A simpler camera

[MusicDoctorDJ]

The camera manufacturers will never make your dream camera for two reasons:

1) Only a few people who hang out here at the chats would ever consider buying it.

2) Those same few people would not pay the price to buy said dream camera.

--
J. D.
Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

 

[Charlie Self]

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.

No, they don't. They are not interested. I set up my wife's camera. I don't know about the kids.

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..

But why shouldn't they do that in camera, if they so desire?

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.

Nonsense. The old pix are much like the albums and shoeboxes of other old pix that we, and most others, have. Stationary. They seldom are thought of after they're first shown. Maybe shortly after Mom and Dad croak, the kids flip through them. That's usually about it.

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.

The same way it works now, without your deletions from the cameras.

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

 

[Charlie Self]

The camera manufacturers will never make your dream camera for two
reasons:

1) Only a few people who hang out here at the chats would ever
consider buying it.

2) Those same few people would not pay the price to buy said dream
camera.

Good point. Limited editions are expensive.

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

 

[MPCat]

Why not? You "just" gotta make brilliant software.

Easier said than done.

Also, you're still creating an extra step. Try selling that to the grandmothers and college kids of the world. They don't care about software postprocessing, and they won't care about your wundercamera.

Period.

 

[Jeppe76]

Why not? You "just" gotta make brilliant software.

Easier said than done.

Also, you're still creating an extra step. Try selling that to the
grandmothers and college kids of the world. They don't care about
software postprocessing, and they won't care about your wundercamera.

Indeed they don't care about software postprocessing. That's why I think The Software (tm) (patented) etc should be creating the JPEGs as part of the import process. Voila - that's our secret ingredient. You don't HAVE to do any postprocessing - it will work just like a normal camera. Only better - since we have more CPU cycles available. And given that most non-technical people don't use more than 10% of their harddrives, I don't think they'll mind storing both a RAW and a JPEG.

However, they care about having a camera that takes good pictures with minimal effort. The less stuff to tweak, the better.

Hmmh. Maybe I should just make the software myself. After all, dcraw ensures I can support most cameras..

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

 

[apoc]

Indeed they don't care about software postprocessing. That's why I
think The Software (tm) (patented) etc should be creating the JPEGs

as part of the import process. [ QUOTE]And that software should be on the camera, not in the computer. Not everyone have one.

Voila - that's our secret ingredient.

That's YOUR secret ingredient. Useful for you, but not for the rest of point&shooters.

You don't HAVE to do any postprocessing - it will work just like a
normal camera. Only better - since we have more CPU cycles available.

This forces you to have a computer. Tell that to my grandmother, my parents or anyone not computer savvy.

And given that most non-technical people don't use more than 10% of
their harddrives, I don't think they'll mind storing both a RAW and a
JPEG.

First explain to them why they should keep two files from the same picture, and teach them what raw is. If they have too much problem understanding how to turn on/off the flash i think you won't succeed.

--
Sorry about my english, it's not my first language.

 

[Jeppe76]

Indeed they don't care about software postprocessing. That's why I
think The Software (tm) (patented) etc should be creating the JPEGs

as part of the import process. [ QUOTE]And that software should be on the camera, not in the computer. Not everyone have one.

Voila - that's our secret ingredient.

That's YOUR secret ingredient. Useful for you, but not for the rest
of point&shooters.

Why not? I'm providing a simpler camera, and the same functionality as exists today. I'd like to think that's a better solution that status quo - people buying cameras with half-a* ed implementations of good ideas that just don't work that well inside a camera.

You don't HAVE to do any postprocessing - it will work just like a
normal camera. Only better - since we have more CPU cycles available.

This forces you to have a computer. Tell that to my grandmother, my
parents or anyone not computer savvy.

Why do you people not bother to read my other replies? I'll repeat for your convenience

If you just deliver the card to the camera store, they will too have the software running - so they can still produce fine-lookin' prints. Indeed, since they know what they are doing, they can probably produce better-lookin' prints than they do when they try to recover what was lost because camera's settings were suboptimal..

And given that most non-technical people don't use more than 10% of
their harddrives, I don't think they'll mind storing both a RAW and a
JPEG.

First explain to them why they should keep two files from the same
picture, and teach them what raw is. If they have too much problem
understanding how to turn on/off the flash i think you won't succeed.

Why do we need to inform them? They'll relate to the application. And if they're savvy enough, maybe they'll go to pictures and find the JPEGs. The actual raws will of course be stored elsewhere..

Trust me buddy, this can work. I'm a software developer who don't think users are inherently stupid - but not geniuses either. And not all users are created equal, either. It's "just" a matter of making sure the application hides the advanced features well enough that the curious computer-savvy person will find them, while making sure there is a friendly workflow and as few buttons as possible while in "beginner-mode".

 

[exp1orer]

...give me a camera that:

• has no JPEG (only RAW)
• no scene mode
• no video
• no live view
• no TTL
• no hot shoe
• no bracketing
• no weather sealing
• no dust reduction system
• no print button
• no eye sensor
• no level sensor
• no wireless flash option
• no HDMI socket
• no sound recording/embedding
• no video socket
• no DOF button
• no in-body or lens image stabilisation
• not magnesium-reinforced body
• cannot make more than 3fps
• no face detection
• no smile detection
• no orientation detection
• no GPS compatibility option
• no continue auto-focus tracking

BUT has these 'simple' features:

• square 36x36mm sensor
• super clean high ISO up to iso6400, with iso50 as base
• large pentaprism OVF with 1.0x magnification and 100% coverage
• 3" high res LCD
• SDHC/SDXC card format
• body size not bigger than pentax K20D
• fast and tack sharp lenses corner to corner with super nice bokeh (20~80mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm 80~300mm)

and price the body not more than £800 and I'll be very happy.

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

--



http://www.exp1orer.com

 

[jrtrent]

This is where we disagree.

I consider contrast, saturation etc post-processing. That is - it
does not belong in the camera.

After posting, I decided my further comments on this point were unnecessary. We disagree; that's all.

 

[Charlie Self]

...give me a camera that:

• has no JPEG (only RAW)
• no scene mode
• no video
• no live view
• no TTL
• no hot shoe
• no bracketing
• no weather sealing
• no dust reduction system
• no print button
• no eye sensor
• no level sensor
• no wireless flash option
• no HDMI socket
• no sound recording/embedding
• no video socket
• no DOF button
• no in-body or lens image stabilisation
• not magnesium-reinforced body
• cannot make more than 3fps
• no face detection
• no smile detection
• no orientation detection
• no GPS compatibility option
• no continue auto-focus tracking

BUT has these 'simple' features:

• square 36x36mm sensor
• super clean high ISO up to iso6400, with iso50 as base
• large pentaprism OVF with 1.0x magnification and 100% coverage
• 3" high res LCD
• SDHC/SDXC card format
• body size not bigger than pentax K20D
• fast and tack sharp lenses corner to corner with super nice bokeh

(20~80mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm 80~300mm)

and price the body not more than £800 and I'll be very happy.

Sounds good to me, especially at that price--I figure that's roughly $1,200-$1,400 US.

Biggest problem: buying 10 new lenses.

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

 

[GodSpeaks]

Trust me buddy, this can work. I'm a software developer who don't
think users are inherently stupid.

I am a software developer and most users ARE inherently stupid. It is next to impossible to program around the stupidity of users or to predict in advance how a user will react to your interface.

But you might as well give up your quest as the consensus seems to be that your vision is flawed.

I agree that some 'features' are useless fluff, but since they are just software and don't really add to the cost of the hardware, who cares, as long as I have the options to turn them off (or not use them) and the camera can still be used with as much manual control as I want.

By the way, my girlfriend just wants to take pictures. She hands it to me to get the images out of the camera - LOL.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[GodSpeaks]

I want a camera that does high quality photos AND high quality HD video (up to 1080P30) AND in a smaller form factor (ie not as large as a DSLR). Price? Well, less than $1500.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[Kuivaamo]

...give me a camera that:

• has no JPEG (only RAW)
• no scene mode
• no video
• no live view
• no TTL
• no hot shoe
• no bracketing
• no weather sealing
• no dust reduction system
• no print button
• no eye sensor
• no level sensor
• no wireless flash option
• no HDMI socket
• no sound recording/embedding
• no video socket
• no DOF button
• no in-body or lens image stabilisation
• not magnesium-reinforced body
• cannot make more than 3fps
• no face detection
• no smile detection
• no orientation detection
• no GPS compatibility option
• no continue auto-focus tracking

BUT has these 'simple' features:

• square 36x36mm sensor
• super clean high ISO up to iso6400, with iso50 as base
• large pentaprism OVF with 1.0x magnification and 100% coverage
• 3" high res LCD
• SDHC/SDXC card format
• body size not bigger than pentax K20D
• fast and tack sharp lenses corner to corner with super nice bokeh

(20~80mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm 80~300mm)

and price the body not more than £800 and I'll be very happy.

Sounds good to me, especially at that price--I figure that's roughly
$1,200-$1,400 US.

Biggest problem: buying 10 new lenses.

That camera would be fantastic at that price. But in reality, the large sensor and the amazing viewfinder, as well as the niche appeal, would probably make the camera even more expensive than some of the MF digital options out there. The Leica S system doesn't seem too far off from what you'd like (and even that will most likely lack somewhat in the high ISO department), and that my friend is going to cost a bundle.

When I want simplicity and a big "sensor" I grab my MF film gear and take all the negatives that come with using film (pardon the pun).

 

[shay guevara]

Some interesting ideas but two big problems maybe. One is that rightly or wrongly JPEG is the preferred choice of many people, especially those not interested in or having time for the tech side. Another is price & who will buy it & sadly I dont think there is a viable current market for a stripped down DSLR. I remember Contax trying something similar with their S2 SLR and people didnt want it.

I do like the idea of the big 'improve my picture button' though.
--
Shay son of Che

'Baldrick, you're thicker than a whale omlette'

 

[apoc]

Why not?

Because you are forcing them to use their computer, and if they are forced to do so they will buy another camera.

Trust me buddy, this can work. I'm a software developer who don't
think users are inherently stupid - but not geniuses either.

I'm also a software developer (and photographer) and i know 99% of the users:
a) are stupid (relating to computers)

b) They think computers are like a microwave owen, and don't want to learn to use them. If you force them they will switch to another brand that doesn't.

--
Sorry about my english, it's not my first language.

 

[Jeppe76]

Happy to hear that one of the people in here that I consider a smart person don't think I'm completely lost.

As for the JPEG, I think that is best handled by automatically creating JPEGs as soon as the RAWs are imported. Furthermore, those JPEGs might even be automatically updated in the background when the user edits the images in the library. This shouldn't even have to slow things down, since most processors have two or more cores these days.

Maybe even a non-tuneable JPEG engine inside the camera, for exporting to facebook and myspace over wifi? I'm not against adding the processor - I just wanna reduce the complexity of picture-taking while providing better image quality from the same sensor.

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

 

[shay guevara]

Happy to hear that one of the people in here that I consider a smart
person don't think I'm completely lost.

As for the JPEG, I think that is best handled by automatically
creating JPEGs as soon as the RAWs are imported. Furthermore, those
JPEGs might even be automatically updated in the background when the
user edits the images in the library. This shouldn't even have to
slow things down, since most processors have two or more cores these
days.

Maybe even a non-tuneable JPEG engine inside the camera, for
exporting to facebook and myspace over wifi? I'm not against adding
the processor - I just wanna reduce the complexity of picture-taking
while providing better image quality from the same sensor.

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

I dont know how you break the mould. The DSLR/enthusiast business is about selling cameras to impress people with lots of fancy 'boys toys' built in to the spec and making money from all the 'must have' extras like lenses/flashes/pp software etc.

For the compact end the emphasis recently has been to reduce the physical size, persuading people that more mp means a better picture & throwing in reassuring features like face recognition that make it 'easy' to take photos. In some ways I think compacts and mobile phone cam developments are more in tune with the wifi/facebook world though looking at what I see on facebook with my family a camera with the ability to let users take decent pictures while slightly drunk seems to be a useful thing .

Barring some camera maker breaking the mould I dont see any changes & a small video/stills hybrid is I reckon more likely bet in the mass market. If there is a change my money would be more on something initially coming from someone like Panasonic than from Canon or Nikon.

Shay son of Che

'Baldrick, you're thicker than a whale omlette'