What features do you never use?

gary0319 wrote:

I am amazed at the number of folks that will buy a camera with advanced features and then never even explore any of them to see what new photographic avenues they might present.

I think you need to look at this from the other side of the coin:  If you have a workflow that is second nature to you, that you have developed after years of use, and that gives you the output you are looking for, then why gum up the works with more stuff?

In other words, if the methods you use make the camera itself vanish in your hands, and allow you to just take the shot when you see it, why add layers of complexity that remove that advantage?

Of course, if you are not in tune with the gear, and you need more from it, then the extras are a welcome option to help you get to that place in your shooting. But if you are already there, why tinker with a formula that works?

-J

PS, it's not like I don't try new things on the camera when I find I need them.  Sometimes they even get added into the workflow.  But the overwhelming amount of stuff on the camera that I never will need is sometimes a bit daunting to consider.

The Ghost of Caravaggio wrote:

faunagraphy wrote:

The Ghost of Caravaggio wrote:

Here's a few that come to mind.

• electronic shutter

I'm curious - why don't you ever use electronic shutter?

Because practically all E-shutters are rolling shutters.

Correct, and most mechanical shutters are rolling shutters.

Rolling shutters can produce two types of artifacts: image skew and aliasing artifacts. Image skew is cause primarily by subject motion. Aliasing artifacts can occur with common sources of LED lighting. Thisarticle describes these alias artifacts in detail. Since these artifacts can not occur with mechanical shutters, using a mechanical shutter simplifies what I have to think about before I press the shutter button.

All the same defects occur with most mechanical shutters, the main difference being that they occur at higher shutter speeds because mechanical shutters usually move across the frame in a shorter time than electronic shutters.

Rolling shutter artefacts were a problem long before electronic shutters were in common use.

DLBlack wrote

I am finding this thread interesting and finding out how many users don't change their way of using a camera when technology advances.

I dunno, there's a difference between technology advancing and marketing advancing.  Too many 'features' just seem like fillers to extend column inches on a comparison graph.

I'd love it if I could buy my camera with some basic features and have a list to pick from for a one-time firmware bake-in prior to shipping.  Whatever processing ability I'm losing to make space for 23 Creative modes on my camera is a net loss to me.

outlierrn wrote:

I'd love it if I could buy my camera with some basic features and have a list to pick from for a one-time firmware bake-in prior to shipping. Whatever processing ability I'm losing to make space for 23 Creative modes on my camera is a net loss to me.

That camera would cost you more than buying a camera with all the firmware features included.

Marty4650 wrote:

It is just like the moon roof on my car. I try it one time to see if it works, then never use it again.

But that is just me. Others might shoot video a lot. But in my particular case, I just have no interest in taking moving pictures.

Several polls on the forum have shown that there is not a lot of interest in serious video use although some (quite a lot)  like to have the availability of video for occasional use.

But those pursuing new horizons (perhaps) like the idea of video and tend to shout a lot.  Perhaps they are wannabe You Tube authors or maybe wedding photographers where offering video of the event can slip into the same box as the wedding album and justify a higher fee?

Frankly I don't do video as I would have difficulty in finding folk with the time to sit and watch what I created.

But I might suggest that video attributes are seen by manufacturers as the best way to offer new exciting features for the jaded new camera body market.

Therefore I might wonder if the market might just dig their heels in when great video is used to sell camera bodies when all we really want is great stills perhaps with a small side of moving images. (Sounds like a mobile phone camera?)

If the manufacturers are so deluded as to offer product with features that bulk of the market does not revere and the net result does not generate the sales that would impress their bean counters and marketing flacks then might the whole future of M4/3 be endangered by flogging the dead horse with features that are not being relished.

The O-M1 seems to be terribly popular but even though the (video mavin) GH6 is a thoroughly capable camera it does not get that much comment and the G9 is still the best flavour of the month that Panasonic has on the M4/3 market.

The M4/3 market itself is far from dead but flogging the video product to a market that is not particularly enthusiastic about it and then saying 'sales don't stack up' might make a sad way to end it all.

Talking about you Mr Panasonic.

When the E-PL5 came along and offered MySets assigned to the mode dial then I was there early. Next of course same with my E-P5 pair...

So "1-2-3-4" MySets now cover iAuto - Scn - Art - PhotoStory, none of which I'm ever likely to use.

Wingsfan wrote:

I'll probably get kicked off the boards for saying this, but I never use full manual mode.

99% of the time I'm in Aperture mode with iso set manually. This is all my general photography, including competitive swimming ( which doesn't necessarily need the 1/500 shutter speed of some sports). With my m43 gear, the auto WB works so well under the typically 3 or 4 sources or primary light in most natatoriums, I don't even have to custom set tthat. Even my RF system struggles there...

The other times, I'm in S mode with auto iso- for low light basketball, or somewhere in between if shooting scenery with a polarizer or red enhancing, or blue gold filter.

I try to set shots up properly when I take them, I'm not so good at pp.

Over 20 years back when I was in camera clubs, the "experts" always seemed to be telling beginners to use Manual mode. All that did was confirm to me that the M spot on the dial stood for Mistake mode.

In my case mostly A mode, occasional S mode when needed and M mode only used for those rare times I use flash to get a maybe better balance between ambient light and flash light.

'

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Several polls on the forum have shown that there is not a lot of interest in serious video use although some (quite a lot) like to have the availability of video for occasional use.

But those pursuing new horizons (perhaps) like the idea of video and tend to shout a lot. Perhaps they are wannabe You Tube authors or maybe wedding photographers where offering video of the event can slip into the same box as the wedding album and justify a higher fee?

Frankly I don't do video as I would have difficulty in finding folk with the time to sit and watch what I created.

But I might suggest that video attributes are seen by manufacturers as the best way to offer new exciting features for the jaded new camera body market.

Therefore I might wonder if the market might just dig their heels in when great video is used to sell camera bodies when all we really want is great stills perhaps with a small side of moving images. (Sounds like a mobile phone camera?)

If the manufacturers are so deluded as to offer product with features that bulk of the market does not revere and the net result does not generate the sales that would impress their bean counters and marketing flacks then might the whole future of M4/3 be endangered by flogging the dead horse with features that are not being relished.

The O-M1 seems to be terribly popular but even though the (video mavin) GH6 is a thoroughly capable camera it does not get that much comment and the G9 is still the best flavour of the month that Panasonic has on the M4/3 market.

The M4/3 market itself is far from dead but flogging the video product to a market that is not particularly enthusiastic about it and then saying 'sales don't stack up' might make a sad way to end it all.

Talking about you Mr Panasonic.

I have news for you....

I have subscribed to user forums on other social media sites (Facebook et al), and about 90% of the posts there are about video uses of the gear.

Nobody is shooting stills now except us dinosaurs who populate DPReview, and we are not the target market for photo/video gear going forward.....

So Panasonic is doing what it needs to to keep its camera systems appealing to the future users out there.  And we ain't it.

-J

Video capabilities are just an extension of burst mode. It's hardly "a thing" to add the codecs. The point is that the still functions benefit from the video functions. I doubt it adds much to the cost of the camera body overall.

In terms of Panasonic, they already have a vertical stack for video all the way up to broadcast. So does Sony.

I'll take video capabilities over the silly scene modes any day.

jalywol wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Several polls on the forum have shown that there is not a lot of interest in serious video use although some (quite a lot) like to have the availability of video for occasional use.

But those pursuing new horizons (perhaps) like the idea of video and tend to shout a lot. Perhaps they are wannabe You Tube authors or maybe wedding photographers where offering video of the event can slip into the same box as the wedding album and justify a higher fee?

Frankly I don't do video as I would have difficulty in finding folk with the time to sit and watch what I created.

But I might suggest that video attributes are seen by manufacturers as the best way to offer new exciting features for the jaded new camera body market.

Therefore I might wonder if the market might just dig their heels in when great video is used to sell camera bodies when all we really want is great stills perhaps with a small side of moving images. (Sounds like a mobile phone camera?)

If the manufacturers are so deluded as to offer product with features that bulk of the market does not revere and the net result does not generate the sales that would impress their bean counters and marketing flacks then might the whole future of M4/3 be endangered by flogging the dead horse with features that are not being relished.

The O-M1 seems to be terribly popular but even though the (video mavin) GH6 is a thoroughly capable camera it does not get that much comment and the G9 is still the best flavour of the month that Panasonic has on the M4/3 market.

The M4/3 market itself is far from dead but flogging the video product to a market that is not particularly enthusiastic about it and then saying 'sales don't stack up' might make a sad way to end it all.

Talking about you Mr Panasonic.

I have news for you....

I have subscribed to user forums on other social media sites (Facebook et al), and about 90% of the posts there are about video uses of the gear.

Nobody is shooting stills now except us dinosaurs who populate DPReview, and we are not the target market for photo/video gear going forward.....

So Panasonic is doing what it needs to to keep its camera systems appealing to the future users out there. And we ain't it.

-J

This old fogey takes the rare video clip, and often it may be for the eventual purpose of extracting a useful frame from it. Otherwise they generally never get looked at again.

As a screen only user the video-centric craze with its sideways flipout screen is something that involves 100% avoidance with me, so my E-P5 pair had better last forever - or at least until I drop off the twig.

Nothing wrong with that. But that was really my point. With 4k+ capable cameras you can pull a frame. Sure you could do it with stills and burst mode - to a degree - maybe.

I;d rather have that capability than some wonky scene mode like "happy penguins doing the conga under the aurora borealis holding tacos...."