The two WORST technologies in digital cameras

BraveUlysses said:

But surely someone, somewhere, manages to shoot pix that don't ever
need PPing and can be printed straight from the camera. Surely...

Click to expand...

That would be me . . . although I don't use the print button!

I always print (in the photo lab, of course) directly from the out of camera jpegs!

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

--

Judging a photographer on the basis of equipment is like speculating one's physique from a gym pass.

1. The stinkin' leetle door on bottom of da camra is too dinky to get my film in. That is just too dang stoopid.

2. my camra dint have a thingy to look threw, now thatz dum. Sometimz it gives a heck of a bolt of light that purt'near gave my ma a hart attak. She dint smile fer that fotow, no mam.
--
Pixel_Cult
Have Fun--Join the Cult--Don't be a Dolt

BraveUlysses said:

Never. Crop on your computer, not in the camera.

Click to expand...

What if most of what's in the FOV of the highest optical FL is garbage? "Digital cropping" can save a lot of card space, and write time. In cameras with live view,or EVFs, it can help in composition, and manual focus (or visual AF verification).

That's not to say that most of the ways in which DZ has been implemented aren't ideal.

Don't judge a general idea by "what's been done". Your Auto-ISO, which you appreciate, could be discarded based on some implementations, too, but that doesn't tell you how good or useful it can be.

--
John

it is for people don't know anything about computer and link their camera to a printer. i think those camera dock like kodak is real ugly and useless

BraveUlysses said:

dherzstein said:

...on DSLR cameras? Does anyone ever use this?

Click to expand...

Only those poor deluded Canon folk... : ) And I doubt if anyone
uses it more than once 'just to see'.

--
Rob

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone, everywhere, has to do everything for a first time. There is
no shame in failure, only in failure to try.

Click to expand...

I'll agree on the strobing flash assist -- I find it obnoxious and of only minimal value. I wonder what happened to the faint red assist lights some older SLRs use to have fifteen or twenty years ago... My Minolta 7xi has one, and my Canon EOS 620 and 630 have one via the 300ez flash I sometimes stick on them. My EOS 10s had one back when it still worked. I have an Olympus C-2500L digital ZLR that has a red lamp which, while annoyingly bright, works great and is still less of intrusive than the strobe assist.

I wonder if the demise of the red light was a cost thing or if there was some technical reason for it. I'm leaning toward the former because, with the red light, even my twenty year old EOS 620 can focus much faster in low light than my 18-month-old Pentax DL.

Ye Customer
(Alex)

The Customer said:

I wonder if the demise of the red light was a cost thing or if there
was some technical reason for it. I'm leaning toward the former
because, with the red light, even my twenty year old EOS 620 can
focus much faster in low light than my 18-month-old Pentax DL.

Click to expand...

I think I explained that in my earlier post about the flash focus assist.

It works better and farther than the "little red light" . . . even if it is somewhat annoying!

Funny how around here people always want better, but always seem to complain when they get better!

Just like megapixels . . . they always want more megapixel, then complain when they get more megapixel!

Or, they don't want any more megapixel (ie.- all the "6MP DSLR's are better" topics), but pi$$ and moan when the next model comes out . . . and it is still 6MP!

"Why didn't they give us more megapixel?"
(Anyone remember this when the Canon 30D came out?)

If you don't like a feature . . . then don't use it!

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

Mojo151 said:

lol nt

Click to expand...

... and we still don't know why you're laughing, and why the other person is speechless. We're not psychic.

--
John

MusicDoctorDJ said:

MusicDoctorDJ wrote:

The Customer said:

I wonder if the demise of the red light was a cost thing or if there
was some technical reason for it. I'm leaning toward the former
because, with the red light, even my twenty year old EOS 620 can
focus much faster in low light than my 18-month-old Pentax DL.

Click to expand...

I think I explained that in my earlier post about the flash focus
assist.

It works better and farther than the "little red light" . . . even if
it is somewhat annoying!

Funny how around here people always want better, but always seem to
complain when they get better!

Click to expand...

Perhaps I missed that. Still, I think the strobing assist may work better on certain systems. My specific complaint stems from the observed instances wherein my Pentax DL with strobing focus assist is more obtrusive and focuses slower than my EOS 620/630/10s-es or even Minolta 7xi with the old-fashioned cross-hatched red light.

Again, you're probably right about the strobing being better on some systems, it's just that it is not better on the gear I happen to own. If it were actually better in a way that I found, um, better, than I wouldn't be complaining.

Ye Customer
(Alex)

The best AF assist that I have used was the laser pattern on my old Sony V1 compact. The worst IMO is the flash strobe on my K10d dSLR - (btw I more or less never use onboard flash and don't possess a flashgun.)

I am not realistically going to flip up the onboard flash manually, strobe focus (irritating both myself and the subject), then flip it down again for shooting.

The V1 camera briefly projected a series of short diagonal lines, alternating direction, arranged in a grid pattern, onto the subject area. The red laser light was very localised so the likelihood was very low of this light hitting someone's eye (although this was safe - very much weaker than, say, a laser pointer of the type used in presentations).

It was ideal for focusing because it "draped" a very high contrast target over the surface contours of the subject. Focusing did not depend on illuminating existing colour contrast within the subject and was very fast due to the crispness of the target. The camera used contrast AF of course - but it seems to me that this laser pattern could work (AFAIK) equally well with phase contrast AF as used in dSLRs.

RP

A built in internal memory of 1GB should not be difficult these days.
And why not?

Rgds

...auto shutter speed, auto aperture, bracketing, etc. which are making the 'skilled' photographer dumb?

nickoly said:

At least with digital zoom you know when you are using it, any
problems are self-inflicted, and you know what it going on. Much the
same can be said for the other.

With auto ISO, you don't know what is going on.

besides, I believe digital zoom can be useful at times.

Jonathan Demarais said:

Digital zooming in P&Ss (tied for worst with 1/2.5" sensors) and
strobing flash focus assist in DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--



http://www.exp1orer.com

richardplondon said:

The camera used
contrast AF of course - but it seems to me that this laser pattern
could work (AFAIK) equally well with phase contrast AF as used in
dSLRs.

RP

Click to expand...

It would have to work. I don't know if the system on my older Canons and Minoltas used a laser, but the red light did seem to utilise lines of varying angles to give the AF sensor something to grab hold of.

People used to hate the super-bright red assist light under the lens of my Olympus C-2500L ... until they were confrotnted with the strobing assist of the Pentax...

Ye Customer
(Alex)

Of course you know what's going on. You can turn in on or off, and set the maximum ISO it will go to. That's more powerful that Auto Aperture (can you set a minimum or maximum) or Auto shutter speed (ditto).

What's the point of having 3, 9, or 45 focus points active when the camera selects them on a semi random basis?

Selecting any single one is fine. Tracking a moving object is fine. I don't object to having multiple points available, providing you know which one is active. But letting the camera pick one of 45 points based on some obscure algorithm? Crazy.

tko said:

What's the point of having 3, 9, or 45 focus points active when the
camera selects them on a semi random basis?

Selecting any single one is fine. Tracking a moving object is fine. I
don't object to having multiple points available, providing you know
which one is active. But letting the camera pick one of 45 points
based on some obscure algorithm? Crazy.

Click to expand...

I agree, never figured that out myself.
Who's in control?
Camera?

Glad some manufacturer's are actually using that lump between their shoulders. That sounds so fantastic! I love my Canon, but since all cameras basically take the same pictures it really comes down to features, controls, and maybe lenses. Canon really needs to listen up and get ahead of the curve like they used to be.

SmartMedia cards disguised as XD...
Toggle zoom switches disguised as a ring around the lens barrel....
--

The Amateur Formerly Known as 'UZ'pShoot'ERS' 'Happy Shootin' Comments, Critique, Ridicule, Limericks, Jokes, Hi-jackings, EnthUZIastically, Encouraged... I Insist!



* [email protected] * http://www.pbase.com/rrawzz *

I cannot put them in order, so I selected three.