Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute  (Read 64244 times)

baudolino

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2011, 12:39:40 pm »

I like the notion that the next camera or product I seriously consider buying should offer me something that no other system has allowed me to do so far. In respect of MF digital, what no other system has allowed me to do (that I would like to do) is:

- consistently handhold at slower shutter speeds, without mirror slap
- compose for the square, without wasting sensor real estate & confusing my composing eye through viewfinder crop masks
- achieve consistent and quick focus, especially with portraits and moving subjects
- carry the camera and standard lens in a Billingham Hadley (small) bag

May I therefore ask the makers to consider introducing the digital equivalent of the Mamiya 6, with an uncropped 56x56 sensor (ok, I'd accept a 38x46 too, but no mask in the VF), quick AF with face / nearest eye detection (live view of course), and the lens collapsible into the body for transport? Or something like a beefed up Sony Nex 7, Fuji X100, with an MF sensor and a nice EVF...

In the times of film we had cameras like the Mamiya 6, Bronica RF, Fuji GZ645 etc. Why hasn't anybody come up with something similar in the digital age?
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2011, 01:22:29 pm »

Pixel race from Sony and Nikon? How exactly different from Hasselblad and Phase going from 22 MP to how many gazillion they are at now?


I think camera companies sell what they can make that is easier (not easy, easier) to assemble with what they have on hand or can buy off the shelf, hence we have things like more pixels and slowly improving lcds.

If the consumer electronic world, moved like the camera world then your Iphone, would be a motorola brick with a lcd.  Maybe 15% smaller and it might take a photo, but other than that it would be based on 15 year old tech.



If you look at any current professional camera, they look and do about the same thing as the film cameras they replaced, except instead of film they have a scanner on the back or inside.  It's marvelous they have a scanner, but the rest of the camera and lens, looks and does about the same thing as we've had for about a zillion years and at this stage of digital cameras, they still won't do some things that film cameras did.

Shoot a subject with the sun behind them for that soft dreamy summer look on film, then do it on digital and you'll know what I mean.

Even RED which should be commended for building a camera company from scratch, still build essentially a digital arriflex, or panaflex, or Aaeton.   They make a good digital arriflex for a pretty good price, but overall it's still a manual focused camera, that does just about the same thing the film cameras did except instead of processing 4k film you get to process 4k to 5k digital.

Look at Canon and their 5d.  They never real built it to be a motion cinema camera for the masses, they built in video because they had live view and they wanted to one up sony which had about the same still camera at the same price point.

It was the masses and a bunch of 3rd party developers that made the 5d2 viable for motion and if you've priced out a complete 5d2 rig that can actually capture sound and mount of a tripod with a usable monitor and a box to read sound bars and collect sound.

In fact the stuff we mount on our 5d2 costs 3 times as much as the camera, which kind of makes you wonder why the camera company didn't make this stuff in the first place and collect the profits.



Anyway.

Somebody asks me what I would like to see in a camera or better put, what do cameras do today that don't let me do what I'd like to do tomorrow.

First make them lighter weight.   Something like the Sony FS100 at it's maximum.   This allows for lighter weight tripods, mounts, booms, supports and in a world where carbon fiber is everywhere, why are we still lifting up 4 to 20lb cameras.

The other day I drove by a location they were shooting the TV show "House".   The camera crane was the size of a Ford F150 pickup, twice the weight,  and looked like something that was made for the first world war.   

Second make them basic with expandable add ons.  In other words if you want a good but limited $5,000 camera, there it is.  If you want more, there is more stuff like focus tools, larger capture cards, faster readers, thunderbolt tethering, etc.

Third get rid of the layers and layers of menus.  If you've ever worked something like the Panasonic or the Sony fs100 in the heat of battle, you'll find things like changing the shutter speed and building a color look requires the hands of a heart surgeon and the patience of mortgage banker.

Fourth, make all LCD's high def, articulating and touch screen.  Hasn't anyone in the camera world ever held an I-phone?   Also make it easy to add another screen or two or three.   You can't have enough viewing options. 

Fifth, allow the camera to shoot a 5k still while it captures motion and make the sensor square with crops lines that light up depending on what format your shooting.

Sixth, make a touch screen follow focus system.  Not just touch on one spot and hold it but touch or outline a subject, then let the focus follow that subject.

If this isn't possible, then make an automatic secondary viewfinder, something that looks like a spot meter, and let the assistants, or focus puller focus on the subject while the photographer/camera operator concentrates on the subject and framing.

Seventh, high base iso with internal nd filters to lower the iso.  Why do we take a 100 iso camera and bump the curves to get to 1000, or go the other way.  Why not just start at 1000 and have a series of nd's to get us lower, or bump the curves or lut to get us higher?

Eighth.  Removable AA filters.    Kodak did it with their line of digital cameras and I had them and it worked well, it fact it worked amazingly well and since then everybody just forgot about it.  How about a series of none to strong and then let us decide which filter is best for the subject.

Ninth.   Keep it modular.  Really modular so when a new sensor design comes out or a new lcd screen don't make us toss out Ten or twenty grand worth of camera just allow us to insert a new imager or lcd or module or something. 

Red is dong something like this, or at least they were, though with RED information changes by the month, so whether anything that fits one a RED One will fit a scarlet, an Epic a scarlet 2 nobody knows, at least nobody but Peter Jackson and the companies owner.

Tenth and the most important . . . software.    Whoever writes imaging software must loathe photographers and image makers.   Why is it lightroom is 100% different interface than photoshop, C-1 different than lightroom and when you get into motion, Nuke, Color, Di-Vinci (there is a long list) works with nodes and every button is in a different place.  That would be fine except 95% of the buttons and commands do the same thing so why make them a 100% different function . . . and nodes, I want to meet the person that thought that up, because it's the craziest thing I've ever used.

I loathe learning new software and before somebody says you can't do motion with still software or your can't do stills with motion software that's bull.  CS5 Extended will do motion (though it's a pain), Nuke will do resolution free stills (though it's a pain to learn), so why it takes 4 software suites just to color imagery makes no sense to me.

That's the short list. 


IMO

BC





Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #62 on: October 10, 2011, 02:25:35 pm »

Shall we start betting on the next Canon/ Nikon flagships?

$0.50 says ~36MP, faster processors, high-speed video, better sound, built-in GPS

No mirrorless bodies and no EVF. Canon brings some new lenses based on same tech as the 8-15mm fisheye zoom, which is exciting

Yair
Canon built in GPS, ha ha bloody ha.
Can we really be bothered with yet more pixels in the 35mm camera, a bit more colour and DR would be much more useful.
With each new Canik, MF looks to make more sense than before. In anything other than resolution my Canon can't get close to my 40 year old Rolleiflex. I hope I'm wrong but we just get more of the same with a promise that the new AF will work  better and more frames per second. I bet the big new feature will all be based around big numbers regarding video. 5k throw away cameras are losing their appeal to me these days.

Kevin.
Logged
Kevin.

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #63 on: October 10, 2011, 03:07:48 pm »

And some people from Leica said "no more pixel in the future !" (about the S2) They said that what S2 deliver is enough for today and tomorrow photography. I assume that Leica staff is mature and lucide.
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

design_freak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1128
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #64 on: October 10, 2011, 03:39:45 pm »

I'm kind of sad actually with all this moving technology marketing.

I'm about to invest seriously in medium format world.

It look like brands wanna kill themselves all together ! This pixel race from Sonikon is insane marketing. Sooooo many amateur photographers, even pros ( ;D) don't understand what is the benefit of large Sensor or film. So, like sheep's, they will think : "wwowooowooowww !! awesome !!! My beloved brand released a great camera. 36 millions pixels... ooo Blimey ! No need to buy that expensive Hasselblad H4D-31 or this leaf back at ONLY 22 Million pixels or even this Leica S2 who have only ONE million pixel in + LoL..."

We are watching very sad days of photo marketing :(


It is true Martketing is not the best today. Note the 7-9 second of this material. At the begining you don't not want to see this . As if there were no major events in history and the better photos. This is example of bad marketing. Who did it? Excellent story, terrible execution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MiA8EE4jwLk

Logged
Best regards,
DF

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #65 on: October 10, 2011, 04:36:41 pm »

I'm the OP. What i posted was about hardware rumors. Feel free to digress - as if I could stop you :)

Edmund
Edmund, Fuji is traditionally a manufacturer that has been involved in extreme camera engineering (gx617, gx680, LF lenses, MFDBs, ...etc) not to mention its hi end cinema involvement (important to remember because of stills/video convergence), recently they announced that they plan to gain the 3rd position as largest camera manufacturer in the following few years. After the S5pro they are without a single interchangeable lens camera! (I don't know if Hass H is still marketed as fujifilm in the Japanese market, ...somebody may enlighten us here), but since the economic and construction relationship with Hass is evident and Fuji has production capabilities of their own sensors, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a lower market Hass/upper market Fuji new series of cameras that would relate to each other like Leica and Panasonic does, but to a higher level! Such a move, would be very beneficial for us photographers because it would increase competition with the Canikons and would speed tech advancement! Regards, Theodoros www.fotometria.gr
« Last Edit: October 10, 2011, 06:23:32 pm by fotometria gr »
Logged

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #66 on: October 10, 2011, 05:03:17 pm »

I'm kind of sad actually with all this moving technology marketing.

I'm about to invest seriously in medium format world.

It look like brands wanna kill themselves all together ! This pixel race from Sonikon is insane marketing. Sooooo many amateur photographers, even pros ( ;D) don't understand what is the benefit of large Sensor or film. So, like sheep's, they will think : "wwowooowooowww !! awesome !!! My beloved brand released a great camera. 36 millions pixels... ooo Blimey ! No need to buy that expensive Hasselblad H4D-31 or this leaf back at ONLY 22 Million pixels or even this Leica S2 who have only ONE million pixel in + LoL..."

We are watching very sad days of photo marketing :(
I believe that the megapixel race has moved to the lower market than DSLRs, where the market is less informed about the disadvantages of high pixel density. I am sure that rumors will stay rumors especially with the FF Dslr market that is much more mature now than it was 5 years ago! In fact I'm sure we will see huge innovations in this market that will differentiate it further from the DSLR/APS-c market (starting with the interchangeable sensor D3 replacement?). I don't think that some overpacked sensors (sony a77) that appeared on some APS-c cameras have anything to do with "marketing direction", I believe that these sensors where developed to help video performance of those cameras, since the APS-c market has a "video advantage" than other sensor sizes due to its direct relationship with 35mm cinema DOF. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #67 on: October 10, 2011, 05:04:44 pm »

Hi,

My view is that SLR mirrors are "old think". The SLR mirror was intended to offer a capability similar to live view, and live view is actually quite useful for dead on exact focus using actual sensor pixels. So why use a complicated moving assembly with a secondary moving assembly for AF? Of course, all glass pentaprisms have better viewing than EVF, right now, but we are probably going to see a rapid development of electronic viewfinders within the next few years.

Also, with an EVF you can see the histogram before shooting the image and can have a lot of usable displays.

Best regards
Erik

Canon built in GPS, ha ha bloody ha.
Can we really be bothered with yet more pixels in the 35mm camera, a bit more colour and DR would be much more useful.
With each new Canik, MF looks to make more sense than before. In anything other than resolution my Canon can't get close to my 40 year old Rolleiflex. I hope I'm wrong but we just get more of the same with a promise that the new AF will work  better and more frames per second. I bet the big new feature will all be based around big numbers regarding video. 5k throw away cameras are losing their appeal to me these days.

Kevin.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #68 on: October 10, 2011, 05:15:08 pm »

Hi,

My view is that SLR mirrors are "old think". The SLR mirror was intended to offer a capability similar to live view, and live view is actually quite useful for dead on exact focus using actual sensor pixels. So why use a complicated moving assembly with a secondary moving assembly for AF? Of course, all glass pentaprisms have better viewing than EVF, right now, but we are probably going to see a rapid development of electronic viewfinders within the next few years.

Also, with an EVF you can see the histogram before shooting the image and can have a lot of usable displays.

Best regards
Erik

Response time, DR, battery life is probably never going to be as good using EVF as optics. It could perhaps become "good enough" to make the transition worth it (due to the pros you mention).

I wonder what sensor trade-offs are necessary to allow for live-view and EVF? Building silicon that will be used for 1/1000 of a second, or 2 seconds, then going "to sleep" for a second or 1 hour may be a different challenge from building one with readouts 60 times per second?

-h
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #69 on: October 10, 2011, 05:36:32 pm »

Hi,

The new Sony cameras have very short shutter release lag, about 2 ms, due to non moving mirror and possibly electronic "first shutter courtain". The EVF will on the other hand alway have some lag, while photons in the SLR move with the speed of light.

All cameras today have live view and the option to record motion, so the sensors are capable of fast readouts.

Best regards
Erik

Response time, DR, battery life is probably never going to be as good using EVF as optics. It could perhaps become "good enough" to make the transition worth it (due to the pros you mention).

I wonder what sensor trade-offs are necessary to allow for live-view and EVF? Building silicon that will be used for 1/1000 of a second, or 2 seconds, then going "to sleep" for a second or 1 hour may be a different challenge from building one with readouts 60 times per second?

-h
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

fotometria gr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 568
    • www.fotometria.gr
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #70 on: October 10, 2011, 05:55:52 pm »

Hi,

My view is that SLR mirrors are "old think". The SLR mirror was intended to offer a capability similar to live view, and live view is actually quite useful for dead on exact focus using actual sensor pixels. So why use a complicated moving assembly with a secondary moving assembly for AF? Of course, all glass pentaprisms have better viewing than EVF, right now, but we are probably going to see a rapid development of electronic viewfinders within the next few years.

Also, with an EVF you can see the histogram before shooting the image and can have a lot of usable displays.

Best regards
Erik

Of course we will Erik, the APS-c market has all turned hybrid, people that buy a DSLR to use it primarily as a videocamera and occasionally as a stills camera, they don't need a pentaprism do they? Market needs can not be ignored, if market asks, manufacturers provide! OTOH my opinion is, that the rapid advancement of AVFs and the increased percentage of cameras that will have it, it won't mean that photographers ask for it...., it means that there are less photographers than we believe there are.  ;) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Logged

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #71 on: October 10, 2011, 07:02:23 pm »

so the sensors are capable of fast readouts.

some do 30p, while some do 60p and some do 120p for focusing only... and 120p vs 30p for CDAF is a very big difference.
Logged

Ajoy Roy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #72 on: October 11, 2011, 12:05:14 am »

In the times of film we had cameras like the Mamiya 6, Bronica RF, Fuji GZ645 etc. Why hasn't anybody come up with something similar in the digital age?
In those days the sensor was free (film) to the manufacturer, hence they had to invest in hardware only. Today each camera has a sensor inbuilt, and that costs money, in fact 80% of the cost (if not more) of digital camera is the sensor!

Till the sensor; and not the DB; are interchangeable, we are stuck with what ever sells the most. Once we have, as one post said, interchangeable sensor modules, all sorts of cameras can be built and sold to satisfy the demand.
Logged
Ajoy Roy, image processing

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13533
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #73 on: October 11, 2011, 01:30:03 am »

I am always pretty amazed that these discussions always end up focusing on the spec of cameras and not their measured performance.

Although people tried very very hard, nobody has been able to prove that the DxOMark results for performance measurement are actually not representative of the reality of the cameras performance. This most probably means that DxOMark data are in fact totally representative of the realities of camera performance.

A Sony NEX5 does have more DR than a Nikon J1. A Nikon D7000 does have the same DR as that of a Phaseone P45+. We cannot believe in DxOMark when it serves our own agenda and stop believing in them when they show something we dislike. :)

So what do we see when we try to compare specs vs camera performance for high end DSLRs vs backs?

- DSLR sensor performance is improving much faster than MF sensor performance and DR is the one area where their progress have been the most remarkable,
- The pace of increase of resolution of the DSLRs is similar to that of backs. Even if Nikon did come up in October with a 36 MP D800, this would only be a 1.5 times increase in pixel count over the D3x, that itself doubled the pixel count 4 years after the previous iteration (times 3 in 7 years). Phaseone is now at 80 MP compared to the 40MP of the P45+ released 4 years before it. Granted, they increased the sensor area at the same time,  but so did the DSLR sensor designers when thinking in terms of sensels.

The truth of the matter though is that a 36MP D800 without AA filter and with a DR similar to that of the D3x would basically deliver 4x5+ quality in a 1kg waterproof package with full sensor area very fast AF.

I personally don't see anything unreasonable about this approach to camera development. At least nothing more unreasonnable than releasing a 80mp back considering the actual needs of most photographers.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 03:04:20 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13533
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #74 on: October 11, 2011, 03:08:45 am »

In those days the sensor was free (film) to the manufacturer, hence they had to invest in hardware only. Today each camera has a sensor inbuilt, and that costs money, in fact 80% of the cost (if not more) of digital camera is the sensor!

This is absolutely not correct. APS sensors cost a few tens of US$, FX sensors cost a few hundreds and MF no more than a few thousands. At most.

The sensor does certainly not represent more than 20% of the cost of a camera and the larger the format the less it represents.

Cheers,
Bernard

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #75 on: October 11, 2011, 03:21:03 am »

J,

 There is inspiration for a lot of products in your post.

 eg. for automatic focus pulling one could very well imagine having a laser pointer that is synced with the frame rate of the camera (on when the sensor is OFF), and held on the subject by the focus puller. This would be the photo equivalent of the laser target designator employed by special forces to designate targets for ordnance launched by support aircraft. This might maybe create some new specialist jobs such as the nipples puller in porn :)

 I could spec some new products for each of your points, but in the end what is right and wrong about your post is that there was and still is an Omerta that video products should be heavy, professional, expensive and require big man power to transport, set up, light and shoot. And there is still an Omerta that instead of getting what you need once and for all (1940's Leica or reporter's Rolleiflex), you should be convinced by gradual improvements and permanent frustration that you need to throw out most of your gear every two years.

Just look at the computers which get "faster" every year, even every 6 months, but still take 2/10 of a second to open a pull-down menu and a minute to launch Photoshop.

If the mobile phone were mainly made by Motorola, it might look like your picture, but I bet it would also have a talk time of one week, and you would actually be able to understand what the person on the other end is saying.

I have a couple of unmodded Zenith Transoceanic radios from the 60's sitting here, and they were not throwaway designs - I have them in daily use, and they basically do everything I can require from a radio. I had some Sony shortwave models and they were smaller, but had none of the same abilities or durability although they sure looked nice.

Edmund

PS. Sony had a memory-based walkman prototype they were showing around for years. Everyone in the industry saw it,  a box with no moving parts and a pair of earphones. They knew all there was to know about music marketing, they understood about files and computers and they just weren't going to rip themselves a new one by selling it until it became inevitable. In the end management couldn't bring the company to sell it even when it was inevitable, and Apple overtook them. The same thing may very well happen in video with Red and the existing video incumbents.





I think camera companies sell what they can make that is easier (not easy, easier) to assemble with what they have on hand or can buy off the shelf, hence we have things like more pixels and slowly improving lcds.

If the consumer electronic world, moved like the camera world then your Iphone, would be a motorola brick with a lcd.  Maybe 15% smaller and it might take a photo, but other than that it would be based on 15 year old tech.



If you look at any current professional camera, they look and do about the same thing as the film cameras they replaced, except instead of film they have a scanner on the back or inside.  It's marvelous they have a scanner, but the rest of the camera and lens, looks and does about the same thing as we've had for about a zillion years and at this stage of digital cameras, they still won't do some things that film cameras did.

Shoot a subject with the sun behind them for that soft dreamy summer look on film, then do it on digital and you'll know what I mean.

Even RED which should be commended for building a camera company from scratch, still build essentially a digital arriflex, or panaflex, or Aaeton.   They make a good digital arriflex for a pretty good price, but overall it's still a manual focused camera, that does just about the same thing the film cameras did except instead of processing 4k film you get to process 4k to 5k digital.

Look at Canon and their 5d.  They never real built it to be a motion cinema camera for the masses, they built in video because they had live view and they wanted to one up sony which had about the same still camera at the same price point.

It was the masses and a bunch of 3rd party developers that made the 5d2 viable for motion and if you've priced out a complete 5d2 rig that can actually capture sound and mount of a tripod with a usable monitor and a box to read sound bars and collect sound.

In fact the stuff we mount on our 5d2 costs 3 times as much as the camera, which kind of makes you wonder why the camera company didn't make this stuff in the first place and collect the profits.



Anyway.

Somebody asks me what I would like to see in a camera or better put, what do cameras do today that don't let me do what I'd like to do tomorrow.

First make them lighter weight.   Something like the Sony FS100 at it's maximum.   This allows for lighter weight tripods, mounts, booms, supports and in a world where carbon fiber is everywhere, why are we still lifting up 4 to 20lb cameras.

The other day I drove by a location they were shooting the TV show "House".   The camera crane was the size of a Ford F150 pickup, twice the weight,  and looked like something that was made for the first world war.  

Second make them basic with expandable add ons.  In other words if you want a good but limited $5,000 camera, there it is.  If you want more, there is more stuff like focus tools, larger capture cards, faster readers, thunderbolt tethering, etc.

Third get rid of the layers and layers of menus.  If you've ever worked something like the Panasonic or the Sony fs100 in the heat of battle, you'll find things like changing the shutter speed and building a color look requires the hands of a heart surgeon and the patience of mortgage banker.

Fourth, make all LCD's high def, articulating and touch screen.  Hasn't anyone in the camera world ever held an I-phone?   Also make it easy to add another screen or two or three.   You can't have enough viewing options.  

Fifth, allow the camera to shoot a 5k still while it captures motion and make the sensor square with crops lines that light up depending on what format your shooting.

Sixth, make a touch screen follow focus system.  Not just touch on one spot and hold it but touch or outline a subject, then let the focus follow that subject.

If this isn't possible, then make an automatic secondary viewfinder, something that looks like a spot meter, and let the assistants, or focus puller focus on the subject while the photographer/camera operator concentrates on the subject and framing.

Seventh, high base iso with internal nd filters to lower the iso.  Why do we take a 100 iso camera and bump the curves to get to 1000, or go the other way.  Why not just start at 1000 and have a series of nd's to get us lower, or bump the curves or lut to get us higher?

Eighth.  Removable AA filters.    Kodak did it with their line of digital cameras and I had them and it worked well, it fact it worked amazingly well and since then everybody just forgot about it.  How about a series of none to strong and then let us decide which filter is best for the subject.

Ninth.   Keep it modular.  Really modular so when a new sensor design comes out or a new lcd screen don't make us toss out Ten or twenty grand worth of camera just allow us to insert a new imager or lcd or module or something.  

Red is dong something like this, or at least they were, though with RED information changes by the month, so whether anything that fits one a RED One will fit a scarlet, an Epic a scarlet 2 nobody knows, at least nobody but Peter Jackson and the companies owner.

Tenth and the most important . . . software.    Whoever writes imaging software must loathe photographers and image makers.   Why is it lightroom is 100% different interface than photoshop, C-1 different than lightroom and when you get into motion, Nuke, Color, Di-Vinci (there is a long list) works with nodes and every button is in a different place.  That would be fine except 95% of the buttons and commands do the same thing so why make them a 100% different function . . . and nodes, I want to meet the person that thought that up, because it's the craziest thing I've ever used.

I loathe learning new software and before somebody says you can't do motion with still software or your can't do stills with motion software that's bull.  CS5 Extended will do motion (though it's a pain), Nuke will do resolution free stills (though it's a pain to learn), so why it takes 4 software suites just to color imagery makes no sense to me.

That's the short list.  


IMO

BC






« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 03:47:14 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

TH_Alpa

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 214
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #76 on: October 11, 2011, 03:38:55 am »

I confirm, sensor (production) costs are a small factor of about 20 to 30% of the price of the whole D back, as soon as one signs for a few thousands.

This being said, R&D costs to design such a sensor are to be taken in account, and those are easily around the 1'000 k mark (cf. the recent thread about the cost of developing a 8x10 sensor).

Thierry

This is absolutely not correct. ... and MF no more than a few thousands. At most.

The sensor does certainly not represent more than 20% of the cost of a camera and the larger the format the less it represents.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #77 on: October 11, 2011, 04:21:28 am »


Tenth and the most important . . . software.    Whoever writes imaging software must loathe photographers and image makers.   Why is it lightroom is 100% different interface than photoshop, C-1 different than lightroom and when you get into motion, Nuke, Color, Di-Vinci (there is a long list) works with nodes and every button is in a different place.  That would be fine except 95% of the buttons and commands do the same thing so why make them a 100% different function . . . and nodes, I want to meet the person that thought that up, because it's the craziest thing I've ever used.

I loathe learning new software and before somebody says you can't do motion with still software or your can't do stills with motion software that's bull.  CS5 Extended will do motion (though it's a pain), Nuke will do resolution free stills (though it's a pain to learn), so why it takes 4 software suites just to color imagery makes no sense to me.

That's the short list.  


IMO

BC


Spot-on observations.

It is indeed a complete mess. Not only for the newcomers photographers but for the gurus themselves, wich is more worrying.


I purchased a Nuke license some months ago. It is a very complex and heavy artillery software and means a really (really) serious learning curve is requiered and almost no possible self-training. (although it's more logically designed than Avid IMO).

And the sensation I have is this: tomorrow someone like Apple will bring on the table a user-friendly-intuitive-powerfull and cheap software that will do exactly the same but without the need to convert an image maker into an engineer.

I can't help thinking of this because I have the impression that commit myself into such a serious learning is a dead end on the long term because very soon that will not be necessary and possibly everybody's gran'ma will be able to do roto with zero software training. (I exagerate but not that much).

It means that technical habilities will not have the same value and probably the artistical talent is the one that really will make the difference, and that's not a bad thing at all. But then, what about user-friendly? Apple really understands something although they drive me crazy with their commercial politics, their designs understand something other company seem not to understand.

To ilustrate that point I'd talk about something that happened to me recently.

Nuke has became a standard in Hollywood and major prod houses, to the point that almost all the movies you see have been conformed in Nuke. This is not by accident. This software meets the requierements of the most demanding tasks and in the right hands, it's dead fast. (you understand that the problem is: being this right hand)
But at the same time, there is nothing you couldn't do (almost) with After-effects wich costs nothing.  

As James pointed, the fact that PS has motion capabilities and AE has stills capabilities is really frustrating not having a merged software of both with a known interface. We are at a point where this situation is ridiculous and unproductive.  The foundry actually understands that point because they are beta testing a Nuke timeline and the path is clear: one app for all. But it's not gona be an easier sotware to learn.

Back to my story, I had a very bad greenscreen the other day, very conflictive to deal with and it chalenged my current habilities. I decided to work it with Nuke using the powerfull keyer Primatte. Result? Couldn't get a perfect keying. Frustration started at that point so I decided to use the Autodesk Keyer (the flame one) and got about the same result, very similar to what I had with Nuke. Other frustration. Then...I decided to check Edius 6...and guess what? Better keying in less time, and less hassle! Not perfect still but better. Caution: I'm aware that a Nuke guru (I mean real guru) will have solved this keying for sure and saved the footage. I'm aware that I didn't get perfect results because I still have a path to recover in this high-end software, but the fact that Edius 6 had an extremely good, easy and efficient keyer that could compete with the most expensive units catch my attention.

I mean by that: are those high-end and complex softwares really so necessary? My answer is NO if you're not Hollywood and won't do Avatar or Star-wars kind of stuff.

In 98% of the cases, I find that the capabilities of a good NLE are enough. It's a lot of money for those 2% left, but for some people those 2% are what makes the difference.

Paradox: Nuke has developped a plug-in for FCPx to be able to generate XML and so there is now compatibility between Nuke and FCPx. Crazy!! One of the most simple and intuitive and "underpowered" NLE get married with one of the most powerfull sophisticated high-end compositing software. Where the hell are we going?

We are living in a crazy world where people are playing with plug-ins to entertain themselves while we need a sort of FCPx but with the Nuke capabilities. Instead of putting more efforts in adding even more complication in the pipeline, more third-party softwares, more plug-ins to chase, more different interfaces to learn etc etc...engineers and artists should meet together in convention and define routes of standardized-user-friendly softwares for both stills and motion.
  


« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 04:56:01 am by fredjeang »
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #78 on: October 11, 2011, 04:36:10 am »

I confirm, sensor (production) costs are a small factor of about 20 to 30% .......snip



I  think digital camera evolution follows the old line of  "This is like deja vu all over again".

We've all been down this road, from the dslrs to medium format and now to motion cameras.   7 grand here, 7 grand there, 30 grand to move up, 10 grand to trade it in, 20 grand more to move up etc. etc. . . . all for just slow incremental changes that consumer electronics already had 5 years ago.

I think for professional cameras to make me or most people I know purchase, then they are going to have to get to a much lower price point, or make the cameras something we just can't do without.

Red talks about stills to digital motion or dsmc or whatever it's called.  I get it, the time is right for a real 22mpx look of a still coming from a 5k motion capture, but not for a billion bucks and not for something that is obsolete in 18 months and not for something that is still opaque when it comes to information.

As far as still cameras that just shoot stills, we're there and I don't think anything will move me to buy just a still camera for the sake of 10 more mpx or 15% more frame coverage.

Those days are over and for me and my clients, it's old think.

We really do need a new way of working because the world has a new way of consuming media.  As I write this I have one computer with an invoice and an estimate setting on the desktop, one computer on my right running apple color, one computer on my left running photoshop and on one of these computers in the background is playing the wall street journal videos.

Our studio manager goes through his day working a computer with an Ipad setting next to it watching a Hockey game and he's effective and efficient.

Personally I don't care what a "sensor" costs.  We've heard this before . . . "a sensor for a medium format back costs 80 billion dollars so feel lucky that we sell the back for only 40 billion dollars . . . etc. etc.".  

I don't know if it does, I don't care but I do know that when an I phone starts to become a more intriguing camera than a professional camera, then something is out of whack and someone is ignoring their market.

Now apple is not perfect, because even though fcpx is fascinating how good and easy nle can be and how it can be an all in one source, Apple screwed the pooch on communication and delivery of this software.

They would have got a much better reception had they made fcp 7 64 bit, and/or made fcp x and 7 compatible AND made fcp x more functional and full featured.  Apple is smart but this time they dropped the ball and they dropped it so hard that most professional editors have a 100% negative view of fcp x though 98% of them have never tried it.

But back to cameras.

I'm not Warren Buffet, but I do know how to run a small business and the one thing I've learned is to have any success in today's world the answer to a customer's requests is yes, not "we don't do that".

In fact the right answer is to anticipate and be prepared to answer the question, way before the customer asks.

But in the end it doesn't really matter if the concept is sound, the story is compelling the execution is creative.

No one camera will make this better, but a machine that doesn't get in your way, will make doing oiur jobs a little easier and a whole lot more fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XUfH-BEBMoY

But since this forum is about medium format, I think the two companies left standing, Hasselblad and Phase are just eating each other, fighting it out for an ever smaller market.

I really wish one of the companies would forget the other exists and just make a great, ground breaking,  f*&%ing camera, with no strings attached, no use to be photographer spokes people, no mine is bigger than yours sales points.

Just something that makes us smile when we pick it up, because we know today we're gonna shoot something we never shot before.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 05:03:16 am by bcooter »
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: The next crop of cameras is coming down the chute
« Reply #79 on: October 11, 2011, 05:30:23 am »

Hi,

My view is that SLR mirrors are "old think". The SLR mirror was intended to offer a capability similar to live view, and live view is actually quite useful for dead on exact focus using actual sensor pixels. So why use a complicated moving assembly with a secondary moving assembly for AF? Of course, all glass pentaprisms have better viewing than EVF, right now, but we are probably going to see a rapid development of electronic viewfinders within the next few years.

Also, with an EVF you can see the histogram before shooting the image and can have a lot of usable displays.

Best regards
Erik

Well it needs to be a huge improvement over what there is now, I just read the report on the Ricoh and I was left wondering what is the point in a viewfinder that you need to switch to a different mode in enable to focus it. i presume if you have a set of Leica lenses you probably own a Leica, it will be superior in many ways to a cropped sensor 12mp device. How is that technology making things better? it just made it different and not as good as it was over half a century ago.As for seeing histograms in the viewfinder, does anyone really now what those peaks and troughs relate to in a picture?  Half the reason we need them is because the latitude of digital is so cramped we need to make sure whatever the highlight is it's within range. We don't know for certain what that highlight is or even if we need to keep it or if keeping it helps the picture.You can over expose a picture, open it up in your raw program, slide stuff around to get the histogram to look nice and still have a bad looking picture. If I shot everything to keep a histogram from blowing out I would have drives full of underexposed images. I will look at a histogram to confirm what I thought I new and that's about it.
 I can't see why anyone would want to put more gadgets that will need tweaking/calibrating etc between your eye and the subject, less really is more in this case. The EVF will add nothing but a new set of problems, that will need new technology to solve and the solution will not be on the camera you have. It will be on the next one you need to upgrade too which will have an incremental "just worth it" improvement. An EVF will not improve anyone's photography one little bit.
I can't help but think all the new technology we keep getting sold is half the time trying to solve the problems the last new technology created. It's like we are riding a vortex and being told what great dizzy wild fun it is while being sucked down the plughole.

Kevin.
Logged
Kevin.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11   Go Up