4 ms·

I'm reminded of how long it took Garmin to add touchscreens to their sports watches, and how controversial it was in the user community. If you want to check y

by md_ 2y ago

I'm reminded of how long it took Garmin to add touchscreens to their sports watches, and how controversial it was in the user community. If you want to check your heart-rate while sitting at your desk, scrolling through the touchscreen on an Apple Watch is great. But if you're wearing gloves while skiing, or your hands are covered in mud and sweat during a trail run, a touchscreen is not a great option. Garmin's modern sport line now has optional touchscreens, but all major functionality is still accessible via physical controls alone. Their lifestyle models are touchscreen-first, though, which really demonstrates the different requirements for different use-cases. I suspect the same is true in the camera world.

bayindirh 2y ago
When you're doing street photography, or any photography with a DSLR/Mirrorless, you don't look at the controls at any given moment. You see a potential subject, you "arm" the camera via its power switch instinctively. Your finger goes to front/back dial and you set your parameters depending on the mode, sometimes only paying attention to numbers on the screen or top LCD or viewfinder. You're tracking your subject now. If you need, you select the AF point blindly via the touchscreen (which is off and is a touchpad if you're looking via viewfinder), and fine tune it via the joystick if you need one. Looks good, half-press, AF Locks. You release the shutter and camera clicks. It's done. You turn off your camera blindly and continue walking.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > When you're doing street photography, or any photography with a DSLR/Mirrorless, you don't look at the controls at any given moment. Why? You're looking at the screen to track the target anyway. Show the controls there, including focus points and maybe "exposure" settings. And with the computational photography, you can just take multiple pictures and synthesize various "exposure times" later. And it'll likely be better than what you set blindly, hoping to get the right combination.
  - verandaguy 2y ago
    > Why? You're looking at the screen to track the target anyway Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast in bright sunlight than even a sunlight-readable screen; and even so, if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to. > And with the computational photography, you can just take multiple pictures and synthesize various "exposure times" later. And it'll likely be better than what you set blindly, hoping to get the right combination. I think this shows some disconnect over what many photographers are trying to do with their cameras. The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._ Computational photography is an anti-feature for many photographers. Beyond that; you usually aren't shooting blind unless you choose to. Cameras come with metering (and have done so for many decades now), and it's gotten pretty damn good at telling you when your photo's properly exposed. Newer (<15 years old) cameras will often also have a histogram which gives you even more data than an EV meter.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has. And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback. > if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to. Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later. Ask me how I know about this scenario. Oh, or another one I learned at school while taking pictures for the class: if you don't have a perfect vision, and you focus the optical viewfinder until the image is in focus, the actual film image will demonstrate to everyone else exactly how you see the world with your imperfect vision. > The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._ And for me, the goal is to take good pictures for my memories, utilizing as much technology and automation as possible. I don't want to spend time learning every function of that 15 knobs on my camera. I want optical zoom and a full-frame sensor, but the same UI experience as on my phone.
m463 2y ago
very early on with my garmin watch, I disabled the touchscreen at all times.

by md_ 2y ago

bayindirh 2y ago

When you're doing street photography, or any photography with a DSLR/Mirrorless, you don't look at the controls at any given moment. You see a potential subject, you "arm" the camera via its power switch instinctively. Your finger goes to front/back dial and you set your parameters depending on the mode, sometimes only paying attention to numbers on the screen or top LCD or viewfinder. You're tracking your subject now. If you need, you select the AF point blindly via the touchscreen (which is off and is a touchpad if you're looking via viewfinder), and fine tune it via the joystick if you need one. Looks good, half-press, AF Locks. You release the shutter and camera clicks. It's done. You turn off your camera blindly and continue walking.

cyberax 2y ago
> When you're doing street photography, or any photography with a DSLR/Mirrorless, you don't look at the controls at any given moment. Why? You're looking at the screen to track the target anyway. Show the controls there, including focus points and maybe "exposure" settings. And with the computational photography, you can just take multiple pictures and synthesize various "exposure times" later. And it'll likely be better than what you set blindly, hoping to get the right combination.
- verandaguy 2y ago
  > Why? You're looking at the screen to track the target anyway Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast in bright sunlight than even a sunlight-readable screen; and even so, if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to. > And with the computational photography, you can just take multiple pictures and synthesize various "exposure times" later. And it'll likely be better than what you set blindly, hoping to get the right combination. I think this shows some disconnect over what many photographers are trying to do with their cameras. The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._ Computational photography is an anti-feature for many photographers. Beyond that; you usually aren't shooting blind unless you choose to. Cameras come with metering (and have done so for many decades now), and it's gotten pretty damn good at telling you when your photo's properly exposed. Newer (<15 years old) cameras will often also have a histogram which gives you even more data than an EV meter.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has. And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback. > if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to. Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later. Ask me how I know about this scenario. Oh, or another one I learned at school while taking pictures for the class: if you don't have a perfect vision, and you focus the optical viewfinder until the image is in focus, the actual film image will demonstrate to everyone else exactly how you see the world with your imperfect vision. > The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._ And for me, the goal is to take good pictures for my memories, utilizing as much technology and automation as possible. I don't want to spend time learning every function of that 15 knobs on my camera. I want optical zoom and a full-frame sensor, but the same UI experience as on my phone.

m463 2y ago

very early on with my garmin watch, I disabled the touchscreen at all times.