Reading mode: Light Dark

A simpler camera

Go to last post
J

Jeppe76

Leading Member
Messages
601
Reaction score
1
Location
Oslo, NO
The cameras are becoming increasingly complicated. Some of it is genuinely useful, but some of it is added "just because someone might need it".

What I'd like is a camera where only those options that relate to the taking of the picture are available. No JPEG, please - all those options are confusing people. Pop art filters? Black'n'white conversion? Sharpness? Saturation? Shadow compensation? White balance adjustments? That stuff don't belong in a camera IMHO.

Instead, ship better software that's easier to use. Something like a scaled-down lightroom application.. And a big friendly button that says "Improve my picture".

The wheel where you can choose various pre-set programs can stay, though. That is genuinely useful to beginners and people with no more ambition than taking properly exposed photographs.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/jeppe-photos/
 
There are plenty of point and shoot cameras that do all these things automatically. However, the market indicates that the enthousiasts want more control over their pictures, so you see alot more manual functions on the higher end cameras.
 
Indeed there are very basic p'n's cameras around.

However, I am trying to argue thatstuff that is really best performed in front of a computer is should not be added to the cameras. Selective coloring is another example of this trend of adding post-processing into the camera when the manufacturer instead should just provide a good piece of software..

As I said, "What I'd like is a camera where only those options that relate to the taking of the picture are available.". I'm all for manual and semi-automatic controls. I'm just opposed to bloating the camera with all kinds of non-essentials. :)

--
http://flickr.com/photos/jeppe-photos/
 
A lot of people don't want to process their photos 100% on the computer and want to have the option of good output from a jpg engine and in camera processing.

And, really, it sounds like all you have to do is shoot RAW to get the 'simplicity' that you want, It eliminates all those pesky options.

--
Stu
E510, TZ4
.
 
Contrast, saturation, sharpness, black and white conversion, filter effects, shadow compensation and white balance adjustment all "relate to the taking of the picture," every bit as much as focal length, focus point, aperture, and shutter speed. All of these give you control over how the picture will look, and I'd rather be able to control this in-camera* at the time of capture, when I can see the actual scene I'm trying to represent, than later in front of a computer screen working only from a memory. Pre-set programs and your big, friendly "improve my picture" button are the antithesis of photographic control.

Not that I've yet had a camera that lets me effectively do all this in the field, but that would be an ideal for me.
 
Jeppe76 said:
The cameras are becoming increasingly complicated. Some of it is
genuinely useful, but some of it is added "just because someone might
need it".
Click to expand...
Just because something is in the camera does not mean you have to use it. No one forces you to use every feature the camera offers you.

I agree however that most cameras are too complicated and you constantly need to go through the menues to make even simple changes to your exposure.

--
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/
http://ricohgrdiary.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega
 
I belive the older Sigma dslr ( 9 10) wer raw onyl cameras, with just the old-fashioned photographic controls.

However they did not sell all to well, so this lowers the motivation for others to follow this road
 
Basically what you are asking for is a camera that shoots in raw all the time and forces the user to always be working in post processing...for every shot. Is that really a simpler solution? I don't think so. Many users have no interest in spending thier time geeking around in front of the computer, when they could be out using thier cameras.

Having said that, I agree many features on newer cameras are useless and could be done away with, no argument there. However basic features such as WB, Contrast, Saturation, etc should remain...as should JPEG.
Jeppe76 said:
Indeed there are very basic p'n's cameras around.

However, I am trying to argue thatstuff that is really best performed
in front of a computer is should not be added to the cameras.
Selective coloring is another example of this trend of adding
post-processing into the camera when the manufacturer instead should
just provide a good piece of software..

As I said, "What I'd like is a camera where only those options that
relate to the taking of the picture are available.". I'm all for
manual and semi-automatic controls. I'm just opposed to bloating the
camera with all kinds of non-essentials. :)

--
http://flickr.com/photos/jeppe-photos/
Click to expand...
--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11
Tips http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
FAQ at http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html
 
Photography is diverging more now than in the past. The snapshooters who need to transmit their photos nearly instantly to family, friends, and the world at large, and the artistic, "quality" shooters. Wireless tethered shooting, where images go straight into a laptop, or straight "home," for further processing, is where the artistic side is headed. The snappers will process as the shots are taken, then send them out.

Thanks to microchips, the in-camera options are possible to bypass, and we should not resent their presence, but just ignore them. Sure, we pay for in-camera processing potential, but it is mainly inexpensive software and, to me, a marketing gimmick.

--



Pan. Eff-Zee Thirty, some Olys, macrolenses, etc.
 
I agree there are a lot of pre-set scene modes on P&S cameras that are silly. (Food, pet, baby1, baby2, to name a few) However, without JPEG and the usual JPEG settings (standard, vivid, contrast, sharpness ...) you could not sell the camera.
Bert
 
Why not? You "just" gotta make brilliant software. It's essential to make it easy to both adjust and share. Maybe even make JPEGs on the fly as you import the files, and then update those JPEGs as the user edits them. Tell me what percentage of the users that would be dissatisfied with such a (default) modus operandi!

--
http://flickr.com/photos/jeppe-photos/
 
Jeppe76 said:
Why not? You "just" gotta make brilliant software. It's essential to
make it easy to both adjust and share. Maybe even make JPEGs on the
fly as you import the files, and then update those JPEGs as the user
edits them. Tell me what percentage of the users that would be
dissatisfied with such a (default) modus operandi!
Click to expand...
90%. People don't want to proccess their pictures. They want to take them and have them look good without doing anything to them.

Heck, lots of people just go to a store and have all the pictures in the card printed without looking.

--
Sorry about my english, it's not my first language.
 
Jeppe76 said:
Indeed there are very basic p'n's cameras around.

However, I am trying to argue thatstuff that is really best performed
in front of a computer is should not be added to the cameras.
Selective coloring is another example of this trend of adding
post-processing into the camera when the manufacturer instead should
just provide a good piece of software..

As I said, "What I'd like is a camera where only those options that
relate to the taking of the picture are available.". I'm all for
manual and semi-automatic controls. I'm just opposed to bloating the
camera with all kinds of non-essentials. :)
Click to expand...
Ah, well. Non-essentials. Yes. Nice idea. Unfortunately, what is non-essential to you is life's blood to another.

Taking a picture is one thing to one person, another to the person standing next to him. Neither you, nor I, get to judge who has it right, because cameras offer enough features for both. It's then possible to ignore those features you neither like nor use.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 
Jeppe76 said:
Indeed. And there's more processing power in their computers (and at
the print shop) than there is in their cameras, so performing
automatic improvements in their cameras seems to me a bit
antisensical.. :)
Click to expand...
I dunno. It seems somewhat arrogant to me to state that everyone should use a computer to prep photos because you don't like what is done in-camera.

These are the same people who bought P&S film cameras by the millions, pretty much keeping the photo industry afloat so pros and advanced amateurs could get their pretty toys/tools to play or work with, in and out of the darkroom. I'd guess not a whole lot has changed there, except the concept of advanced amateur, which is a category that appears to be more widespread today.

Basically, most people are like my two daughters and my wife: they want to either hand me the SD card and let me download the photos for them, or they want to stick the card in the slot at whatever store, and come back in 50 minutes to pick up a wad of 4x6 photos, unprocessed in any way. Why should people like that, in their many multiples of millions, already busy doing 11 other things, be forced to learn post-processing, no matter how good the software is, just because you think it's a good idea?

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 
People generally don't play much with their saturations/sharpness stuff, in my experience. They experiment at some point in their learning curve, then find something they like - and then leave it there. Ask your daughters and wife if they muck around much in the menus.

So, most people do not want to be spending time in post-processing or pre-processing, they simply want to take good/cool pictures with as little effort as possibe. So, they will simply configure the software and the software will remember their preferences..

However, how about those old pics they snapped before they knew about saturation and and contrast and sharpness? It'll be easier for them to fix up their images - because they will only have to learn how to do that in one place: The software.

As for handing over the card in the store, that will work just like it has for a century - people hand in their films, and the camera store developes and prints for them.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/jeppe-photos/
 
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