4 ms·

I agree with a lot of this stuff. I would really love to be able to do more processing in-camera. For example, if I'm doing focus or exposure bracketing, I am g

by notJim 5y ago

I agree with a lot of this stuff. I would really love to be able to do more processing in-camera. For example, if I'm doing focus or exposure bracketing, I am going to composite that in lightroom 100% of the time. Why can't the camera do this for me? I would at least love if I could tag those photos as being a pair, so that Lightroom could automatically detect this. I'm kind of surprised by how conservative camera manufacturers have been with adding new features. Some cameras don't even have intervalometers built in!

LorenPechtel 5y ago
I don't think the camera has the horsepower to do the processing, but I would like to see them tagged.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  An Olympus EM-1 II has a pair of quad core ARM processors. The biggest challenge is that the hobbyist photography community is relentlessly, angrily furiously hostile to improving cameras in ways that move beyond pretending we're still using darkrooms, but with pixels. The hostility to anything that is more like the "fauxtographers" who take excellent photographs with phones is one rich source of that, but there are many more.
argomo 5y ago
It boggles me how the big camera makers seem content to cede marketshare to smartphones. Obviously, they can't compete on pocketablity or ubiquity, but computational photography is their home turf. I shouldn't have to reach for my phone to take panoramas, photo spheres, and "live photos", and I'm not interested in spending hours compositing stuff later on the PC. The big camera makers do throw in a bunch of "modes" on their prosumer lines (which they toss out the window on their professional models) to pander to the consumer. Lame stuff, mostly. Give me some real stuff like auto-masking foreground subjects or out-of-camera photogrammetrly created 3D models. I get that prosumers are a dwindling niche and pros are where the money come from, but you need a source for more pros in the future, right? How does the camera compete if--as an artifact--it's inspirational value is outclassed by the mundane cellphone?
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Agreed. They should go all in on computation. They would probably need different processors and more batteries but a “pro” camera should be better than a phone in absolutely every aspect. I just got an iPhone 13 and it’s interesting how it handles night shots better than my Fuji X-T3 with its much bigger sensor.
  - photojosh 5y ago
    I've been harping on this for years. If Apple released a micro-43rds camera (as a starter) with a A-series CPU and it's image processor, they would clean up. The beauty would be that they already have all the APIs to support doing this, and you could run one of the existing 3rd-party camera apps too. (Hi, Halide!) I drop $2k+ for one in a heartbeat.
pvg 5y ago
so that Lightroom could automatically detect this Lightroom's autostacking works pretty well for this if the bracketed shots are close together in time as they are when the camera is automating the bracketing. The lightroom feature augments the typical camera feature in this case.
_ph_ 5y ago
You can do focus bracketing with the Olympus mFT cameras and auto-generate macros with deep DOF.

by notJim 5y ago

LorenPechtel 5y ago

I don't think the camera has the horsepower to do the processing, but I would like to see them tagged.

rodgerd 5y ago
An Olympus EM-1 II has a pair of quad core ARM processors. The biggest challenge is that the hobbyist photography community is relentlessly, angrily furiously hostile to improving cameras in ways that move beyond pretending we're still using darkrooms, but with pixels. The hostility to anything that is more like the "fauxtographers" who take excellent photographs with phones is one rich source of that, but there are many more.

argomo 5y ago

It boggles me how the big camera makers seem content to cede marketshare to smartphones. Obviously, they can't compete on pocketablity or ubiquity, but computational photography is their home turf. I shouldn't have to reach for my phone to take panoramas, photo spheres, and "live photos", and I'm not interested in spending hours compositing stuff later on the PC. The big camera makers do throw in a bunch of "modes" on their prosumer lines (which they toss out the window on their professional models) to pander to the consumer. Lame stuff, mostly. Give me some real stuff like auto-masking foreground subjects or out-of-camera photogrammetrly created 3D models. I get that prosumers are a dwindling niche and pros are where the money come from, but you need a source for more pros in the future, right? How does the camera compete if--as an artifact--it's inspirational value is outclassed by the mundane cellphone?

spaetzleesser 5y ago
Agreed. They should go all in on computation. They would probably need different processors and more batteries but a “pro” camera should be better than a phone in absolutely every aspect. I just got an iPhone 13 and it’s interesting how it handles night shots better than my Fuji X-T3 with its much bigger sensor.
- photojosh 5y ago
  I've been harping on this for years. If Apple released a micro-43rds camera (as a starter) with a A-series CPU and it's image processor, they would clean up. The beauty would be that they already have all the APIs to support doing this, and you could run one of the existing 3rd-party camera apps too. (Hi, Halide!) I drop $2k+ for one in a heartbeat.

pvg 5y ago

so that Lightroom could automatically detect this Lightroom's autostacking works pretty well for this if the bracketed shots are close together in time as they are when the camera is automating the bracketing. The lightroom feature augments the typical camera feature in this case.

_ph_ 5y ago

You can do focus bracketing with the Olympus mFT cameras and auto-generate macros with deep DOF.