So what about the physically impossible?

[SteveY80]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

That said, I don't find the resolution of current LCD screens to be an issue. Brighter, less reflective screens would be nice though, especially when using a side-swinging FAS that isn't shaded by the camera body.

your kidding right ?

I find sticking the camera to my face and looking through a tunnel annoyingly restrictive and unnatural. If it works better for you that's fine, but I certainly don't find that it helps my composition.

Using the screen I can quickly shoot from the hip, position and rest the camera where I want, and I'm not blocking the rest of my vision when I'm using it. I do appreciate the EVF when trying to track/pan with subjects like birds in flight (although I've done that with a screen too) but to me an EVF is a fairly minor feature compared with the screen.

 

[AllFlawed]

It is now 2020 and we are STILL stuck in the 1970s with 8.3 filenames on our cameras. WHY?

Does anyone still use FAT16 in their cameras anymore? So why are we still using FAT16 filenames?

All of my cameras now use either FAT32 or exFat, both of which support long filenames.

My smallest card is 64 GB, while my largest is 256GB. Yet despite the changing times, we remain in the 70s with DOS 8.3 filenames.

The maximum number of files per directory is 65K for FAT32 and considerably larger for NTFS or exFAT. So why are we limited to 999 files per directory in our cameras?

It is LONG past due to move beyond these (now) very old file limits on our cameras.

Update and correction: FAT16 actually arrived in the early 80s and FAT32 arrived in the mid 90's.

Send them a cheque for a billion dollars and I am sure they will rewrite it all for you. I doubt if current sales will fund the required total rewrite from scratch of these myriad camera operating systems unique to each company. The companies are very deep in to patching what they already have because it is all they can afford which is not unique as a lot of banking day to day failures are because even the mighty banks are running tons of creaking legacy software as the cost of starting again does not bear consideration. In the millennium change they could not find source script for the Cobol programs and I would not be surprised if they are still running.

The dilemma of the companies is they are falling back to pre-digital sales volumes but lumbered with a massive programming development and maintenance overhead buried in every camera and lens nowadays which was to a large extent handles the film manufacturing sector previously. it just has to break at some time or people will just not worry about it and I just take it that cameras are like this.

 

[Donald B]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

That said, I don't find the resolution of current LCD screens to be an issue. Brighter, less reflective screens would be nice though, especially when using a side-swinging FAS that isn't shaded by the camera body.

your kidding right ?

I find sticking the camera to my face and looking through a tunnel annoyingly restrictive and unnatural. If it works better for you that's fine, but I certainly don't find that it helps my composition.

Using the screen I can quickly shoot from the hip, position and rest the camera where I want, and I'm not blocking the rest of my vision when I'm using it. I do appreciate the EVF when trying to track/pan with subjects like birds in flight (although I've done that with a screen too) but to me an EVF is a fairly minor feature compared with the screen.

i wear reading glasses so shooting with a lcd is out of the question. which was why a dslr was so cumbersome trying to reveiw images after shooting them. when you shoot alot of macro like i do evf is a must have as its impossible to see critical focus plane on any lcd even in shadow.

Don

 

[AllFlawed]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

I prefer stuff that works in some way 100% of the time which the EVF provides.

These I do not need EVF so you don't need one vs I do not like an LCD only so you need an EVF just bounce on happily with a life of their own without any conclusion.

That said, I don't find the resolution of current LCD screens to be an issue. Brighter, less reflective screens would be nice though, especially when using a side-swinging FAS that isn't shaded by the camera body.

your kidding right ?

I find sticking the camera to my face and looking through a tunnel annoyingly restrictive and unnatural. If it works better for you that's fine, but I certainly don't find that it helps my composition.

Using the screen I can quickly shoot from the hip, position and rest the camera where I want, and I'm not blocking the rest of my vision when I'm using it. I do appreciate the EVF when trying to track/pan with subjects like birds in flight (although I've done that with a screen too) but to me an EVF is a fairly minor feature compared with the screen.

 

[SteveY80]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

That said, I don't find the resolution of current LCD screens to be an issue. Brighter, less reflective screens would be nice though, especially when using a side-swinging FAS that isn't shaded by the camera body.

your kidding right ?

I find sticking the camera to my face and looking through a tunnel annoyingly restrictive and unnatural. If it works better for you that's fine, but I certainly don't find that it helps my composition.

Using the screen I can quickly shoot from the hip, position and rest the camera where I want, and I'm not blocking the rest of my vision when I'm using it. I do appreciate the EVF when trying to track/pan with subjects like birds in flight (although I've done that with a screen too) but to me an EVF is a fairly minor feature compared with the screen.

i wear reading glasses so shooting with a lcd is out of the question. which was why a dslr was so cumbersome trying to reveiw images after shooting them. when you shoot alot of macro like i do evf is a must have as its impossible to see critical focus plane on any lcd even in shadow.

I can definitely see the advantage of an EVF for someone who wears reading glasses, but that isn't an issue for me.

I always use the screen when shooting macro and I don't have a problem placing the focus, especially when using focus peaking.

In fact, I find it much easier to control the focus plane when using the screen as I can see the position of both camera and subject. I can adjust the angle of the camera relative to the subject without having to move my head with it to keep on looking through the EVF. I'd often have to be lying down on the floor or leaning bent over in an uncomfortable position to use the EVF for macro in the field.

 

[Donald B]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

That said, I don't find the resolution of current LCD screens to be an issue. Brighter, less reflective screens would be nice though, especially when using a side-swinging FAS that isn't shaded by the camera body.

your kidding right ?

I find sticking the camera to my face and looking through a tunnel annoyingly restrictive and unnatural. If it works better for you that's fine, but I certainly don't find that it helps my composition.

Using the screen I can quickly shoot from the hip, position and rest the camera where I want, and I'm not blocking the rest of my vision when I'm using it. I do appreciate the EVF when trying to track/pan with subjects like birds in flight (although I've done that with a screen too) but to me an EVF is a fairly minor feature compared with the screen.

i wear reading glasses so shooting with a lcd is out of the question. which was why a dslr was so cumbersome trying to reveiw images after shooting them. when you shoot alot of macro like i do evf is a must have as its impossible to see critical focus plane on any lcd even in shadow.

I can definitely see the advantage of an EVF for someone who wears reading glasses, but that isn't an issue for me.

I always use the screen when shooting macro and I don't have a problem placing the focus, especially when using focus peaking.

In fact, I find it much easier to control the focus plane when using the screen as I can see the position of both camera and subject. I can adjust the angle of the camera relative to the subject without having to move my head with it to keep on looking through the EVF. I'd often have to be lying down on the floor or leaning bent over in an uncomfortable position to use the EVF for macro in the field.

How do you check you have nailed focus ? say on an ants eye taken at 3:1

Don

 

[SteveY80]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

I prefer stuff that works in some way 100% of the time which the EVF provides.

An EVF doesn't work when shooting at an angle that's impractical with the camera stuck to my head.

These I do not need EVF so you don't need one

Where did I suggest that other people don't need an EVF?

 

[GodSpeaks]

As an ex-programmer, the needed changes to the file systems used in cameras would be quite a minor task compared to what is involved in writing the firmware for each new camera and the feature/bug fix updates.

I am not advocating that firmware updates be issued for every camera since FAT32 worked it's way into cameras, just that new cameras move forward with a modern file naming system.

This really is NOT rocket science.

 

[SteveY80]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

That said, I don't find the resolution of current LCD screens to be an issue. Brighter, less reflective screens would be nice though, especially when using a side-swinging FAS that isn't shaded by the camera body.

your kidding right ?

I find sticking the camera to my face and looking through a tunnel annoyingly restrictive and unnatural. If it works better for you that's fine, but I certainly don't find that it helps my composition.

Using the screen I can quickly shoot from the hip, position and rest the camera where I want, and I'm not blocking the rest of my vision when I'm using it. I do appreciate the EVF when trying to track/pan with subjects like birds in flight (although I've done that with a screen too) but to me an EVF is a fairly minor feature compared with the screen.

i wear reading glasses so shooting with a lcd is out of the question. which was why a dslr was so cumbersome trying to reveiw images after shooting them. when you shoot alot of macro like i do evf is a must have as its impossible to see critical focus plane on any lcd even in shadow.

I can definitely see the advantage of an EVF for someone who wears reading glasses, but that isn't an issue for me.

I always use the screen when shooting macro and I don't have a problem placing the focus, especially when using focus peaking.

In fact, I find it much easier to control the focus plane when using the screen as I can see the position of both camera and subject. I can adjust the angle of the camera relative to the subject without having to move my head with it to keep on looking through the EVF. I'd often have to be lying down on the floor or leaning bent over in an uncomfortable position to use the EVF for macro in the field.

How do you check you have nailed focus ? say on an ants eye taken at 3:1

How do I take a picture of a busy ant on the ground using an EVF without lying down in the dirt? With my faulty knees an active subject would probably have moved by the time I even got myself in position to try to find it through the EVF...

Focus peaking works pretty well for my macro focusing needs, although I'm not often shooting at higher than 2:1 magnification.

When shooting live moving subjects in the field I find that speed is the most important thing, e.g. getting a bug in frame and grabbing some shots before it flies off. Being able to quickly place the camera where I want really helps with that.

Some interesting macro subjects would be downright impossible to photograph using an EVF because of their inaccessible position, e.g. sticking the camera into undergrowth to photograph bugs clinging under leaves.

The jumping spider shot I posted in this thread is an example (ignoring the fact that it's a failed stack):

That was on a heavily overgrown railway track. Photographing it using the EVF would have meant lying down in a mess of thorns and brambles, and I still couldn't have got the angle I wanted due to all the stuff in the way.

 

[AllFlawed]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

I prefer stuff that works in some way 100% of the time which the EVF provides.

An EVF doesn't work when shooting at an angle that's impractical with the camera stuck to my head.

These I do not need EVF so you don't need one

Where did I suggest that other people don't need an EVF?

I got the impression that with them being a necessary evil you would on the whole be happier without them. Calling a particular aspect of a camera many people, but not all of course, prefer to use as evil does rather confuse things as to what exactly you want and where exactly you are going in the discussion.

I will bail out here as i have seen so many of these threads and LCDs are pretty erratic in performance outdoors even nowadays and you rarely know what any particular camera will do until you try it outdoors in particular conditions bright sunlight and the low sunlight in the UK can be a particular problem.

Even as an Olympus user in 43 I find the Panasonic screens are excellent on the whole. The Panasonic TZ40 was the first camera where after a day out in bright sunlight I thought that I had not once cursed the wretched screen which was a surprise. In fact I bought a TZ60 with an EVF and sold it because I found the compact form factor of the TZ40 better with the continual bloat of this sort of camera as they upgrade. So many factors involved in this sort of evolution and sometimes devolution nowadays of type and usage.

 

[SteveY80]

And the resolution of the LCDs on current cameras is simply abysmal. Even cheap phones have better screens.

Thats why evf was invented. your a bit late to the party.

That's fine if you like using EVFs, personally I consider them a necessary evil in some circumstances but prefer using the screen 95% of the time.

I prefer stuff that works in some way 100% of the time which the EVF provides.

An EVF doesn't work when shooting at an angle that's impractical with the camera stuck to my head.

These I do not need EVF so you don't need one

Where did I suggest that other people don't need an EVF?

I got the impression that with them being a necessary evil you would on the whole be happier without them.

No, that's not what I meant by "necessary evil" - here's a Googled definition:

"If you describe something as a necessary evil, you mean that although it is unpleasant, it is needed, e.g. Managers sometimes think that training is a necessary evil that has to be done but is too expensive."

What I meant is that I find an EVF useful under certain circumstances -- I mentioned panning/tracking subjects like birds in flight -- but simply prefer using a screen most of the time.

Of course I was just speaking for myself, not saying anything about what anyone else might want or need.

I will bail out here as i have seen so many of these threads and LCDs are pretty erratic in performance outdoors even nowadays and you rarely know what any particular camera will do until you try it outdoors in particular conditions bright sunlight and the low sunlight in the UK can be a particular problem.

That's why I mentioned the screen as something that I'd like to see improved.

 

[AllFlawed]

As an ex-programmer, the needed changes to the file systems used in cameras would be quite a minor task compared to what is involved in writing the firmware for each new camera and the feature/bug fix updates.

As an ex-programmer myself I find the concept of a minor change intriguing as I know from experience a minor tweak here can unknowingly create a major unexpected headache down the line and at some future unexpected point in time and sometimes it is even unfathomable when it happens.

I could imagine many programs out there could well be a morass of ancient routines of lost purpose and some bits people may be just leaving stuff in as they do not dare take it out or touch it. I suspect our DNA is a bit like that with tons of redundant code rigorously copied and passed on just to be safe. My programs were similar as I had sometimes had to leave bits alone not remembering what they did and was not a great documenter. Even going to the IT departments who did document stuff but usually written by external contractors long gone and they rarely could find it or even understand it when needed.

If it is so easy difficult to know why they have not done it.

This is a very tongue in cheek bit anecdotal whimsy with possibly a bit of truth in it so do not take it too seriously.

I am not advocating that firmware updates be issued for every camera since FAT32 worked it's way into cameras, just that new cameras move forward with a modern file naming system.

This really is NOT rocket science.

 

[LoneTree1]

If they ever manufacturer high resolution, full-colour electron-multiplying sensors, that would be something.

 

[TomFid]

How far can ISO ability improvement.

Not far. Theoretical limit is less than 1 stop ahead, so there's really not much room there.

I do not think so.
If the sensor would absorb 100% of light, it would look black.
Actually it looks more like a mirror and reflects most of the light unused. ;-)

I admit that I haven't worked through the math or taken measurements myself, but everything I've read is consistent with efficiency at or near 50%. That's 1 stop from perfection. It wouldn't look black.

I'd be happy to have more optimistic news, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[GodSpeaks]

Well the reason they have not done it is obvious. It (the 8.3 file name) is written into the DCF standard (v2.0 2010) for digital cameras. No one wants to rock the boat. Some say it is a royalties issue, as using long file names in FAT32 and exFAT is patented by M$. Although there would appear to be no royalties for 8.3.

Maybe it's time to look at open source file systems and write it into DCF v3.0. The biggest problem would likely be the required drivers for Windows, iOS, Linux and Android. No problem for the tech savvy types, but likely a major problem for Joe Luddite.

Any way you look at it, those responsible for the DCF standard need to get on with the job of updating the standard to 3.0. A meaningful update is L O N G past due.

 

[Peter Heckert2]

How far can ISO ability improvement.

Not far. Theoretical limit is less than 1 stop ahead, so there's really not much room there.

I do not think so.
If the sensor would absorb 100% of light, it would look black.
Actually it looks more like a mirror and reflects most of the light unused. ;-)

I admit that I haven't worked through the math or taken measurements myself, but everything I've read is consistent with efficiency at or near 50%. That's 1 stop from perfection. It wouldn't look black.

I'd be happy to have more optimistic news, but I'm not holding my breath.

I believe that current sensors have 50% efficiency. All experts write this.
Then the Sensor should look 50% gray. To my perception it doesnt.

Possibly these 50% refer to the light that actually enters the semiconductor, but not all light actually enters, due to reflection.

Possibly some magic nanocoating could improve this.

This is only speculation; I am not an expert.

 

[spider-mario]

How far can ISO ability improvement.

Not far. Theoretical limit is less than 1 stop ahead, so there's really not much room there.

I do not think so.
If the sensor would absorb 100% of light, it would look black.
Actually it looks more like a mirror and reflects most of the light unused. ;-)

I admit that I haven't worked through the math or taken measurements myself, but everything I've read is consistent with efficiency at or near 50%. That's 1 stop from perfection. It wouldn't look black.

I'd be happy to have more optimistic news, but I'm not holding my breath.

I believe that current sensors have 50% efficiency. All experts write this.
Then the Sensor should look 50% gray. To my perception it doesnt.

Light perception is not linear. There is a reason why “middle gray” is typically defined as 18% reflectance. The fact that the sensor is glossy is probably also a factor in our impression of how much light it reflects.

 

[TomFid]

The big one for me is shooting BIF. In the UK I can very rarely reach my optimum settings of ISO400 (or better) 1/2500, F8. I need to squeeze a bit more light from somewhere. Faster lenses you will say but that means bigger and heavier and my 100-400 is as big as I'm prepared to go. Impossible because of the laws of physics I hear you say, but is it, or have we just not found the way around the rules of physics yet.

Actually, this is one area where there's evident opportunity from fresnel optics. The Nikon 300 PF is half the size and weight of the Oly 300 Pro, though it doesn't resolve at the same lpmm. Presumably that could be overcome, yielding faster or smaller lenses. However, if you need F8 for DOF, 1/2500 for motion blur control, and ISO400 for noise, then you really are in a pickle. Maybe a really big BIF-tracking flash mounted on a drone would help?

 

[Wu Jiaqiu]

The big one for me is shooting BIF. In the UK I can very rarely reach my optimum settings of ISO400 (or better) 1/2500, F8. I need to squeeze a bit more light from somewhere. Faster lenses you will say but that means bigger and heavier and my 100-400 is as big as I'm prepared to go. Impossible because of the laws of physics I hear you say, but is it, or have we just not found the way around the rules of physics yet.

Actually, this is one area where there's evident opportunity from fresnel optics. The Nikon 300 PF is half the size and weight of the Oly 300 Pro, though it doesn't resolve at the same lpmm. Presumably that could be overcome, yielding faster or smaller lenses. However, if you need F8 for DOF, 1/2500 for motion blur control, and ISO400 for noise, then you really are in a pickle. Maybe a really big BIF-tracking flash mounted on a drone would help?

i've used one on my Nikon 1 and DX cameras every now and then, works great on both.....tempted to get rid of my current 300mm/4 to get one mainly because of size and VR, no rush though