4 ms·

I'm not sure I want any of that in my camera. Maybe fast wifi for photo sync at home but still faster to plug in the cable/card. You know what I want and have?

I'm not sure I want any of that in my camera. Maybe fast wifi for photo sync at home but still faster to plug in the cable/card. You know what I want and have? A sub half second power on time. Probably sub one second from turning on to first photo. I don't want any "smart" crap slowing that down.

cyberax 2y ago
> I'm not sure I want any of that in my camera. Maybe fast wifi for photo sync at home but still faster to plug in the cable/card. Well, that's a reason why camera makers are struggling. You don't want these features, but a lot of people do. So they vote with their smartphones instead: https://petapixel.com/2024/08/22/the-rise-and-crash-of-the-camera-industry-in-one-chart/ https://petapixel.com/2024/08/22/the-rise-and-crash-of-the-c... > You know what I want and have? A sub half second power on time. Probably sub one second from turning on to first photo. I don't want any "smart" crap slowing that down. You can do that while still retaining smart features. For example, use a small OS to control the camera while the full OS boots up. Or use suspend-to-disk to speed up loading, with suspend-to-RAM for instant startup. This is a solvable problem.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Case in point: My phone can go from "off" (sleep) to taking pictures in less than a second with basically no effort. Why not do the same on a dedicated camera? You'll get better battery from sleep if it has zero wakeups or radios on in sleep, which is fine for this use.
  - nucleardog 2y ago
    Dedicated cameras that can do this are widely available. My (cheap, 15 year old) DSLR goes from “off” to capturing a photo in under 300ms. The battery essentially lasts indefinitely if you’re not actively fiddling with it. It will take about a thousand photos per charge, and changing the battery takes about 5 seconds.
  - girvo 2y ago
    > My phone can go from "off" (sleep) to taking pictures in less than a second with basically no effort My Fujifilm X-E4 does the same? Flip the power switch, click the shutter. It's honestly identical in time to my smartphone - power on for these devices is crazy fast today IME
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      Right, no, obviously a dedicated device can power up faster than a general purpose computer. My point was that a general purpose computer can come out of sleep fast enough to be used in a camera, while maintaining acceptable tradeoffs in the process.
      - girvo 2y ago
        Ah right apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yeah absolutely, though it does require the SoC for the "phone camera" to not be under-powered, which unfortunately for the attempts so far, they usually have been
        numpad0 2y ago
        Digital camera SoCs are actually multi-core ARM with a DSP on bus and tons of RAM, and actually do what GP proposes(boots up and goes to sleep when battery is inserted). Some runs Linux, some really obscure RTOS. Lots of SoCs are OEM'd, but no one talks who supplies who. All those cheap plastic looking body shells are paper thin cast magnesium in black paint, not even aluminum. Some has Peltier based active cooling for years. The bunches of hackers behind those... they don't like talking to anyone on anything unless you're asking about marketed features on finished products, or you show a badge or a business card they recognize. So the Internet never knows.
        girvo 2y ago
        That I'm actually aware of; I was talking about the Samsung Galaxy NX and the Yongnou YN455, both of which have kind of underpowered SoCs driving the android side of it, sadly. The YN455 less so, but still.
- nucleardog 2y ago
  > Well, that's a reason why camera makers are struggling. You don't want these features, but a lot of people do. So they vote with their smartphones instead. You’re not capturing any of the traditional photography market by throwing all of _their_ priorities straight out the window. So the market for the device under discussion here would be the people who want to spend a substantial amount of money on a dedicated device that is essentially equivalent to their cell phone except bulkier and without the ability to send and receive texts and phone calls. Camera makers are struggling because a substantial portion of the market doesn’t really care about photography, they care about capturing memories. You’re proposing to make a device that’s mediocre at all the things traditionally important in photography and mediocre at capturing memories (a separate dedicated device will never be as close at hand as the phone in your pocket that you take everywhere). I really don’t see a big market for this.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > You’re not capturing any of the traditional photography market by throwing all of _their_ priorities straight out the window. You mean, the market that is crumbling fast because most people are not professional photographers? > Camera makers are struggling because a substantial portion of the market doesn’t really care about photography, they care about capturing memories. Exactly. And this market has a really unfulfilled niche: cameras with a decent optical system and changeable lenses. I have a Sony Alpha camera and it's plenty enough for me in image quality, but I now leave it home most of the time because I just don't want to fiddle with it.
    - a2800276 2y ago
      >You mean, the market that is crumbling fast because most people are not professional photographers? That's the whole point though. The market is crumbling because it no longer exists. Professional photographer are few and far between and they are the only ones that need the features provided by a professional camera. Compare pictures take on an iPhone to those take on a top of the line F4 from thirty years ago, the iPhone pictures are _much_ better. The only reason to have a professional camera is to be in full control of all settings, which would make your proposed DSLR without those controls purely a vanity device/big heavy smartphone minus the phone for people who want to show off how much money they have. While they's always a market for people to show off their wealth, it won't be a useful camera.

cyberax 2y ago

> I'm not sure I want any of that in my camera. Maybe fast wifi for photo sync at home but still faster to plug in the cable/card. Well, that's a reason why camera makers are struggling. You don't want these features, but a lot of people do. So they vote with their smartphones instead: https://petapixel.com/2024/08/22/the-rise-and-crash-of-the-camera-industry-in-one-chart/ https://petapixel.com/2024/08/22/the-rise-and-crash-of-the-c... > You know what I want and have? A sub half second power on time. Probably sub one second from turning on to first photo. I don't want any "smart" crap slowing that down. You can do that while still retaining smart features. For example, use a small OS to control the camera while the full OS boots up. Or use suspend-to-disk to speed up loading, with suspend-to-RAM for instant startup. This is a solvable problem.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Case in point: My phone can go from "off" (sleep) to taking pictures in less than a second with basically no effort. Why not do the same on a dedicated camera? You'll get better battery from sleep if it has zero wakeups or radios on in sleep, which is fine for this use.
- nucleardog 2y ago
  Dedicated cameras that can do this are widely available. My (cheap, 15 year old) DSLR goes from “off” to capturing a photo in under 300ms. The battery essentially lasts indefinitely if you’re not actively fiddling with it. It will take about a thousand photos per charge, and changing the battery takes about 5 seconds.
- girvo 2y ago
  > My phone can go from "off" (sleep) to taking pictures in less than a second with basically no effort My Fujifilm X-E4 does the same? Flip the power switch, click the shutter. It's honestly identical in time to my smartphone - power on for these devices is crazy fast today IME
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    Right, no, obviously a dedicated device can power up faster than a general purpose computer. My point was that a general purpose computer can come out of sleep fast enough to be used in a camera, while maintaining acceptable tradeoffs in the process.
    - girvo 2y ago
      Ah right apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yeah absolutely, though it does require the SoC for the "phone camera" to not be under-powered, which unfortunately for the attempts so far, they usually have been
      - numpad0 2y ago
        Digital camera SoCs are actually multi-core ARM with a DSP on bus and tons of RAM, and actually do what GP proposes(boots up and goes to sleep when battery is inserted). Some runs Linux, some really obscure RTOS. Lots of SoCs are OEM'd, but no one talks who supplies who. All those cheap plastic looking body shells are paper thin cast magnesium in black paint, not even aluminum. Some has Peltier based active cooling for years. The bunches of hackers behind those... they don't like talking to anyone on anything unless you're asking about marketed features on finished products, or you show a badge or a business card they recognize. So the Internet never knows.
        girvo 2y ago
        That I'm actually aware of; I was talking about the Samsung Galaxy NX and the Yongnou YN455, both of which have kind of underpowered SoCs driving the android side of it, sadly. The YN455 less so, but still.
nucleardog 2y ago
> Well, that's a reason why camera makers are struggling. You don't want these features, but a lot of people do. So they vote with their smartphones instead. You’re not capturing any of the traditional photography market by throwing all of _their_ priorities straight out the window. So the market for the device under discussion here would be the people who want to spend a substantial amount of money on a dedicated device that is essentially equivalent to their cell phone except bulkier and without the ability to send and receive texts and phone calls. Camera makers are struggling because a substantial portion of the market doesn’t really care about photography, they care about capturing memories. You’re proposing to make a device that’s mediocre at all the things traditionally important in photography and mediocre at capturing memories (a separate dedicated device will never be as close at hand as the phone in your pocket that you take everywhere). I really don’t see a big market for this.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > You’re not capturing any of the traditional photography market by throwing all of _their_ priorities straight out the window. You mean, the market that is crumbling fast because most people are not professional photographers? > Camera makers are struggling because a substantial portion of the market doesn’t really care about photography, they care about capturing memories. Exactly. And this market has a really unfulfilled niche: cameras with a decent optical system and changeable lenses. I have a Sony Alpha camera and it's plenty enough for me in image quality, but I now leave it home most of the time because I just don't want to fiddle with it.
  - a2800276 2y ago
    >You mean, the market that is crumbling fast because most people are not professional photographers? That's the whole point though. The market is crumbling because it no longer exists. Professional photographer are few and far between and they are the only ones that need the features provided by a professional camera. Compare pictures take on an iPhone to those take on a top of the line F4 from thirty years ago, the iPhone pictures are _much_ better. The only reason to have a professional camera is to be in full control of all settings, which would make your proposed DSLR without those controls purely a vanity device/big heavy smartphone minus the phone for people who want to show off how much money they have. While they's always a market for people to show off their wealth, it won't be a useful camera.