What's the deal with the X-T5 autofocus?

c0nfund0 wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

yomimoi wrote:

Truman Prevatt wrote:

yomimoi wrote:

baobob wrote:

Altogether i would say I would quite agree about your 2 main points : 1/-the system needs to be clearer and/or simpler

2/- The communication of Fuji is just terrible, manual explanations are difficult to understand and the lack of comprehensive non english manual is just a fault and an offence to the customer that pays 2000€/$ and cannot get a tool to master the machine easily. Btw this is a common situation in informatics, either A...e or M.......t so as an intensive user of these machines I'm rather trained to find my own way.....

As my permanent realistic position in life I did the job of experimenting what makes the camera ok. At this point I just posted my opinions, experinec and practice.

Thx for discussion.

Bob

Agree. My other main point is that, as a photographer, I have enough on my plate with sorting out the logistics of a shoot and grappling with the creative aspects of the job. The last thing I need is having to spend weeks trying to find the specific arcane settings I need for every single shooting situation that should be straightforward for a camera at this price point in 2022.

I can live with the system being unnecessarily complicated to set up, but the least the manufacturer can do is help its users do their job by issuing specific detailed guidelines.

Thanks to you too for keeping the discussion rational and civil.

Do you really think that a professional tennis play or golfer would buy a brand new racket or clubs and expect them to improve his/her game "right out of the box." I've played enough tennis at a pretty high club level to know it takes several months of practice and drills to understand just how new equipment no matter how good impacts their game and to develop the muscle memory to use the advances in the racquet technology.

Every generation from wood to metal to to wood/graphite composite to to metal graphite composites to pure graphite to ceramic from standard size head, to mid size head to oversized head. They all have advantages and they all play different. When I was playing for the Annapolis (MD) tennis club team - we would lick our chops when a opponent showed bragging about the brand new racquet he had just picked up and was using in the match. The normally turned out very well for our team.

Sure one can read the specs but all the technical specs don't translate to you and your game, It takes practice and drills with the racquet and develop a feel for how to get the best out of it - or in some cases when the racquet does not match your game well. You even have to learn how to best have your racquet strung with what types of string so it improves your game. At that point one has to work with the equipment to develop the muscle memory so one does not have to think about his shots.

A camera with advanced technology - how is that different? I actually don't think it is.

I've no idea what a professional tennis or golfer does, but I know that a professional photographer has better things to do than spend weeks trying to establish just which of many possible AF-C setting combinations are better for different shooting scenarios.

That is precisely what a professional photographer should do. I would never take a paid gig without knowing my equipment inside and out after thoroughly exploring how to get the most out of it in any scenario that I would be likely to encounter, especially a wedding where do-overs aren't really an option. Modern cameras are complex devices, each with their own unique quirks, and aren't likely going to be optimized for every shooting situation (or photographer) right out of the box. If you can't be bothered to completely familiarize yourself with your new tools, any problems that might befall you are really your own fault.

I would think "professionals" would do whatever it takes to make "money"

Whatever works, easier and faster to generate money. If knowing every nook/cranny a prerequisite to ensure the money then it will be done. If a feature/system comes that eliminate/lessen that burden then it will be std practice.

Some day AI will completely take over, read our minds, and generate exactly what we want. With one phrase "Hello Skynet, I want that shot"

Sir Roger Penrose, is one of the worlds foremost mathematicians, winner of the Nobel prize in Physics for his proof of the existence of black holes (using a very clever topological argument) in the 1960's, to shepherding Steven Hawkins through graduate school as one of his thesis advisors of Stephen Hawkins who went on to establish the existence of the universe started out from a singularity - similar to a black hole - known today as The Big Bang.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54439150

In the 1980's he took a look at algorithmic processes introduce by Allan Turing in the 1940's and the foundation of the analogue and digital computers that were being pushed for learning systems, a.k.a. artificial intelligence in a seminal book entitled -

"The Emperor New Mind."

https://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-Mind-Concerning-Computers/dp/0192861980

The limitations of AI can be found in the uncertainty as we see in quantum physics. These limitations result from algorithms - no matter how complex are linear in time just like the Turing machine. Much of what Penrose theorizes in this classic has been verified by experiment. Today our understanding of quantum physics has brought into question even the most basic concepts such as time. We are still yet to understand the arrow of time, except for Penrose's conjecture that it is the direction of increasing entropy which is foundational to quantum information theory.

https://biomedres.us/fulltexts/BJSTR.MS.ID.004639.php

At the end of the day I'm not going to wait around for a computer to read my mind as there is more an more evidence that the human brain actually acts on a quantum level since it is nothing more than electrochemical communications of between neurons. There are more working theories that unlike a computer - linear algorithm process defined by the limitations of the classical Turing machine - the human brain works through the process of quantum entanglement someone not achievable by a time dependent Turing machine.

Sitting in my office as a bright shinny new PhD in mathematical physics one summer day at Johns Hopkins, a grad student in the JHU medical school in neuroscience trying to understand how the opiate receptor in the brain and through out the human body works showed up on my door, The wanted to understand that "spooky action at a distance" they they were seeing in their experiments on the opiate receptor as her adviser told here it looked like it operated much like what was seen in quantum entanglement.

As the ability to make better and better measurements real time on the brain and design more detailed experiments, it is clear that the human brain just like all matter and energy in the universe operate as a quantum process and quantum mechanics is the appropriate tool to use. Of course the physicists still a long way from having a full understanding of the quantum as the develop better experiments to show that quantum effects actually take place on larger and larger scales. The mathematical physicists are developing more robust mathematical tools for the development of theories. However, we still can explain the unbalance of matter and anti-matter. We don't have a satisfactory theory that unifies all four fundamental forces. We have unified the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electrodynamic forces through quantum descriptions. However, we are yet to unify gravity with the quantum theory, that is no theory of quantum gravity.

So Penrose's musing about the non-existence of strong AI seems to be spot on since even a quantum computer can be massively parallel, it still is limited by the fact it is still a Turing machine because of the Church-Turing limit.

So I am not going to wait around for my camera to have the ability to have a creative moment where I can put it on a robot and tell it to "go forth and wind me a Pulitzer" while I relax at the bar. At least for the foreseeable future the brains of the outfit is not in the camera but behind the camera to wins the Pulitzer through his own creativity and his skill in using his tools.