Reading mode: Light Dark

Oly vs Fuji innovation

Go to last post
C

chowlett

Active member
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
Location
Cambridge, UK
See here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072208fujifilms200exr.asp

and compare...

Fuji:
  • In-camera pixel merging for lower res, high dynamic range mode
  • In-camera pixel merging for lower res, low noise mode
  • In-camera multi-image merging for low noise (like Photoacute)
  • In-camera multi-image focus stacking for narrow depth of field with slower lenses
Oly:
  • Art filters
Question: which functions would you rather have in your firmware?
 
Well of course.

Oly's history of innovation is long and illustrious.

But my question was not about camera form factors or hardware. It was about firmware functions.

Do you not think Fuji's new functionality is interesting?
 
chowlett said:
Question: which functions would you rather have in your firmware?
Click to expand...
I would rather have sample images from a production model than being wowed by the same old fancy marketing speak in yet another company press release.

and btw, your post came off as rather biased and uninformed (even if that wasn't the intent)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/
 
you have to be blind not to see that Olympus innovations go very well beyond the addition of art filters.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Dear Chowlett:
In response to your tone:

I would imagine that if the portrait of you below were made with one of Fuji's excellent cameras, it would look about the same. Rich

E3, ZD 12 60 at 37mm, 1/80, f 3,8, ISO 200.

 
Yes and no ...

See, all of those functions have one big sacrifice: you lose half your pixels.

Such a major decision I rather take in post where I am more capable of judging things. Can you imagine many situations where you know in advance that noise is going to be so bad you'll feel compelled to throw away half of your image data?
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.wizardtrails.com/
 
I am not blind. Clearly Oly are one of the most innovative camera companies and have been basically for ever.

I don't believe I called that into question in my OP.

I merely asked people to compare some recently added firmware functions by two very innovative companies and comment on what they would prefer / like to see in future.

I'd much rather see some interesting answers to (what I think is) an interesting question, than spend time defending my love of Oly.
 
I'm sorry you feel the need to insult me.

My interest in your opinion on useful functions to include in firmware was genuine...

...if you're interested in sharing :-)
 
you won't see me "defending love of Oly"- to me is about truth and accuracy. Your OP didn't come across as too objective there honestly, thanks for clarifying.

Well yes, I rather see what Fuji did vs art filters, for sure. But I think the "art filters" can have a future if Olympus makes a system for creating filters, so you can simulate true red B&W filters of different intensity and graduated filters.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Well, pretty much all image processing in camera has that character. For ultimate control at your leisure use Raw.

Firmware image processing (even in-camera jpegs) is about trading control for convenience...
 
Thank you Raist. That's exactly the kind of suggestion I was interested in.

Apologies to all if my 'tone' was a little confrontational.

I guess there have been a few real trolls around lately, and people are kind of on edge...
 
Dale Treadway said:
chowlett said:
Question: which functions would you rather have in your firmware?
Click to expand...
I would rather have sample images from a production model than being wowed by the same old fancy marketing speak in yet another company press release.
Click to expand...
Of course you're right. But if the ideas are interesting. And if the functions work as advertised...
Dale Treadway said:
and btw, your post came off as rather biased and uninformed (even if that wasn't the intent)
Click to expand...
Well sorry about that. My intent was just to provoke an interesting debate about what firmware functions would be interesting in our cameras...
Dale Treadway said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/
Click to expand...
 
Cause that's pretty much what you did. You didn't really ask a question, you made a statement with a question mark by leaving out quite a lot of information.

Anyway, to address your actual question then, let's look at these innovations:
chowlett said:
In-camera pixel merging for lower res, high dynamic range mode
In-camera pixel merging for lower res, low noise mode
Click to expand...
Both of these half the pixel count. Such a major decision I much rather take in post where I can decide whether the situation requires it. How often do you find yourself facing noise so bad it's worth throwing away half your image data for? And know ahead of time it will be that bad?
chowlett said:
In-camera multi-image merging for low noise (like Photoacute)
Click to expand...
Nice if you have a tripod and an unmoving object. If not, I doubt it's going to work too well. A small branch in the wind would get mangled up pretty badly. Of course I'll have to see results for this first.
chowlett said:
In-camera multi-image focus stacking for narrow depth of field with slower lenses
Click to expand...
You sure it's not the other way around? Either way, the E-500 had focus bracketing. Sure you couldn't combine the images in-camera, it was a start and that was years ago. Shame they removed it from the E-510

Now what would I rather have in my firmware? None of the above. I want a separate "advanced" firmware that does away with the scene modes and replaces them on the dial with My-modes. I want Timelapse photography functions. I want AF confirm with any lens. I want things I can't do in post.

--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.wizardtrails.com/
 
OK, sorry about the joke. I don't know you well enough to insult you. Your being courteous and rational is forcing me to be the same. What is this world coming to?

The innovation, and useful functions are in your head, connected to your eye. The vast majority of the innovations in the cameras are invented by the manufacturer's advertising budget. Most of them are invented to hook the mark. They tell you, " You don't have to sweat for it, well hand it to you." I guess that is progress. I just like to do the tinkering myself.

So, see the picture in your head, do your best with the camera, then post process with no mercy. Rich
 
Mithandir said:
Oly:
  • Liveview
Click to expand...
In a dSLR, albeit a fixed lens one, namely the E-10. Live view in non-SLR digital cameras have existed since the mid nineties, of course.
Mithandir said:
  • Dust reduction
Click to expand...
Yup, SSWF in the E-1. Prior to that, Sigma simply sealed off the mirror box with a filter.
Mithandir said:
  • In-camera HDR
Click to expand...
I was unaware of that. Neat.
Mithandir said:
  • In-body IS (or at least they pretty much started it in compacts)
Click to expand...
Konica Minolta Dynax 7D had anti-shake (sensor moved by actuators) before Oly.
 
Which has a better resale Value ?

Love Vjim
 
Mithandir said:
Cause that's pretty much what you did. You didn't really ask a question, you made a statement with a question mark by leaving out quite a lot of information.

Anyway, to address your actual question then, let's look at these innovations:
Mithandir said:
In-camera pixel merging for lower res, high dynamic range mode
In-camera pixel merging for lower res, low noise mode
Click to expand...
Both of these half the pixel count. Such a major decision I much rather take in post where I can decide whether the situation requires it. How often do you find yourself facing noise so bad it's worth throwing away half your image data for? And know ahead of time it will be that bad?
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, it's not entirely clear how these functions work, While downsizing an image in post will reduce noise, I'm not sure that it can also increase dynamic range. For me, and perhaps quite a few other people, there are times when I would happily trade resolution for DR. And I can generally take that decision at the time I'm shooting. Also, I don't much enjoy PP. I don't think I'm alone there either.
Mithandir said:
Mithandir said:
In-camera multi-image merging for low noise (like Photoacute)
Click to expand...
Nice if you have a tripod and an unmoving object. If not, I doubt it's going to work too well. A small branch in the wind would get mangled up pretty badly. Of course I'll have to see results for this first.
Click to expand...
Well Photoacute does auto image registration, so doesn't need a tripod. I'd be surprised if Fuji's function in a fixed lens 'compact' (albeit a pretty big one) needed a tripod. I doubt anyone could solve the wind problem, but that's hardly a problem for every shot...
Mithandir said:
Mithandir said:
In-camera multi-image focus stacking for narrow depth of field with slower lenses
Click to expand...
You sure it's not the other way around? Either way, the E-500 had focus bracketing. Sure you couldn't combine the images in-camera, it was a start and that was years ago. Shame they removed it from the E-510
Click to expand...
I got the impression from Fuji's blurb that their new Pro-focus function was to give blurred backgrounds for portraits - sort of focus stacking in reverse somehow. I agree it was a shame the focus bracketing function from the E-500 was dropped...
Mithandir said:
Now what would I rather have in my firmware? None of the above. I want a separate "advanced" firmware that does away with the scene modes and replaces them on the dial with My-modes. I want Timelapse photography functions. I want AF confirm with any lens. I want things I can't do in post.
Click to expand...
Some more very interesting ideas...
Mithandir said:
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.wizardtrails.com/
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top