Optical vs Software Photography ?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
kiwi2
kiwi2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,001
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

Antti Roine wrote:

Some 16 years ago I wrote directly to Canon and Nikon R&D that "please replace mechanical mirror, pentaprism and shutter with the digital solutions". They gave polite answers that they will make the inventions by them selves. Now they have finally made these inventions in Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7.

I was also knocked out in these forums:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10760390

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970000

My wishes have finally came true. However, Canon and Nikon bet on the wrong horses again: They are investing on the optical photography instead of the software photography. This is not wise because:

I loved reading some of those posts from 15 years ago.

Like this one...

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970120

... "Imaging being able to drive a car where the engine doesn't make a sound. Nice, but its not going to happen, so why worry about it"

-- hide signature --
 kiwi2's gear list:kiwi2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T100 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +4 more
Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,090
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

golfhov wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

newmikey wrote:

threw the lens wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

Cameras of every sensor size have offered GPS since forever, either built in or via a snap-on accessory. In my years of shooting though I've never needed to know the exact location of a photo. Not once. Ever. In 45 years.

GPS sounds a cool feature but I am not sure how it is supposed to help me in photography, either.

I thought GPS helps me when I am lost.

Oh, I often use the GPS module when on vacation so as to see where I took the images. It's so easy to forget the details when traveling around. GPS can be handy but it doesn't really do anything else than pinpoint shooting locations.

I have a Canon with built-in GPS. It reportedly drains the battery very fast but I've never used it to see for myself.

Which model? Some models have a greater draw than others

Not sure the model. It's a Powershot compact.

For me it simply doesn't matter where I took a photo. As long I can identify the city or property by name, that's good enough. Of course other people may have more strict requirements.

Yup. Strokes for folks. We all have different memories and expectations. Popular tour destinations shouldn't be an issue but if you photograph less frequented stops the GPS could be helpful for all sorts of things.

I try to photograph the least-visited locations possible. There are some national parks and other locations that are so un-visited that my websites are among the very first results in a Google search. Here's one where my website even ranks higher than the official park website, lol.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=columbey+national+park

And it still doesn't matter exactly where each photo was taken, as long as I didn't mix up the property names.

To each his own but I don't know that GPS would be my top priority

I could add one to my DSLR easily if needed.  But with most photographers now carrying smartphones, a GPS in the camera is redundant.

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +2 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,873
Re: Oh, wow!

newmikey wrote:

mamallama wrote:

You seem to think that cameras in smartphones are not real cameras.

Correct. They are mini-modules which can capture images. Here's the one in the iPhoneX. Hardly qualifies as a "camera" wouldn't you think? No shutter, no aperture, no proper corrective elements with varying diffraction indexes. Most you could say is that they are simple optical elements with a semiconductor capture chip.

Like smartphone cameras?

No, smartphones are what the name implies...smart phones. You wouldn't mistake a smartphone for a desktop computer either even though it does some of the things a computer does. Why would you consider it a "camera" just because it is able to capture images?

Because Merriam Webster told me to consider it a camera.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,582
No regerts
1

Bobthearch wrote:

golfhov wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

newmikey wrote:

threw the lens wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

Cameras of every sensor size have offered GPS since forever, either built in or via a snap-on accessory. In my years of shooting though I've never needed to know the exact location of a photo. Not once. Ever. In 45 years.

GPS sounds a cool feature but I am not sure how it is supposed to help me in photography, either.

I thought GPS helps me when I am lost.

Oh, I often use the GPS module when on vacation so as to see where I took the images. It's so easy to forget the details when traveling around. GPS can be handy but it doesn't really do anything else than pinpoint shooting locations.

I have a Canon with built-in GPS. It reportedly drains the battery very fast but I've never used it to see for myself.

Which model? Some models have a greater draw than others

Not sure the model. It's a Powershot compact.

Gotcha. So already weak battery life. The worst I had was a Canon 6d. It drained the battery even when off. So it varies

For me it simply doesn't matter where I took a photo. As long I can identify the city or property by name, that's good enough. Of course other people may have more strict requirements.

Yup. Strokes for folks. We all have different memories and expectations. Popular tour destinations shouldn't be an issue but if you photograph less frequented stops the GPS could be helpful for all sorts of things.

I try to photograph the least-visited locations possible. There are some national parks and other locations that are so un-visited that my websites are among the very first results in a Google search. Here's one where my website even ranks higher than the official park website, lol.

Ha

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=columbey+national+park

And it still doesn't matter exactly where each photo was taken, as long as I didn't mix up the property names.

Like I said. To each his own. I don't think I really utilize the feature that much BUT I mark as much as possible because I never know. What if I am still here in 40 or 50 years and want to do a time lapse comparsion? Maybe I just want to see if I overdo one area in town.

As long as it isn't taking away from my photography

To each his own but I don't know that GPS would be my top priority

I could add one to my DSLR easily if needed. But with most photographers now carrying smartphones, a GPS in the camera is redundant.

Well my current camera does this. Gets GPS from my phone. Heck......for all this talk of how a phone is some sort of competition to a camera I see it as an accessory. There is a whole range of tools. Tracking on a gimbal, operating accessories, quick edits in the field, light calculators, maps, and I don't even know what else.

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,246
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
2

Antti Roine wrote:

Some 16 years ago I wrote directly to Canon and Nikon R&D that "please replace mechanical mirror, pentaprism and shutter with the digital solutions". They gave polite answers that they will make the inventions by them selves. Now they have finally made these inventions in Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7.

I was also knocked out in these forums:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10760390

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970000

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

My wishes have finally came true. However, Canon and Nikon bet on the wrong horses again: They are investing on the optical photography instead of the software photography.

That's because cameras are mostly about optics.

This is not wise because:

1) With tiny phone camera sensors we can get a long depth of field and very sharp photos, but also beautiful bokeh with the software photography even in dark conditions.

Bad bokeh, not beautiful, and not capable of doing some useful things you can only do with optics - like blur things out of the foreground and capture lots and lots of light in limited light situations.

2) With full-frame sensor and wide aperature lens you can get beautiful bokeh, but with software photography it is impossible to convert the unsharp background to sharp one.

And with software bokeh (as you're basically calling it), you can't see around objects or around corners like a large aperture can.

3) Full-frame sensors makes the mirrorless cameras large and heavy.

Anyone who thinks something that weighs as much as a glass of iced tea is "large and heavy" is either a weakling or disabled.

If Canon and Nikon directors are wise, they will invest on smaller APC-C size sensors and inteligent software photography integrated to the camera - like the mobile phone manufacturers do. Most of the users do not want to edit raw files in the Photoshop.

Including me.  But I do want to edit them in Lightroom.

The latest small mobile phone cameras gives us the prelude of the possiblities of the software photography with the small sensors and automatic GPS location data.

These things have exactly zero advantages over current real cameras.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +23 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,956
Re: Oh, wow!
2

mamallama wrote:

Because Merriam Webster told me to consider it a camera.

I checked, it does nothing of the sort. Wishful thinking and a lot of stretched imagination does.

International commodity coding by the WCO and WTO will not allow you to import or export it anywhere in the world as if it were a camera. It may have some camera-like features but trade regulations define its "essential character" differently.

It pays taxes like a phone, is subjected to the same regulations like a phone and is sold like a phone - hence its name: "phone".

Some of these cameraphones or phonecameras make lovely images though, I grant you thàt.

 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +3 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,873
Re: Oh, wow!

newmikey wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Because Merriam Webster told me to consider it a camera.

I checked, it does nothing of the sort. Wishful thinking and a lot of stretched imagination does.

Get a better dictionary.

International commodity coding by the WCO and WTO will not allow you to import or export it anywhere in the world as if it were a camera. It may have some camera-like features but trade regulations define its "essential character" differently.

It pays taxes like a phone, is subjected to the same regulations like a phone and is sold like a phone - hence its name: "phone".

Some of these cameraphones or phonecameras make lovely images though, I grant you thàt.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,956
I used the one you indicated (nt)
 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +3 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,873
Then learn to read (nt)

newmikey wrote:

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
orca_kkl Regular Member • Posts: 256
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

Sorry Bud, but think Big, not small...

The software photography you have in mind is but way too small for a mind as wild and free as mine...

My vision of the Software Photography starts with a abstract concept of a image in my mind, and the software searches the Net to screen all ten billion photos that are connected with my vision to make a number of candidate composite images for me to click on one to select, or heck, selects one for me as a starting point.

Once a candidate image is selected, I will select a set of "Enhancement" commands to make a masterpiece that

- has infinite DOF but with beautiful bokeh,

- has vivid colors yet subdued,

- as sharp as a sushi knife yet soft as a whisper,

- full color spectrum in all lighting situation without dealing with WB and with no undesirable noises with some grains generated to bring us just the the mood.

- brings out our deepest emotions yet inspires rational debates,

- shows us 10:1 macro of the planet that is 10000 light year away with all the details that I deem essential to this masterpiece of my photo if I so desire, yet hides the imperfections on the face of the lovely creature that I imagine sitting 2 feet away from me smiling sweetly at me,

- avoids all debates about mirrorless vs mirrored cameras, large or small sensors, heavy or light camera gear, image stabilization on sensor or in lens or without it altogether, and with enough motion blurs to show actions or completely blur free, all at my discretion,

And if I don't feel like spending time specifying the "Enhancement" commands? It will generate one set that is probably better than this limited human vision can ever achieve anyway...

Think BIG, bud, think BIG... 

 orca_kkl's gear list:orca_kkl's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D300S
Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,090
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

kiwi2 wrote:

Antti Roine wrote:

Some 16 years ago I wrote directly to Canon and Nikon R&D that "please replace mechanical mirror, pentaprism and shutter with the digital solutions". They gave polite answers that they will make the inventions by them selves. Now they have finally made these inventions in Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7.

I was also knocked out in these forums:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10760390

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970000

My wishes have finally came true. However, Canon and Nikon bet on the wrong horses again: They are investing on the optical photography instead of the software photography. This is not wise because:

I loved reading some of those posts from 15 years ago.

Like this one...

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970120

... "Imaging being able to drive a car where the engine doesn't make a sound. Nice, but its not going to happen, so why worry about it"

It was a bad idea, so they now add sound artificially if the engine is too quiet.

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +2 more
jp4 Senior Member • Posts: 1,137
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

orca_kkl wrote:

Sorry Bud, but think Big, not small...

The software photography you have in mind is but way too small for a mind as wild and free as mine...

My vision of the Software Photography starts with a abstract concept of a image in my mind, and the software searches the Net to screen all ten billion photos that are connected with my vision to make a number of candidate composite images for me to click on one to select, or heck, selects one for me as a starting point.

Once a candidate image is selected, I will select a set of "Enhancement" commands to make a masterpiece that

- has infinite DOF but with beautiful bokeh,

- has vivid colors yet subdued,

- as sharp as a sushi knife yet soft as a whisper,

- full color spectrum in all lighting situation without dealing with WB and with no undesirable noises with some grains generated to bring us just the the mood.

- brings out our deepest emotions yet inspires rational debates,

- shows us 10:1 macro of the planet that is 10000 light year away with all the details that I deem essential to this masterpiece of my photo if I so desire, yet hides the imperfections on the face of the lovely creature that I imagine sitting 2 feet away from me smiling sweetly at me,

- avoids all debates about mirrorless vs mirrored cameras, large or small sensors, heavy or light camera gear, image stabilization on sensor or in lens or without it altogether, and with enough motion blurs to show actions or completely blur free, all at my discretion,

And if I don't feel like spending time specifying the "Enhancement" commands? It will generate one set that is probably better than this limited human vision can ever achieve anyway...

Think BIG, bud, think BIG...

Sounds like something people used to do on canvas back in the day.

 jp4's gear list:jp4's gear list
Canon PowerShot G5 X Canon EOS 80D Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II
kiwi2
kiwi2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,001
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
1

Lee Jay wrote:

Antti Roine wrote:

Some 16 years ago I wrote directly to Canon and Nikon R&D that "please replace mechanical mirror, pentaprism and shutter with the digital solutions". They gave polite answers that they will make the inventions by them selves. Now they have finally made these inventions in Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7.

I was also knocked out in these forums:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10760390

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970000

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Actually I see a lot of replies in those threads telling him 'why he is wrong' have been proven to be totally wrong themselves. Like this one...

.

www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970120

From 2004... "Not so. Try manual focusing using an LCD (even a really high quality one). It is very difficult to focus because the resolution isn't there. With SLRs the image through the viewfinder is exactly what will be recorded, but the recorded image will contain less detail than what you see. This makes focusing much easier. Also LCDs typically have slow refresh rates, especially when light conditions are less than ideal. And it becomes next to impossible to frame subjects in nightscenes. With SLRs all this is easily done."

.

...For starters, using manual focus is much easier and more enjoyable with mirrorless. People started using live view on their DSLRs to make sure focus was more accurate when needed. And now being able to adapt an old manual focus lens to a mirrorless camera and use it easily with many aids to get accurate focus like focus peaking is actually a big draw-card for many people.

And "next to impossible to frame subjects in nightscenes"...???

When I had DSLRs and shooting astro nightscapes, I found myself using live view more and more. Framing and getting accurate focus on the stars was much easier in live view. That's why it was an easy step for me to mirrorless because I was mostly using my DSLR as a mirrorless anyhow. I wasn't going to miss the flappy mirror thing.

-- hide signature --
 kiwi2's gear list:kiwi2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T100 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +4 more
threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 1,933
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

I heard there was a camera which keeps the GPS when you turn the camera off, obviously draining the battery. Was it the 6D? Anyway, terrible design flaw.

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,246
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

kiwi2 wrote:

...For starters, using manual focus is much easier and more enjoyable with mirrorless.

Which is it's one and only advantage for stills. Fortunately, I have all auto-focus lenses so this is irrelevant to me.

People started using live view on their DSLRs to make sure focus was more accurate when needed.

Never done it. Not needed and too slow and uncomfortable.

And now being able to adapt an old manual focus lens to a mirrorless camera and use it easily with many aids to get accurate focus like focus peaking is actually a big draw-card for many people.

Not me. I got rid of all those old lenses two decades ago.  Don't want them back either.

And "next to impossible to frame subjects in nightscenes"...???

That's been my experience with live view.

When I had DSLRs and shooting astro nightscapes, I found myself using live view more and more.

Why? I just get solid black displays, and nothing more.

Framing and getting accurate focus on the stars was much easier in live view.

When I shot this, live view was solid black. Yet, I framed and focused with the OVF of my 1.6-crop SLR.

I use live view for less than 1 in 1,000 stills on my SLR, and every EVF I've tried absolutely stinks.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +23 more
kiwi2
kiwi2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,001
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
2

Lee Jay wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

People started using live view on their DSLRs to make sure focus was more accurate when needed.

Never done it. Not needed and too slow and uncomfortable.

But that's just you. Look in the Canon DSLR forums for example when someone is having sharpness issues with one of their lenses. The first thing most people advise is to use live view mode and manually focus the lens to see if it's auto focus issue or a optical issue. What you do and your personal opinions are irrelevant here. I am talking about what is happening out there in the big wide world.

-- hide signature --
 kiwi2's gear list:kiwi2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T100 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +4 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,246
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
1

kiwi2 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

People started using live view on their DSLRs to make sure focus was more accurate when needed.

Never done it. Not needed and too slow and uncomfortable.

But that's just you.

No, it's not JUST me, it's tons and tons of people.

A small minority need LV to focus.  Most don't.

What you do and your personal opinions are irrelevant here.

Which is why I usually have you on my ignore list, and so don't see your posts.

Back you go.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +23 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,873
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

Lee Jay wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

People started using live view on their DSLRs to make sure focus was more accurate when needed.

Never done it. Not needed and too slow and uncomfortable.

But that's just you.

No, it's not JUST me, it's tons and tons of people.

A small minority need LV to focus. Most don't.

What you do and your personal opinions are irrelevant here.

Which is why I usually have you on my ignore list, and so don't see your posts.

Back you go.

That figures.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
kiwi2
kiwi2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,001
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
1

Lee Jay wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

People started using live view on their DSLRs to make sure focus was more accurate when needed.

Never done it. Not needed and too slow and uncomfortable.

But that's just you.

No, it's not JUST me, it's tons and tons of people.

A small minority need LV to focus. Most don't.

What you do and your personal opinions are irrelevant here.

Which is why I usually have you on my ignore list, and so don't see your posts.

Back you go.

Yep, back to your little make-believe imaginary Lee Jay world where you are just so totally awesome and the ultimate authority on everything to do with photography, um, camera gear.

-- hide signature --
 kiwi2's gear list:kiwi2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T100 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +4 more
Ron Poelman
Ron Poelman Veteran Member • Posts: 7,733
Bloke, we've been begging for stickies for years,
2

for a range of reasons; they seem to be totally beyond the capabilities of this place.

-- hide signature --

Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?

 Ron Poelman's gear list:Ron Poelman's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Sony SLT-A57 Sony a7R Sony a77 II +25 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads