached to their files? What is the intended use of it all? Is geo-tagging really a popular hobby? Why don't any of the many photographers I know personally participate in geo-tagging?
I am sure there are a few specialities in photography that might benefit from location data, like geographers documenting geography, etc. But Skipper riding around on his bicycle taking snapshots? Give me a break.
-
...Why don't any of the many photographers I know personally participate in geo-tagging?...
Because they are too busy actually taking photographs, instead of anally cataloguing them? ;)
-
I am a people and as a studio photographer I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in having GPS in my cameras.
You are not the only people.
Is geo-tagging really a popular hobby? Why don't any of the many photographers I know personally participate in geo-tagging?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
-
Because they are too busy actually taking photographs, instead of anally cataloguing them? ;)
Funny thing, if it is a completely automated system that you don't have to manage, and just automatically collects the data without any input from you, it doesn't take any time away from shooting and cataloging. So, yeah, this is a completely pointless argument.
Don't get me wrong, I think you are a great guy, and generally I value your advice, but right now, you just sound like someone completely resistant to change. It is nothing more than an extra data point that you have available to you, and has no impact on your ability to photograph something (unless you run out of batteries, I'll give you that argument).
-
... has no impact on your ability to photograph something...
Exactly, superfluous ;)
I am not resistant to change in general. I am using the latest technology (that I can afford). Actually, my current camera (Canon 6D) does have GPS and wi-fi. Just that I keep GPS off.
There are many useful improvements in photographic technology over the years, and I am happy to embrace most of them. When they actually do something for photography. This one, imho, doesn't. Whoever wants it, more power to them.
-
Exactly, superfluous ;)
Superfluous in the act of taking the photo, yes.
Superfluous in the act of categorizing, the act of searching, or the act remembering details, not really. Like I said, it's just another data point that you can utilize later.
I think we should just agree to disagree. That said, you should also have a valid argument in, being a person who doesn't want GPS, having to pay for the module you leave turned off.
-
More from Thom on camera sales & what he thinks could restart growth:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-market-for-interchangea.html
A large part of me doesn't actually care much about such issues. I've got great photo tools at hand, in fact the best I've ever had. I could spend the rest of my life using my current gear and not feel in any way held back by it. But of course the tech geek part of me loves the endorphin rush I get from a new camera or lens that offers more. :D So on we go.
-Dave-
-
GPS data is no more superfluous than keywording or naming files, they are all provide useful information that helps with finding photos [amongst other uses]
I can usually visually recall where I've taken something and also have a very good memory for places, so finding images via say LR Map module can be very useful if say I cannot recall other details to locate a shot or that's simply the easiest way to locate something.
People not seeing a need for it is fine and dandy. Sneering and mocking at those who do find it useful only makes them look stupid.
I think we should just agree to disagree. That said, you should also have a valid argument in, being a person who doesn't want GPS, having to pay for the module you leave turned off.
He's not really paying for GPS. Very, very few people use all the abilities of any device or software. So they should stop moaning that they are paying for things that they do not need as these very things you don't require usually help to bring the price down as items are useful for far more people as a result.
I have no idea why people waste so much time and energy complaining about things they are not going to use, but others happily do.
-
More from Thom on camera sales & what he thinks could restart growth:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-market-for-interchangea.html
From article
"At the moment, the two big ILC companies, Canon and Nikon, are simply rising and falling with the water level. If they switched (and could switch) all of their DSLRs into mirrorless cameras its somewhat unlikely to provide them with an upside in terms of sales."
People probably said similar at the beginning of digital. Currently like early digital results EVF's as used in mirrorless are not quite as good as showing reality as OVFs but they have some great advantages. Heck after briefly playing with some EVFs I found my OVFs old fashioned and clunky in comparison.
-
More from Thom on camera sales & what he thinks could restart growth:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-market-for-interchangea.html
A large part of me doesn't actually care much about such issues. I've got great photo tools at hand, in fact the best I've ever had. I could spend the rest of my life using my current gear and not feel in any way held back by it. But of course the tech geek part of me loves the endorphin rush I get from a new camera or lens that offers more. :D So on we go.
"...If I’m right about what the disruption needs to be, both Canon and Nikon are poorly equipped to create it, as it will mostly differences in software, not hardware, that define future cameras from present ones."
This is the most important statement in the article, IMHO. Which means processing capability and the onboard power necessary to drive it are the limiting conditions for this disruption to take place. Working in millitary technology, ever since we exceeded the processing threshold that made Assembly code and custom ASICSs unnecessary, almost all the good innovation has been implemented via software.
-
One way to get around it is to have a compact or phone with GPS with you. Take a shot at each location with the GPS enabled, than batch update the location on your "serious" shots. Shouldn't take long if you don't move often. That is if your serious camera doesn't have GPS, otherwise an extra battery will be probably lighter.
-
One way to get around it is to have a compact or phone with GPS with you. Take a shot at each location with the GPS enabled, than batch update the location on your "serious" shots.
That sort of works, but with extra hassle afterwards of transferring location data into the EXIF data of the camera's image files.
That hassle could be avoided if the phone and camera communicate suitably by WiFi, Bluetooth etc. to geo-tag the photo on the fly, but then that sustained usage of the phone for GPS is likely to deplete _its_ battery in less that a full day, and certainly on a multi-day excursion. (Or you parsimoniously turn the phone's GPS on before each photo and turn it off afterward.) So then you probably need to carry a spare battery for the phone, or an an external battery booster for the many phones that do not have removable batteries, and on a multi-day photographic excursion you probably end up needing to carry a charger for the phone, and hope to have access to electricity every night. With in-camera geo-tagging instead, a few spare camera batteries are enough for multiple days.
All these location-recording alternatives sound like both more work and more gear to carry that having geo-tagging capability in the camera itself.
-
While GPS can chew battery, it can be turned off. And I'd trade GPS, WIFI and even mobile broadband for Video any day!
-
Boy, that was a patronizing link. Having a background in electrical engineering I know as well as most people what GPS is all about. But thinking that it's necessary everywhere at all times is a fad. Like bell bottom trousers, Abba music and lamb chop sideburns. Geotagging is the modern equivalent of driving around with CB radios in cars. Just because you understand it and have doesn't mean it's smart to use something all the time. A bottle of vodka can be fun to pour drinks from on occasion but swigging it down every time you walk into the kitchen is a mess.
I'm happy everyone likes their GPS. We'll all laugh about it together in the future, like 8 track music players...
-
Boy, that was a patronizing link. ... But thinking that it's necessary everywhere at all times is a fad.
Kirk,
You are asking for a patronizing link to straw man fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html), because that is what you are doing with that hyperbolic nonsense about "thinking that GPS is necessary everywhere at all times" and "doesn't mean it's smart to use something all the time". I see no one here claiming that, and there is no need to make such an extreme claim in order to argue for or defend the presence of GPS in cameras. It is sufficient that a substantial number of photographers have a good reason for wanting convenient location tagging of their photos, some of the time.
That and the fact that this can be implemented in a way that has little or no impact on battery life and such if and when not needed.
-
Right.....
-
Boy, that was a patronizing link. Having a background in electrical engineering I know as well as most people what GPS is all about. But thinking that it's necessary everywhere at all times is a fad. Like bell bottom trousers, Abba music and lamb chop sideburns. Geotagging is the modern equivalent of driving around with CB radios in cars. Just because you understand it and have doesn't mean it's smart to use something all the time. A bottle of vodka can be fun to pour drinks from on occasion but swigging it down every time you walk into the kitchen is a mess.
I'm happy everyone likes their GPS. We'll all laugh about it together in the future, like 8 track music players...
As we will at people who name their files and add keywords.
-
Are we in danger of adding too many things into put cameras?
Mobile phones have now become music centres, cameras, sat navs, and heaven knows what else. The cost? phones are now nearly back to the size of the old "bricks" and have a battery life of a few hours. My old Nokia used to go 4 days no problem whan it was just a phone, now I'm carrying a spare battery to get through a day.
Personally I don't want or need my camera to be a gps/wi-fi/pc that makes the tea in the morning. I'd settle for better high iso, and perhaps I'm clutching at straws but how about some built in memory? maybe 64gb and have it roll over the last 64gbs of pic, certainly cheaper than a second card slot.
-
Are we in danger of adding too many things into put cameras?
Mobile phones have now become music centres, cameras, sat navs, and heaven knows what else. The cost? phones are now nearly back to the size of the old "bricks" and have a battery life of a few hours. My old Nokia used to go 4 days no problem whan it was just a phone, now I'm carrying a spare battery to get through a day.
Personally I don't want or need my camera to be a gps/wi-fi/pc that makes the tea in the morning. I'd settle for better high iso, and perhaps I'm clutching at straws but how about some built in memory? maybe 64gb and have it roll over the last 64gbs of pic, certainly cheaper than a second card slot.
The size of phones isn't the fault of what is stuffed in them, but rather the fault of usability. Just think of how much smaller the iPhone 5s is compared to the larger phones.
-
Are we in danger of adding too many things into put cameras?
Mobile phones have now become music centres, cameras, sat navs, and heaven knows what else. The cost? phones are now nearly back to the size of the old "bricks" and have a battery life of a few hours. My old Nokia used to go 4 days no problem whan it was just a phone, now I'm carrying a spare battery to get through a day.
Personally I don't want or need my camera to be a gps/wi-fi/pc that makes the tea in the morning. I'd settle for better high iso, and perhaps I'm clutching at straws but how about some built in memory? maybe 64gb and have it roll over the last 64gbs of pic, certainly cheaper than a second card slot.
The size of phones isn't the fault of what is stuffed in them, but rather the fault of usability. Just think of how much smaller the iPhone 5s is compared to the larger phones.
Even more so with say the 4s. It does everything the much bigger phones do, albeit with a smaller screen. Though newer phones are a tad thinner.
The other thing to think about that even the big phones are tiny compared to the things they replace. Also it is instructive to to not think of them as phones. From my point of view, it's a computer that fits in my pocket that I can also make phone calls with. It's also a dj system, a notebook, a pocket camera, a processing lab an alarm clock, an atlas, a calendar, a game centre, etc, etc.
This flexibility and power is why they are so very popular.
BTW The only reason an old Nokia phone lasted longer is because it couldn't do very much. :P
Built in rolling memory is an interesting idea from a backup point of view. It would need to be rather large though, because people who would really need such things may be shooting for days at a time.
-
... Also it is instructive to not think of them as phones. From my point of view, it's a computer that fits in my pocket that I can also make phone calls with. It's also a dj system, a notebook, a pocket camera, a processing lab an alarm clock, an atlas, a calendar, a game centre, etc, etc....
+1
The younger generation is rarely using it for phone calls these days (unless they are talking to their parents, that is).
-
Well, nice to hear that the young generation talks to their parents…
Best regards
Erik
+1
The younger generation is rarely using it for phone calls these days (unless they are talking to their parents, that is).
-
Also it is instructive to to not think of them as phones. From my point of view, it's a computer that fits in my pocket that I can also make phone calls with. ...
Agreed. Or maybe they are pocketable "communication and entertainment devices" -- which is also what computers have become for many people. (Those us who actually write programs and do computations are a rare breed.)
-
Agreed. Or maybe they are pocketable "communication and entertainment devices" -- which is also what computers have become for many people. (Those us who actually write programs and do computations are a rare breed.)
My Note II replaced my Pocket PC (that had GPS) and it makes calls!
-
Of note I gave my girlfriend my iPhone 4s when I moved on to a newer device as her clockwork Android was looking a bit battered and she's not that fussed about big phones.
Now whilst she was waiting for a new sim card to arrive, the phone was left with just the basic iOS on and no ability to call anyone and it lasted nearly 4 days as opposed to the usual two thirds or half a day I would get from it and I am a very light user of phones. Wifi and Bluetooth were left on as well.
-
Hi,
Personally, I would like a camera with built in cell phone.
Technically, Apple makes a cell phone without the capability to make phone calls, it is called the iPad. I love my iPad but I hate my cell phone.
Best regards
Erik
Agreed. Or maybe they are pocketable "communication and entertainment devices" -- which is also what computers have become for many people. (Those us who actually write programs and do computations are a rare breed.)
-
Technically, Apple makes a cell phone without the capability to make phone calls, it is called the iPad.
And before that, the iPod Touch. I was one of many people who got an iPod Touch because I wanted its pocket computer features, but was not sufficiently interested in the "phone calls and text messages" part of the iPhone.
-
And before that, the iPod Touch. I was one of many people who got an iPod Touch because I wanted its pocket computer features, but was not sufficiently interested in the "phone calls and text messages" part of the iPhone.
Just to be the one upper on this one...
I bought the first iPod touch a couple of days before they were supposed to be released because I found a Best Buy that was selling them already if you asked for one. But yeah, I didn't want to pay for a data plan at the time, so I got that instead.
-
Just to be the one upper on this one...
I bought the first iPod touch a couple of days before they were supposed to be released because I found a Best Buy that was selling them already if you asked for one. But yeah, I didn't want to pay for a data plan at the time, so I got that instead.
If we are one upping, the I bought a Asus 696 Pocket PC in 1995 that other than not making phone calls, was more functional than an iPhone 6!
-
If we are one upping, the I bought a Asus 696 Pocket PC in 1995 that other than not making phone calls, was more functional than an iPhone 6!
I think that beats my Palm Pilot from the late 90s. My, how technology has changed...
-
Well, nice to hear that the young generation talks to their parents…
Best regards
Erik
Usually when they are after something!
-
If we are one upping, the I bought a Asus 696 Pocket PC in 1995 that other than not making phone calls, was more functional than an iPhone 6!
Really? Give us some examples then.
-
Really? Give us some examples then.
It had a real, accessible file system that you could even mount network drives.
-
It had a real, accessible file system that you could even mount network drives.
Some think of DropBox as the network drive for iOS. (Why Apple has neither bought nor Sherlocked DropBox is a mystery to me.)
P. S. I suppose that iCloud now tries to be a cloud-based "network drive" for iOS.
-
It had a real, accessible file system that you could even mount network drives.
And it didn't display any advertisements.
-
And it didn't display any advertisements.
I haven't noticed my iPhone displaying advertisements, except when I browse to websites or apps that do so. Are you trying to make a virtue out of the absence of web-browsers on the Pocket PCs, or the fact they in their era, the internet had not been transformed into an advertising supported medium?
-
Nah, I wasn't serious. I just don't use any of those little yellow funnicons.
-
Some think of DropBox as the network drive for iOS. (Why Apple has neither bought nor Sherlocked DropBox is a mystery to me.)
P. S. I suppose that iCloud now tries to be a cloud-based "network drive" for iOS.
Far afield, but yes, I use various cloud drives with my Android phone. But not what I meant, even my current droid is not as functional as my pocketpc was directly out of the box.
Simple exercise....drag and drop 1GB of music to an iPhone. Simple on a PocketPC, Simple on a Droid...impossible on an iPhone!
[ADDED] I should add that the iPhone was designed to be simple and consistent with the iPod Touch and in that regard it was well executed. It was never intended to be a fully functional 'computer' as the PocketPC was. The old joke was "If Steve Jobs wanted you to be able to do that, it would have been in there!" Too bad Microsoft was not so forward thinking as to turn the PocketPC into a phone like Apple did and that it took them 3 years too long to figure that out! Full Disclosure I am a former long time holder of MSFT stock and a continuing long time holder of AAPL stock.
-
Far afield, but yes, I use various cloud drives with my Android phone. But not what I meant, even my current droid is not as functional as my pocketpc was directly out of the box.
Simple exercise....drag and drop 1GB of music to an iPhone. Simple on a PocketPC, Simple on a Droid...impossible on an iPhone!
Funny as I can add the music I want to my iPhone/iPad really very easily. In fact using iTunes and playlists, in particular smart playlists is a far far superior method to a file browser based method of organising music. The fact that I can't do it the old way is not even an issue. What is an issue is that some DJ software does not not maintain my playlist hierarchy grrrr! DJing being something else you couldn't do on your 'superior' more functional antique device. :P
BTW - my music is all in neat folders on my hard drive done using a file browser. But for organising, finding and collating files databases like iTunes [or LR for images] are far better. Also there are several file manager apps for the iOS.
-
Nikon has released the financial statements for the past year, sales are down 15% and income down 12%.
http://nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm#y2015