5 ms·

> Imagine if Apple and Google made full frame cameras. I did – briefly – and am still recoiling from the horror. > Currently we have great hardware with terr

by dpwm 8y ago

> Imagine if Apple and Google made full frame cameras. I did – briefly – and am still recoiling from the horror. > Currently we have great hardware with terrible software and vice-versa. The software on even older DSLRs isn't terrible. It does the job it was intended to do quite well. It is learn-able, and it doesn't change its behaviour with an OTA-update you can't easily prevent. More thought has gone into the UI design of even the earliest, rushed-to-market DSLR firmwares than some of the UI changes that Apple and Google have inflicted on their victims.

tambourine_man 8y ago
> I did – briefly – and am still recoiling from the horror. Please explain. > The software on even older DSLRs isn't terrible. Oh yes it is. Like salt on a fresh wound. > It does the job it was intended to do quite well. It is learn-able, and it doesn't change its behaviour with an OTA-update you can't easily prevent. Its menus are completely inscrutable. But I'm not even talking about usability. One can learn anything eventually, given enough willpower. I'm imagining a processor like the one on the iPhone/iPad Pro acting on all those pixels. And a true software platform running on top of it.
- FPGAhacker 8y ago
  > Please explain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    You mean the first successful consumer digital camera?
- toast0 8y ago
  That's exactly the problem. If you put Apple or Google in charge, you'll get a true software platform acting on all those people. That's going to make everything slow and terrible. The beauty of a DSLR is that you turn it on, and it's ready to go. Take pictures in raw and process them when you get home. If you want to adjust the exposure and what not, you can; if you do that a lot, you can get the higher model cameras with more dials, and customizable buttons so you don't have to go through menus as much.
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    I don't know about Android, but the Camera app on iOS is extremely responsive. And I envy the amount of processing that goes on when you press the button. From turning a noisy mess from a fingernail size sensor into pretty good JPGs to auto choosing the best photo from crazy fast burst mode, even before you press the button! And audio/video, oh boy. Hyper slow motion 4k, noise canceling… Imagine what Apple/Google could do with something the size and weight of a DSLR and 3k US$ budget.
    - intertextuality 8y ago
      I hate my iphone x camera because it's slow. I have to double and triple check that it's focusing on the right thing and hold the phone really steady. It is adequate for me because I always carry my phone with me, but I would never want a general approach to a real DSLR or mirrorless camera. Apple/Google would add too many features, focus on wifi connectivity, and generally ruin the one amazing thing about cameras–the ability to turn them on and immediately take photos, no fuss. No waiting for software updates, or alerts, or any of the million other things that do not belong in a camera.
      - jaytaylor 8y ago
        Double tap the power button on Android and it'll be ready to snap pics in 3 seconds or less. No popups or other dialogs. Not bad.
        intertextuality 8y ago
        Switching to the camera app isn't the hard part. In iOS it's also very easy. I'm referring to the [taking the picture] part.
        frankchn 8y ago
        That’s slow in DSLR land. The 1DX Mark II (admittedly a very expensive pro camera) goes from physically switched off to first shot in 0.8 seconds, and from standby to image capture with full autofocus in 0.085 seconds: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-1dx-ii/canon-1dx-iiA6.HTM https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-1dx-ii/canon-1d...
- Jedd 8y ago
  > Please explain. Not parent, but FF-lust is objectively bizarre. Read this (now very old) rant on the subject [1] Then consider advances in optics, CAD, sensors, and then marvel at why some people are desperate for an arbitrary sensor size that plucked out of the air more than a hundred years ago. [1] http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    I’m very much aware of it, believe me. Nothing spatial in 35mm, it’s just that we have a ton of amazing glass made and bought to go with it. And even though there are diminishing returns, quality wise, the more photons the better. I’m sure they could make APS-C, Micro 4/3, 4x5”, to please everyone. I wouldn’t complain :)
- frankchn 8y ago
  > I'm imagining a processor like the one on the iPhone/iPad Pro acting on all those pixels. And a true software platform running on top of it. I think a lot of professionals and prosumers who are still buying interchangeable lens cameras don’t care. Folks generally shoot in RAW and edit their photos on a PC with Photoshop and Lightroom, which affords people much more control and is much more powerful than whatever is in an iPad. The only photographers shooting JPEGs are sports and news photographers, and they have specialized use cases. That’s why the pro cameras (1DX2 and D5) come with Gigabit Ethernet and auto-upload to an FTP server through that. People want the pre-capture sequence to be reliable and easy to use (so lots of buttons and dials) and in general once the photo is captured and saved, they don’t care and don’t want the camera involved any more. Of course, if people really want to upload to Instagram immediately, most cameras nowadays come with Wifi so they can just transfer photos to a smartphone and do whatever they need to do there.
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    Not all processing can be done in post. A lot goes on before RAWs are recorded that could benefit from faster hardware and better software. An iPad Pro has one heck of a CPU/GPU, rivaling high end laptops, where most edits are made. Having something like that (and custom silicon, perhaps) dedicated to pro photo/video/audio is something we haven’t seen.
    - frankchn 8y ago
      Do you know what is being done to the data between coming off the sensor and being saved to a RAW file? My impression is that other than dead/hot pixel mapping and some degree of noise reduction, not much else is done (at least in Canon-land). Even if the camera can do more post-processing, I am not sure I want it to. I would rather the camera do less after exposure is complete, so I can get more control over it while editing.
      - tambourine_man 8y ago
        At the very least there’s signal amplification (and possible highlight clipping) at higher than baseline ISO. Otherwise you'd get a very dark image indeed.

by dpwm 8y ago

tambourine_man 8y ago

> I did – briefly – and am still recoiling from the horror. Please explain. > The software on even older DSLRs isn't terrible. Oh yes it is. Like salt on a fresh wound. > It does the job it was intended to do quite well. It is learn-able, and it doesn't change its behaviour with an OTA-update you can't easily prevent. Its menus are completely inscrutable. But I'm not even talking about usability. One can learn anything eventually, given enough willpower. I'm imagining a processor like the one on the iPhone/iPad Pro acting on all those pixels. And a true software platform running on top of it.

FPGAhacker 8y ago
> Please explain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  You mean the first successful consumer digital camera?
toast0 8y ago
That's exactly the problem. If you put Apple or Google in charge, you'll get a true software platform acting on all those people. That's going to make everything slow and terrible. The beauty of a DSLR is that you turn it on, and it's ready to go. Take pictures in raw and process them when you get home. If you want to adjust the exposure and what not, you can; if you do that a lot, you can get the higher model cameras with more dials, and customizable buttons so you don't have to go through menus as much.
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  I don't know about Android, but the Camera app on iOS is extremely responsive. And I envy the amount of processing that goes on when you press the button. From turning a noisy mess from a fingernail size sensor into pretty good JPGs to auto choosing the best photo from crazy fast burst mode, even before you press the button! And audio/video, oh boy. Hyper slow motion 4k, noise canceling… Imagine what Apple/Google could do with something the size and weight of a DSLR and 3k US$ budget.
  - intertextuality 8y ago
    I hate my iphone x camera because it's slow. I have to double and triple check that it's focusing on the right thing and hold the phone really steady. It is adequate for me because I always carry my phone with me, but I would never want a general approach to a real DSLR or mirrorless camera. Apple/Google would add too many features, focus on wifi connectivity, and generally ruin the one amazing thing about cameras–the ability to turn them on and immediately take photos, no fuss. No waiting for software updates, or alerts, or any of the million other things that do not belong in a camera.
    - jaytaylor 8y ago
      Double tap the power button on Android and it'll be ready to snap pics in 3 seconds or less. No popups or other dialogs. Not bad.
      - intertextuality 8y ago
        Switching to the camera app isn't the hard part. In iOS it's also very easy. I'm referring to the [taking the picture] part.
      - frankchn 8y ago
        That’s slow in DSLR land. The 1DX Mark II (admittedly a very expensive pro camera) goes from physically switched off to first shot in 0.8 seconds, and from standby to image capture with full autofocus in 0.085 seconds: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-1dx-ii/canon-1dx-iiA6.HTM https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-1dx-ii/canon-1d...
Jedd 8y ago
> Please explain. Not parent, but FF-lust is objectively bizarre. Read this (now very old) rant on the subject [1] Then consider advances in optics, CAD, sensors, and then marvel at why some people are desperate for an arbitrary sensor size that plucked out of the air more than a hundred years ago. [1] http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  I’m very much aware of it, believe me. Nothing spatial in 35mm, it’s just that we have a ton of amazing glass made and bought to go with it. And even though there are diminishing returns, quality wise, the more photons the better. I’m sure they could make APS-C, Micro 4/3, 4x5”, to please everyone. I wouldn’t complain :)
frankchn 8y ago
> I'm imagining a processor like the one on the iPhone/iPad Pro acting on all those pixels. And a true software platform running on top of it. I think a lot of professionals and prosumers who are still buying interchangeable lens cameras don’t care. Folks generally shoot in RAW and edit their photos on a PC with Photoshop and Lightroom, which affords people much more control and is much more powerful than whatever is in an iPad. The only photographers shooting JPEGs are sports and news photographers, and they have specialized use cases. That’s why the pro cameras (1DX2 and D5) come with Gigabit Ethernet and auto-upload to an FTP server through that. People want the pre-capture sequence to be reliable and easy to use (so lots of buttons and dials) and in general once the photo is captured and saved, they don’t care and don’t want the camera involved any more. Of course, if people really want to upload to Instagram immediately, most cameras nowadays come with Wifi so they can just transfer photos to a smartphone and do whatever they need to do there.
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  Not all processing can be done in post. A lot goes on before RAWs are recorded that could benefit from faster hardware and better software. An iPad Pro has one heck of a CPU/GPU, rivaling high end laptops, where most edits are made. Having something like that (and custom silicon, perhaps) dedicated to pro photo/video/audio is something we haven’t seen.
  - frankchn 8y ago
    Do you know what is being done to the data between coming off the sensor and being saved to a RAW file? My impression is that other than dead/hot pixel mapping and some degree of noise reduction, not much else is done (at least in Canon-land). Even if the camera can do more post-processing, I am not sure I want it to. I would rather the camera do less after exposure is complete, so I can get more control over it while editing.
    - tambourine_man 8y ago
      At the very least there’s signal amplification (and possible highlight clipping) at higher than baseline ISO. Otherwise you'd get a very dark image indeed.