Brad Ideas - Photography - Comments

astronomy

Phillip Helbig — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:50:06 -0800

Caveat: I'm a theoretician (or is that a theorist?), not an observer. However, IIRC, most CCDs used in astronomy (where they were used long before they became cheap enough for professional photographers, let alone amateurs) have just one type of pixel, but are mainly used with a broad-band filter, say red, which lets through a well defined spectrum. Some of the newer astronomical CCDs have hundreds of megapixels.

B&W

brad — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:49:58 -0800

So they have made custom B&W cameras for astronomical users, who really need that extra light. But few others need it so much as to make that a product, since you can do pretty well with the Bayer filter still on, and only a few specialized users will notice that difference.

Any way to get a platform is good, but frankly I see no reason to not let folks have-at the digic CPU.

Monochrome and mirrorless

Phil Howard — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:22:11 -0800

I only recently made the shift from chemical analog photography to electronic digital and started with a 7D. My next quest is the 5D and waiting for the 5D3. Mostly my wants align with yours.

I do have one want that hasn't been mentioned. I'd like a special camera (call it 5B or 5M) specifically designed for black and white photography. The sensor would eliminate the color pixel filtering altogether (leave the usual IR blocking filter), but with the same pixel geometry as the color version. This would boost sensitivity, and the firmware will obviously need to be tweaked. The RAW format would just need a flag to say it's monochrome.

I too would like to have the mirrorless DSL camera. But I'd like to see the lens line start showing up with leaf shutters for quieter, more reliable operation, and faster flash sync. Then the focal plane shutter is optional. Even less vibration.

As for the platform idea, that could still be done by adding an ARM CPU along side the existing one, without the need for a major redevelopment. Adding interfaces would be the heavy work part. And the camera could still operate with the ARM CPU disabled (and off to save battery). The platform CPU should boot from the CF card if an image is on there (Android would likely be the popular system, but BSD and Linux builds could work, too), to allow setting up a custom app mix differently for different shootings (set them up on the cards in advance). If you get a trojan in your apps, you can just wipe the CF to remove it for sure.

I'd also like to see the video time limit issue solved.

Not a DSLR issue

brad — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:23:52 -0800

The DSLR cameras have never really had this problem. This is a problem found on many P&S but in many cases it is due to a misunderstanding about the two things which cause this delay. The first is the autofocus and the 2nd is the delay to actually open the shutter once in focus. I don’t think any DSLR ever made has ever had much of the #2 delay. All cameras have some autofocus delay, but expensive lenses have better focus.

However, pro shooters tend to just put this into their flow. We always, when framing shots, focus in advance with a half-press of the shutter. You can do this on most of the P&S as well. If you focus in advance, even a decent P&S will take the photo pretty much when you press the button, though the DSLR are better at that.

Responsive shutter button

Steve Rapaport — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:52:49 -0800

Whatever combination of mechanics, fast memory, and fast image processing is required to make my camera shoot what's in front of the lens NOW, not a quarter or half of a second in the future.

Canon cameras

brad — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:01:46 -0800

Provide only their raw formats, usually. Fortunately canon raw is common enough that there are many tools to decode it, including open source ones, so I don’t have too much fear of it not being decodable in the future.

Future-proof

Phillip Helbig — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:46:41 -0800

I also shoot both and save both (disks are cheap). The JPEG the camera makes is almost always all I need, but it's nice to have the raw data as well. I also save it as shot (of course copies can be manipulated). But what raw format do you save? The native camera format or DNG (assuming your camera can save DNG)?

Camera Firmware

Joel Upchurch — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:47:53 -0800

The discussion of file formats brings up another issue. It would be nice if camera companies would promise to put the camera firmware in the public domain after a few years. That way other people could update the camera firmware to new formats and features without buying a new camera. I seem to recall that Canon did something like that with some of their low end point and shoot models. I could see where that could be a major selling point on new cameras where you could have a camera app store to let the user load what ever features they wanted into the camera. A library of camera functions on the SD card would be kind of cool.

Jpeg mostly

brad — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:06:49 -0800

I shoot either jpeg or raw+jpeg when in a setting of unusual light or contrast that might need raw. The truth is that raw is a pain to work with, so I use raw+jpg an use the jpegs for browsing, organizing and experiments and go to the raw if I need it. I archive as shot, I never change (other than to rotate or delete complete losers) my original files.

What do you use?

Phillip Helbig — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 02:32:04 -0800

What formats do you use for your own personal archiving?

The Future has passed?

Dave Howell — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:34:17 -0800

I was shooting Canon for a while, but I went back to Minolta/forward to Sony because my best Canon glass was actually Tamron, and Canon dinked with their lens protocol in some way. I'd started with Minolta, but moved to Canon when the IS lenses came out. So when Sony introduced IS in the body (duh!), the cheaper move was a new Alpha 100 body, not buying new 28-300 lenses for my Canon. Sony's stayed close enough to Canon that I still don't see any benefit to jumping. IS in the body is just too useful. It can be like gaining a bit of low-noise/high-iso, or buys me a little deeper field, or whatever.

How about gesture triggers? Some years ago, when I was using the Canon and had an infrared remote, I got appointed to get a group shot at a family reunion. There were so many of us, that even the IR remote couldn't trip the camera. I had to set it on timer, run forward, trip it with the remote, run back, and get in position before it went off. It would be so handy if I could tell it "If I cross and uncross my arms three times, then go to a 2-second delay, then fire." The WiFi/smart-phone remote idea might work (Bluetooth wouldn't have had the range), except I don't have a smart phone.

The feature from my Maxxum7 SLR which I most regret not being able to move to my Alpha 100 (and, in fact, the ONLY accessory which didn't bolt right into place on the new camera) was the vertical grip. Not only did it make the camera big enough to actually be comfortable to hold, but it meant I could power the camera with 4 AA batteries. As you noted, being able to carry a couple spare sets of AA's and a USB charger was *way* more convenient than having to have spare exotic non-rechargable lithium camera batteries, or having to carry a separate special charger for the camera. And, worst case scenario, I could (and once did) just walk into a corner grocery and buy some AAs to power the camera (and flash).

How about replaceable/field-swappable sensors? I would def. appreciate being able to swap out the standard full-color sensor for an ultra-sensitive monochrome one. High-speed night shots in black and white would be very useful at times.

Low power mode? I don't have (or didn't bring) enough batteries, or it's really really cold and battery life is compromised. Shut down face detection or motion tracking and image stabilizing, use slow writes to the memory card (if that would help), default to non-auto-focus, default to reduced power flash, or whatever else might allow me to keep shooting longer.

That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

Future proofing

brad — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:46:18 -0800

Yes, there are old formats that it’s hard to find readers for. I think the raw and DNG formats will retain decoders though since there are open source ones. On the other hand, I find all the raw/dng formats to be a pain to use in photo manipulation programs, and it would be nice if it was as fast and simple as jpeg.

DNG

Phillip Helbig — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:06:58 -0800

I agree with both statements above. For the pros, or those who take photography as seriously as the pros, Canon or Nikon is probably the way to go, for the reasons you mention. However, for someone like me, who used a conventional SLR and a few lenses for decades and waited until DSLRs were good enough before switching, and plans to use this camera and at most a few lenses in the next, say, 10 years, I think one should seriously consider Pentax.

Pentax also supports DNG as well as their own raw format (and of course JPEG). I save both raw and JPEG on the card.

What do you think of DNG, both in terms of technical advantages/disadvantages and in terms of a future-proof standard (assuming it is)? Rune stones are still readable, 10-inch diskettes probably aren't in many cases.

Sensor stabilization

brad — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:22:14 -0800

Because it happens at the end of the light path and requires larger swings of the sensor to compensate for shake, moving the sensor is not as powerful a tool for IS as moving a lens element inside the lens. However, there is no reason not to make use of both.

Almost all pros shoot Canon or Nikon because they have decided to spend bucks to get the best, even though other brands are also quite good. But the selection of quality glass with the major brands is much higher, and there is an active aftermarket for them on eBay as well as all sorts of accessories.

Pentax K10D

Phillip Helbig — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:20:23 -0800

I'm happy with the Pentax K10D. Sure, there are better cameras, but a) it probably has more bang for the buck than any other camera and b) only very few people need something better. Note that it has shake-reduction in the camera, not in the lens. This means that lenses can be less complicated, one can use any lens (it is compatible with essentially all Pentax(-style) lenses as well) and if one needs better shake-reduction, just replace the camera, which is cheaper than replacing all lenses (especially if the lenses have shake-reduction). Many people will upgrade their cameras anyway every few years, while there is little reason to stop using a good lens.

It is no longer produced, but there are similar successor models.

Anyone who doesn't yet have a digital SLR should consider Pentax, especially if you have Pentax(-compatible) lenses. You will find more for your money.