[HN Gopher] Sitina1 Open-Source Camera
___________________________________________________________________
Sitina1 Open-Source Camera
Author : zdw
Score : 334 points
Date : 2024-09-29 15:27 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (gitlab.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gitlab.com)
| gaudat wrote:
| The design is pretty modern. But what is with the choice of the
| Kodak CCD sensor? CCD cameras got a resurgence in Chinese
| communities with second-hand camera prices increased like
| tenfold.
|
| Also see Apertus Axiom where they also used the Zynq but used one
| hell of a CMOS sensor that can do 4K 300FPS.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| He explained it in this Video at 13:02
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfzjmY9cF8&t=13m02s
|
| > Why use CCD instead of CMOS?
|
| > Well let's say I started this project before the recent CCD
| camera hype so that's not the reason. Part of me just wanted to
| be special and fullframe CCD is kind of special.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Being a small manufacture means you go to the bottom of the
| list for the vendors of the sensors. I'm sure the best sensors
| are pretty much already spoken for, and the lower quality ones
| are what's available to any one not the likes of Sony, Canon,
| Nikon, etc. Any other reason is pretty much an excuse.
|
| We could just go back to full sized cameras with 3 CCDs. j/k
| numpad0 wrote:
| IIRC the author scored a few trays on local equivalent of eBay.
| Obsoleted Kodak/OnSemi KAF line of sensors are rare kind of
| large film-sized sensors with public full datasheets; most
| manufacturers don't even confirm or deny existences of sensors
| in public.
| aeturnum wrote:
| CCD sensors render differently than CMOS sensors and, if their
| strengths are what you are looking for they could still make
| sense. Compared to CMOS they require more light, but when you
| are capturing an image properly they do a really good job of
| rendering colors and details. CCD sensors also introduce less
| noise as part of their pipeline (though again, the ceiling on
| how sensitive they can be is much lower than CMOS).
|
| Basically there has always been a community of photographers
| who like the "CCD look" and it's not surprising to me that
| someone who's geeky enough to make his own camera went with
| one.
| cycomanic wrote:
| That sounds like the stuff you read on audiophile websites
| where they are trying to sell you a special "audio-tuned"
| ethernet cable for thousands of dollar. The sensor simply
| converts photons into electrons binned into colors based on
| the bayer pattern, how can they "render" colors differently?
| That's a function of the digital processing pipline.
|
| Also I don't understand how a CCD can introduce less noise
| than a CMOS, but is less sensitive at the same time? Light
| sensitivity is largely governed by the noise floor of the
| sensor I would say.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I don't really know either. My understanding is that the
| process of increasing ISO (i.e. boosting signal) works a
| lot better in CMOS, but also that because of how CMOS works
| read noise is higher overall. So a CCD will give you a
| cleaner record at base sensitivity (generally iso 100) or
| slightly elevated iso, but as soon as you get away from
| that CMOS sensors will do better. Whatever read noise they
| introduce is less impactful than the fact that they are
| much better at amplifying the light you did detect in a
| clean(er) way.
|
| You are also welcome to dismiss me as a goofy photophile. I
| am not trying to sell you anything, just reporting what I
| understand people think. Maybe this article seems less
| snake oil-y[1]?
|
| [1] https://petapixel.com/what-is-ccd-cmos-sensor/
| dvh wrote:
| Why is there so much vignetting?
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's artistic.
| shrubble wrote:
| Only some of the sample images are vignetted; so it appears to
| be related to post-processing.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Probably the author is not using digital optimized
| "telecentric" lenses. It's known that digital sensors are less
| tolerant with respect to incident angles compared to films.
| starky wrote:
| Nah, this is E-mount so all the lenses are modern. It is just
| that modern mirrorless lenses rely heavily on image
| correction.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Maybe he was simply using an APS-C lens?
| dannyw wrote:
| A lot of modern (DSLR or mirrorless era) lens intentionally
| accept a lot of optical flaws that are easy to correct with
| software (e.g. vignetting; sometimes even mechanical/hard
| vignetting where the lens does not fully cover the sensor); to
| prioritise addressing flaws that are difficult to correct with
| software (i.e. resolution, sharpness).
|
| The software in the camera automatically correct these things
| before you see it; and when it's particularly bad, usually this
| correction cannot be disabled. On most brands, RAW will tell
| you something closer to what the sensor is really seeing.
| cyberax wrote:
| Love it. I really wish classical mirrorless camera makers would
| get their head out of their collective asses, and make a camera
| that is not stuck in the 80-s mentality.
|
| Give me a large sunlight-readable touchscreen, with multitouch.
| Also GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, and 5G/LTE for connectivity and
| geotagging. Add automatic uploads to Google Photos, iPhoto,
| WebDAV, etc. Put in a small editor for on-device photo touchups.
|
| Also, ditch the old-timey film-camera look. I don't need 15
| physical switches, most of which should be automatic anyway. A
| physical button for the shutter and an analog knob for fine
| tuning are fine, but I don't need a manual switch for AF/MF. Or a
| "shutter delay" selector that is too easy to accidentally bump.
| quuxly wrote:
| This is called a smartphone.
| cyberax wrote:
| Yes, exactly. But with a better sensor and optics.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| And without all the things that make it useful as a regular
| smartphone. So why bother with it? Just use a real
| smartphone.
| necovek wrote:
| Have you actually put money where your mouth is by
| purchasing one of the 1" sensor phones: https://en.wikipedi
| a.org/wiki/List_of_large_sensor_camera_ph...
|
| Obviously, we are seeing movement in that direction, but
| it's still being balanced with size -- you can't fill in
| the entire large sensor with a "short" lens easily, yet
| avoid all the problems cameras experience.
|
| It would be great if any of the phones came with an
| interchangeable lens mount for an existing system, but that
| alone would add 4-5mm of thickness (30-50% of a modern
| phone).
| cge wrote:
| It appears that availability in some parts of the world
| may be difficult for many of those phones: many seem to
| be sold only to Chinese, Japanese, or Asian markets, and
| others seems specifically unavailable in the US.
|
| It's also worth noting that, from a camera rather than
| phone perspective, "1-inch type" sensors, which have no
| dimension approaching 1", are very small, half the image
| area of micro 4/3, and less than a seventh of 35mm; they
| are around 16mm by 13mm.
| necovek wrote:
| Oh, certainly: but if people do spend money on phones
| with "1-inch" sensors, manufacturers will see it as a
| signal that people are willing to pay for ever larger
| sensors. How does one fit optics to illuminate the sensor
| is a different topic though.
| numpad0 wrote:
| "1-inch" is "1-inch vacuum tube equivalent". Micro Four
| Thirds is likewise 4/3 inch equivalent. Both are smaller
| than the nameplate size because tubes had rims.
|
| Most of those phone are available online through grey
| imports at around MSRP(...of ~$2.5k). The reality is that
| there are no real demands to capture in phones with
| ginormous cameras, cameras without inherent
| obnoxiousness, and possibly cars without turn signal
| stalks, too, for that matter.
| progbits wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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-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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| nucleardog wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| >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.
| andiareso wrote:
| That's an incredible over-generalization. My wife and I
| use professional photographers to capture lots of moments
| with my family. I've never seen so many professional
| photographers available to hire than now. I probably know
| of at least 15-20 off the top of my head that I have used
| in the past or know of personally.
|
| They are definitely willing to purchase dedicated high-
| end equipment. iPhone cameras are absolutely not on par
| or better than a professional dedicated camera. They are
| actually known to be the worst camera in terms of clarity
| and accuracy than any other smart phone camera. Just
| check out any camera review comparing it to other
| smartphone cameras. There are a lot of AI enhancement
| models that alter the image in ways that are unrealistic
| and strange.
|
| I personally purchased a nice Canon mirrorless because I
| want more control over my picture. I want to be able to
| set the mood of an image and capture the features I want
| to be visible on my own. It's also nice to have a
| separate camera that doesn't bother me with unimportant
| notifications and baggage that a connected device offers.
|
| As for no business, I don't think that having a business
| that caters to a smaller demographic means that there is
| no money in it. There are few reasons why companies like
| Nikon, Canon, and Sony don't diversify into other markets
| with other products... which they absolutely do.
| cyberax wrote:
| > The only reason to have a professional camera is to be
| in full control of all settings
|
| I don't _want_ a "professional" camera. I'm not getting
| paid for pictures (and btw, the "professional
| photographer" market is saturated now).
|
| I want a camera with good changeable lenses that can
| provide reasonable optical zoom, so I can take a picture
| of that curious bird on a tree branch. Or to take a macro
| picture of a really nice flower. And maybe a beautiful
| picture of the moon hanging just near that waterfall.
| drrotmos wrote:
| > 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.
|
| When I leave my MILC at home, it's because the optics are
| large and heavy, not because the body is. When I _do_
| take my camera, I usually opt for the Sony Zeiss 35 mm
| Sonnar T*, because it 's so small. From an optical point
| of view, it's a good lens, but it's not the best 35 mm
| lens I have.
|
| For capturing memories, the best camera really is the one
| you have with you at all times. For creating photographs,
| the bulk of the camera body really doesn't matter that
| much.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| There have been a few different attempts that look like this.
| Samsung Nx, Samsung Galaxy Camera, Sony has tried phone add on
| accessories. Basically they all sort of flop in the market.
|
| People that don't want to think about their photos use a
| smartphone. People that want to think about their photos still
| want a camera that they can control. I use a mirrorless Nikon
| camera and to take a single picture I normally want physical
| controls that can handle exposure, focus, zoom level and
| shutter release independently, but simultaneously without
| having to remove my attention from the image. The ability to do
| all that with physical, not menu controls, is a tremendous
| asset for most people that want to spend the money on a camera.
| If you slapped the latest technology inside a camera that
| didn't have all the physical controls, photographers wouldn't
| want anything to do with it.
|
| I wouldn't say that camera design is stuck in the 80s, either.
| The form factor is necessarily constrained by needing a tubular
| lens projecting in front of a flat imaging plane. The
| photographer is going to want to view the image from the
| opposite side as the lens. There's only so much you can change
| the form factor with those constraints. Camera companies do
| have a few retro models, but even stodgy old Leica is making
| modern designs these days.
|
| If you take tens of thousands of photos per year, you sort of
| realize that all cameras have more or less the same interface
| and form factor as they have for a while because it is what
| works best.
| _0xdd wrote:
| I would add that Zeiss (ZX1) and Leica (T typ 701, TL2) tried
| this modern touch-first approach at a premium and both
| products weren't exactly hits. The Zeiss was even running
| Android with Lightroom preinstalled.
| cyberax wrote:
| I mean... It's a camera that was retailing for $6k without
| lenses. It's already a niche market, and a pretty
| conservative one.
| m463 wrote:
| I agree. Maybe the breakdown is between:
|
| 1) taking a picture
|
| 2) doing something with the picture
|
| People coming to photography from smartphones want the
| priorities reversed.
|
| But the deeper you get into it, the more you want #1 and the
| more control you want over #1. The worst is #2 getting in the
| way of the shot.
|
| And actually, lots of people into photography think it is
| about the camera, but it is really about the lenses.
|
| You buy lenses, then buy/upgrade bodies around them.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I want my camera to just take a photo at whatever the
| sensor can do, and give me that file.
|
| Too many photo-taking devices are now like "lemme just AI
| that for you, and give it to you at a quarter of the
| resolution of the sensor." I don't think Samsung phones
| even let third-party apps access the full sensor any
| longer, all are crippled, IIRC.
| cyberax wrote:
| > There have been a few different attempts that look like
| this. Samsung Nx, Samsung Galaxy Camera, Sony has tried phone
| add on accessories. Basically they all sort of flop in the
| market.
|
| There was exactly ONE attempt. One. And it was pretty
| successful, at that: Samsung NX1. I had it, it was pretty
| good, but with a first-gen teething issues.
|
| Phone add-on accessories don't work because they're clumsy
| and connectivity just sucks. And ultra-professional $6k
| cameras from Zeiss miss the mark entirely, you need to target
| a prosumer market (i.e. me).
|
| > I wouldn't say that camera design is stuck in the 80s,
| either. The form factor is necessarily constrained by needing
| a tubular lens projecting in front of a flat imaging plane.
|
| But why do you need a large protrusion on the right? You
| don't have a film canister anymore. I already wrote about a
| myriad of physical controls. Just make it large enough to
| hold the camera.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| There was one interchangeable lens attempt, and multiple
| non interchangeable ones. As mentioned, the Samsung galaxy
| camera, as well as Polaroid branded android cameras.
|
| You need the large protrusion on the right because you have
| to hold the thing. It's a handle. It needs to be somewhere,
| most people are right eye, right hand dominant. It makes a
| lot of sense to have it that way. The primary hand holds
| the camera, the other hand holds and supports the lens.
|
| In the olden days, the film canister was physically stored
| on the left in almost all cameras (and certainly in all
| SLRs), so the protrusion on the right isn't really a
| remnant of film designs.
|
| Older film cameras actually have smaller less ergonomic
| protrusions on the right (look at a Nikon F2 vs. the modern
| Z8). The big ergonomic protrusion on the right has been an
| evolution of newer modern technology and expectations.
|
| You can get a camera with gps, wifi, Bluetooth etc. do they
| have you screens that don't have multitouch? It's pretty
| hard not to get all that TBH. I can do crops and color
| treatments on my Nikon if I don't want to just transfer
| directly to my phone and do the editing there. Yeah, the
| camera doesn't automatically put it all in my iPhoto, but
| that is literally just a few taps.
|
| There are MILC cameras that have minimal physical controls
| and touchscreens so I'm not really sure what you're looking
| for? The sigma FP is pretty minimal, and you just strap on
| what you need.
| cyberax wrote:
| > You can get a camera with gps, wifi, Bluetooth etc.
|
| No, I can not. There are no cameras cheaper than around
| $7k with GPS. I checked.
| numpad0 wrote:
| > There are no cameras cheaper than around $7k with GPS
|
| false. E-M1X, K-I, K-1II, 6DII, 5DIV, SLT-A55V, SLT-A65V,
| SLT-A77V all has/had it well under $7k. There are also
| few compact models intended for construction and/or field
| research purposes that has Wi-Fi && GPS.
| cyberax wrote:
| > SLT-A55V, SLT-A65V, SLT-A77V
|
| 2010-2011
|
| > 5DIV
|
| 2016, etc.
|
| I tried this site:
| https://cameradecision.com/features/Best-Mirrorless-
| cameras-... - and it's a bit cheaper than $7k for new
| cameras, only around $5k.
|
| Are you aware of any recent-ish cameras with reasonable
| price and GPS?
| hug wrote:
| You can get a Ricoh G900 II, which was released earlier
| this year, for sub-$800.
|
| It's also fully automatic and doesn't require you to do
| much with knobs and dials. And it's waterproof!
|
| I suspect you'll complain about it though.
| cyberax wrote:
| No changeable lenses and not a full-frame sensor, does
| not support RAW.
|
| I'm seriously interested in buying a reasonably-priced
| modern mirrorless camera with GPS. I'm not joking, I've
| been looking for a while to replace my old Sony Alpha.
| verandaguy wrote:
| I recommend Olympus for that. They're reasonably priced,
| generally more technologically progressive than bigger
| brands like Nikon, Canon, or Sony, have a small form
| factor owing to their Micro Four Thirds sensor, have GPS,
| and still have a decent set of modern and legacy lenses
| (which are also commensurately lighter and smaller than
| similar lenses on APS-C or full-frame systems).
| cyberax wrote:
| I tried to check and it looks like the only model that
| fits is Olympus E-M1X ($2k on clearance sales). And it's
| 6 years old by now :(
|
| Anything newer is $5k+. Or does not have replaceable
| lenses.
| verandaguy wrote:
| Is the 6 years old point relevant to you?
| cyberax wrote:
| Kinda? I want to replace my 7-year old Sony Alpha with
| something out of this decade.
| necovek wrote:
| Sony DSC-HX9V had GPS built-in.
|
| Others are connecting their cameras to their phones over
| Bluetooth which gets all the images tagged with GPS
| location too. Eg. a sub-$1000 Sony ZV-E10 with an iPhone
| according to a user on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/S
| onyAlpha/comments/17sco5v/comment/...
| cyberax wrote:
| > Sony DSC-HX9V had GPS built-in.
|
| Not a full-frame changeable lens camera.
|
| > Others are connecting their cameras to their phones
| over Bluetooth which gets all the images tagged with GPS
| location too
|
| It requires Sony's crapp running on your phone when
| taking a picture. Right now, it has 1.8 stars in the Play
| Store, which should tell you how well it works.
| ZiiS wrote:
| Well over a decade ago, compact cameras like the Lumix
| DMC-ZS7 for a few hundred $ added GPS.
| verandaguy wrote:
| You must not have checked very thoroughly, because these
| cameras absolutely exist, they're just not popular
| because of the limited utility of GPS in a camera
| compared to the battery drain and time it can take to
| resync an outdated almanac if your camera's been turned
| off for a few days.
|
| I'll note that that's a limitation not of how powerful
| cameras are or aren't, but one of most GNSS systems
| architecturally; the almanac in these situations
| communicates to client devices information about any
| updates the satellite constellation, broadly speaking,
| and because this is a low-bitrate system in GEO, there
| isn't much client devices can do to speed this up.
|
| See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_w
| hich_provide_...
|
| Of the top 10 most recent entries on that list, only one
| (the Hasselblad) weighs in at over USD$7k, though others
| like the D6, Z9, and EOS-1D are high-end cameras that
| clock in around $5-6k new on B&H.
|
| Olympus's offerings all fall under about $2500 with most
| of those options available under $1000.
| mlyle wrote:
| That large protrusion on the right makes it easy to hold
| the camera. It's a convenient place to put a battery and a
| bunch of controls, too.
| prmoustache wrote:
| As a matter of fact, there are accessories for
| smartphones providing that protrusion and a physical
| trigger.
| verandaguy wrote:
| > And ultra-professional $6k cameras from Zeiss miss the
| mark entirely, you need to target a prosumer market (i.e.
| me).
|
| Zeiss is generally not a camera maker, at least not these
| days; the ZX1 is more of a halo product than anything.
| They're much better-known for their optics, which are often
| niche, but usually worth the money if it's _your_ niche.
|
| In any case, a better example of a professional camera
| would be something like Nikon's Z8 and Z9, Sony's A7/9/1
| models, or Canon's newer EOSes. They're also a good amount
| cheaper than USD$6k, in most cases. > But
| why do you need a large protrusion on the right? You don't
| have a film canister anymore. I already wrote about a
| myriad of physical controls. Just make it large enough to
| hold the camera.
|
| Because that's where your right hand goes. Most people are
| right-handed, and having a comfortable grip is nice. Your
| left hand will usually go under the lens (or at the base of
| the lens for short or light lenses).
| namibj wrote:
| Ehhh, I feel like I have to mention that optics like a
| Schmidt-Vaisala camera exist, and notably have their focal
| plane right in the middle of the tube.
|
| They readily go as fast as e.g. 400mm f/2.0 with 2 tame (iirc
| literally just spherical) optical surfaces (mirror and near-
| sensor plano-convex lens) and 1 more elaborate wavy surface
| (back side of front glass), naturally achromatic for a 20~30
| MP large image circle.
|
| Modern technology (ability to manufacture of array waveguides
| that act like a bundle of fiber optics, to de-flatten the
| sensor's focal plane) also allows making better use of
| objective designs that perform well in every way but field
| flatness.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Half of the point of having a dedicated camera is better
| ergonomics. I'm finding current smartphones good enough for
| most uses, but they are simply awkward to use and very slow to
| control without an external grip.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Then use an external grip? -\\_(tsu)_/-
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Which defies the point of a smartphone. Might as well carry
| a camera, which I occasionally do.
| girvo wrote:
| https://petapixel.com/2021/07/10/yongnuo-yn455-a-new-android...
|
| A few have tried, and they all fail. Most people are just going
| to use their phone, and the ones that won't _want_ the old-
| timey looks and hardware dials.
|
| https://newatlas.com/photography/switchlens-m43-smartphone-c...
|
| This one I think has promise though
| cyberax wrote:
| I don't think Switchlens is going to work. It needs to be a
| separate integrated device. Unless they glue a phone
| permanently to it.
| girvo wrote:
| I disagree; I think your overall point is correct, that
| people want high quality photos beyond what phone sensors
| and lenses can achieve, and they want the power of their
| phones software.
|
| Thing is though, most camera makers are kind of crap at
| software in general, and their UX teams are nonexistent. So
| being able to delegate to your phone makes a fair bit of
| sense to the people who'd like that, even if you're not one
| of them.
|
| It makes so much sense that there's even a second team
| taking a crack at it that I wasn't aware of:
| https://www.alice.camera/
|
| That said, this is still a niche within a niche: I don't
| think either will be some mass market product. But being
| able to take my phone and a Alice or a SwitchLens to a
| concert in both pockets is pretty neat.
|
| These will more replace the things like the Fujifilm X70,
| or a lot of what people use the X100(roman numeral) for,
| while getting the workflow benefits you're rightfully
| after.
|
| I don't trust a camera manufacturer to keep their Android
| deployment up to date, or even to really fix that many bugs
| in it, and a whole Android OS is a lot more complex for
| them to manage than SwitchLens/Alice's apps and internal
| RTOS + comms layers.
|
| Other alternative would be for one of the _big_ players in
| the mirrorless space to open up their operating systems,
| but Fujifilm 's X series communication app is bad that I
| simply don't see it as feasible: they really are terrible
| at software.
| cyberax wrote:
| > It makes so much sense that there's even a second team
| taking a crack at it that I wasn't aware of:
| https://www.alice.camera/
|
| It's a good idea, but I just don't think it's going to
| work. The mechanical connection between the phone and
| camera is awkward, and connectivity through
| Bluetooth/WiFi can not be seamless enough. Especially in
| challenging radio environments (like a concert).
|
| > I don't trust a camera manufacturer to keep their
| Android deployment up to date, or even to really fix that
| many bugs in it, and a whole Android OS is a lot more
| complex for them to manage than SwitchLens/Alice's apps
| and internal RTOS + comms layers.
|
| Android can allow third-party software, much easier than
| hacking into the proprietary OS.
| chillfox wrote:
| Samsung did make a camera with most of those features (it was
| before 5G, so 3G I think). I had it, it sucked a lot.
|
| Turns out physical buttons for most things is very important if
| you want to be able to rapidly change settings as required for
| capturing a moment. Whenever I tried using that camera I lost
| so many shots due to the delay of fiddling with menus or the
| startup time.
| nucleardog wrote:
| > Turns out physical buttons for most things is very
| important if you want to be able to rapidly change settings
| as required for capturing a moment.
|
| Yeah, this really feels like the "cars should have physical
| controls not giant tablets" argument argued from the opposite
| stance.
|
| If your focus is elsewhere (driving, trying to capture a
| photo) the last thing you want is a giant touchscreen that's
| modal and has no tactile feedback. The only way you can
| operate it is to take your attention away from what you're
| actually trying to do to fiddle with the touchscreen.
|
| Personally, I prefer being able to turn on my defroster or
| blinker from muscle memory and without taking my focus off
| the road just as I prefer being able to adjust the aperture
| or ISO from muscle memory without taking my focus off the
| scene I'm trying to capture.
| mavhc wrote:
| Why not both? Touchscreen to select focus position, view
| images. A touchscreen doesn't mean you have to remove
| buttons.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| That does exist in most modern interchangeable lens
| cameras. You can adjust almost all settings through the
| touchscreen that are available. Hell, on a lot of cameras
| you can control most settings remotely via Wifi using
| your smarthpone. The only function I can think of that
| isn't available is zoom, since photography lenses almost
| never include a zoom motor.
|
| The GP is asking for touchscreen ONLY, with no buttons
| for some reason.
| nucleardog wrote:
| So in summary:
|
| - Power draining giant screen - Touchscreen and minimal
| physical controls - Multiple radios, including cellular - Cloud
| integration - Apps for photo editing - Slim form factor
|
| You want a smartphone with a better lens.
| cyberax wrote:
| Yes, exactly. A smartphone with a good optical system.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| Yep, this is me. I like just capturing memories with my
| smartphone, and only wish it had a better lens. It's
| convenient that I can just carry it in my pocket and not have
| to carry a separate device.
|
| If someone made this smartphone-like camera, I wouldn't buy
| one. What purpose would it serve? I already have a phone, and
| if I want to spend more money to get better-quality photos
| than it can provide, I can just go buy a higher-end phone
| that's aimed at people like me, with a bigger and better
| lens. Why would I want to carry a separate camera around and
| then worry about stuff like syncing photos?
|
| If, however, I got back into doing more serious amateur
| photography, like I was into 15+ years ago, the last thing I
| would want is a smartphone-like camera with an annoying
| touchscreen. I'd want a "prosumer" DSLR, with lots of
| physical switches. And these already exist.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| > Also, ditch the old-timey film-camera look. I don't need 15
| physical switches [...].
|
| You really, really do. This may sound contradictory at first,
| but cameras are operated blind. Even when you're looking at the
| camera, you're not seeing the camera, you're seeing the
| subject. Touchscreens suck at blind controls. (That's not to
| say touchscreens aren't useful: choosing the focus point
| doesn't exhibit this conflict, even if some prefer a joystick;
| or if you're already digging into menus to do something very
| particular and non-time-sensitive--astrophotography, focus
| stacking, live compositing--a touchscreen can be better than a
| D-pad.)
|
| Cameras also weigh quite a bit and are supported with the
| fingers you're using to operate them, so significantly shifting
| anything except maybe your right thumb usually means a real
| risk of dropping the camera. The weight also mounts a two-
| pronged attack on the size of your touchscreen (I'm assuming a
| walkaround camera, not weddings or sports): the camera needs to
| be smaller in order to be lighter, and a large part of its
| surface area needs to be available for you to grip. So,
| realistically, you don't want a camera with a 6-inch
| touchscreen.
|
| In conclusion, please please please don't take away my physical
| controls. I know a touchscreen is cheaper, but please don't.
| I'll pay.
|
| (Side note: it's been almost fifteen years, and I still type
| slower on my Android phone than I used to on the QWERTY
| keyboard of my Nokia.)
| atoav wrote:
| IMO the way black magic does it with their cinema cameras is
| a great middle ground. Big bright touchscreen that can do all
| + some physical buttons and dials for often used things.
|
| In their early series I had one of those touchsrcreens die on
| set, but those reliability issues seem to have gone since.
| PetitPrince wrote:
| > You really, really do. This may sound contradictory at
| first, but cameras are operated blind. Even when you're
| looking at the camera, you're not seeing the camera, you're
| seeing the subject.
|
| I completely agree.
|
| Touchscreen interface and touch button are terrible UI in a
| car for the very same reason: you're looking at the
| subject/the road, not at your camera/your dashboard.
| m463 wrote:
| > terrible UI in a car
|
| I hate that tesla is removing stalks from all cars.
| md_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| verandaguy wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Not in newer designs. Modern cameras have similar or
| higher perceived pixel density, with very little or no
| perceptible screen dooring. Latency on later-gen cameras
| is also very low to the point of being imperceptible.
| > And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a
| mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus
| feedback.
|
| I think what you're describing is a rangefinder, as seen
| on some Leicas for example. This is correct, but
| rangefinder cameras are a niche within a niche. Frankly I
| don't know how rangefinder users make use of that in the
| first place.
|
| > 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.
|
| I mean, I can't help you here, this kind of misinput is
| just as likely if not more on a touchscreen in my
| experience. The fact is that:
|
| - Normally, on any camera I've used between Sony and
| Nikon, one click of the control wheel is +/- 1/3 EV.
| Hitting it nine times and failing to pay attention to the
| live preview or EV metering scale sounds like user error
| to me.
|
| - If it takes you 2 months to unload your photos, you
| probably aren't the target audience for these cameras to
| begin with, to be blunt.
|
| - Assuming it was _less_ than 3EV, most modern cameras
| shooting in RAW will, for most scenes, be able to give
| you the dynamic range to still work with the photo in
| post.
| numpad0 wrote:
| > You're looking at the screen to track the target
| anyway.
|
| What? No. You present the camera to where it shall be,
| pin it where the image aligns with the framing you had in
| mind, and press the shutter. Almost the exact the same as
| guns minus violence(unless you consider artistic
| expression a form of violence). This applies to phones
| too.
|
| > And with the computational photography, you can just
| take multiple pictures and synthesize various "exposure
| times" later.
|
| The technology isn't there. Yes, it's 2024, there has to
| be half a dozen competing models of multispectral LIDAR
| slaved mirrorless cameras with Gaussian splats features,
| I agree, but it's easier and cheaper to just load couple
| AA batteries to a regular clip-on flash and physically
| stop down the aperture for portraits, or just be where
| you want to be with a flask of hot coffee for scenery
| photos.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Viewfinder shows all that information in real time
| already, but after a certain point, you _know_ what your
| camera gonna do with these settings:
| Hmm... It's a bit too bright and this thing gonna
| overexpose a bit so, let's compensate it with -0.7EV...
| Hmm... With this settings, it'll track the face
| automatically so I don't need to think about it now.
|
| This is how you instinctively think while taking a photo.
| It's automatic. I don't know what my metering says me for
| most of the time, because I already know from experience.
| Metering is always there though. If it says something
| contrary to you, it's worth paying attention (again a
| split second).
|
| If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should I
| bother about multiple frames? Or, if I can take this [1]
| with a simple 7-shot bracket (which is overkill, 3 will
| already do, but why not) and simple compositing, why
| should I bother? Lastly, if I can take this [2] again
| with a single shot, with a bog standard lens and with a
| good tripod, why should I bother with tracked shots, etc.
| (You can always take better astros, but this is a great
| shot for a single frame and some post processing).
|
| In photography, sensor size is still the king. A
| mirrorless camera is much crisper than a phone camera,
| the comparison is still moot. Esp. when you compare full
| frame sensors to phone camera sensors, even the best ones
| (like Sony's 48/12 Quad-Bayer systems) fall way short of
| even an APS-C sensor. It's physics. A RAW image from a
| big sensor is 90% there. When taking a photo with a
| phone, you're adding much much more to make it look good.
|
| The joy of photography comes from capturing that fleeting
| moment and framing it to create something worth looking
| and remembering that moment. Not synthesizing artificial
| looking colors with extreme post processing which bends
| the truth in that moment.
|
| [0]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/33984196648/
|
| [1]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/47965142511/
|
| [2]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/46092337964/
| cyberax wrote:
| > Hmm... It's a bit too bright and this thing gonna
| overexpose a bit so, let's compensate it with -0.7EV...
|
| Why should _I_ do that instead of the camera?
|
| > If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should
| I bother about multiple frames?
|
| You shouldn't. The camera should. It already knows the
| illumination level, and it can take multiple measurements
| from its CCD, until the total amount of transferred
| charge per pixel is enough to build a good picture. And
| while at it, just take a couple more pictures with
| intentionally over-exposed sensor to automatically offer
| the HDR version.
|
| You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing
| for a decade or so.
|
| > In photography, sensor size is still the king.
|
| Yes, and that's why I want a mirrorless camera with
| changeable lenses. There's only so much software can do
| with a phone's optical system.
|
| However, the same software can do so much more when
| coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > Why should _I_ do that instead of the camera?
|
| First, every machine has its limits, second every
| photographer has a style.
|
| > You shouldn't. The camera should.
|
| No. The camera should do _exactly as I say_. It 's an
| instrument, which shall allow footguns. Because one
| person's footgun is other person's style. Camera should
| be a blunt instrument, and should completely get out of
| the photographer's way, shall become transparent.
|
| It's not the camera's interpretation of the scene. It's
| _the photographer 's interpretation through the camera_.
|
| > ...offer the HDR version.
|
| If you feel lazy, many mirrorless cameras do that, but
| the results are may not fit your taste. Sony A7III's
| Auto-HDR is nice, but it's not _exactly_ what I want, so
| I merge mine manually.
|
| > You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing
| for a decade or so.
|
| I have quite a few cameras: A Canonette 28, a Pentax
| MZ50, a Nikon D70s and a Sony A7-III. I also used Canon
| AE-1, etc. All of these cameras have metering, and all of
| them are excellent for their era. They are not infallible
| or perfect.
|
| For example, D70s freaks out in CFL and LED environments,
| because these indoor lighting was non-existent when it
| was designed. So a custom WB is a must in this case.
| A7-III sometimes struggles in colored LED (sodium yellow-
| ish) environments, so you again set custom WB. That
| machine was the _most accurate camera_ in terms of color
| when it came out.
|
| As I said, every machine has its limits.
|
| > However, the same software can do so much more when
| coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system.
|
| The thing is, photographer's don't want the software.
| They want _what they exactly see recorded in a file_ ,
| and that's more of a dynamic range thing more than a
| color thing, and it's directly related to sensor hardware
| (regardless of its size), not software.
|
| From my understanding, you want a mirrorless (or full
| frame) point and shoot, and that's OK. What I want is
| total control over the camera hardware, regardless of its
| form factor.
| m463 wrote:
| very early on with my garmin watch, I disabled the
| touchscreen at all times.
| ninjin wrote:
| Indeed, buttons and dials can be learnt to operate blindly so
| that you can focus on what really matters: scene and
| composition. There is a reason why Fujifilm have become the
| darlings of the semi-pro scene over the last decade. Look at
| anything in the X-T series and every single parameter that
| you need to change in a second or lose the shot has a button
| or dial for it; without them being as bulky as full-fledged
| SLRs.
|
| Phones with touch screens are great for shots where you have
| a high degree of control over the subject (yourself, food,
| etc.) and your physical relationship to it. But one must
| realise that there is a great deal of photography where this
| will not be the case.
| hypercube33 wrote:
| Weight is also due to the cameras being built like tanks -
| they need to be absolutely dependable in any weather and
| survive drops bangs and falls. Most pro bodies are made with
| a rigid metal frame and are waterproofed with seals. They
| also have to hold lenses on the front bigger and heavier than
| 6lbs in a lot of cases.
|
| I agree with both sides. if you want to experience a manual
| camera lacking controls visit the Nikon 1 series which has
| mostly a horrible user interface. The flip side is something
| like the Z9 which has touch, buttons and knobs everywhere.
|
| The only questionable thing is 5G since cameras usually are
| built for 5 to 10 year working lives and live on for many
| more past that. Tethering to a phone seems like a fair
| compromise that also gives great battery life.
| joshvm wrote:
| I've been doing a lot of extreme low temp (-70C ambient)
| photography with a Sigma FP. It's basically a full-frame box
| hybrid movie camera. The addon EVF works well long after the
| LCD freezes. I really don't want multi touch. I do want at
| least two physical dials with chunky detents. I don't want
| auto-everything. USB charging is nice but I use a cabled
| external battery most of the time. The battery will die in
| minutes outside and for whatever reason Sigma decided not to
| add USB power pass through in the EVF. A week outside in the
| cold on AC power? No problem because there are no moving parts.
|
| The power solution I came up with is a modified battery charger
| with a removable base (Wasabi Power). I added teflon coated
| cables and a connector to go to the (also butchered) dummy
| battery. Real battery gets stuffed into a pocket or up a
| sleeve. The camera doesn't care how cold it gets, from
| experimenting.
|
| It's also small and the display is most of the back. If you
| make the display bigger, the camera gets bigger. At some point
| you aren't serving pro photgraphers or people who would just
| use an iPad. Really you want a good OLED display or a high-res
| viewfinder. The FP has a weird loupe accessory back.
|
| An on device editor? I don't understand the need, if you can
| sync to a phone or computer. The same goes for wifi - a lot of
| new cameras have 2.4Ghz in them (my OM-D EM5ii from almost a
| decade ago can sync to an app).
|
| This project looks super cool though.
| cyberax wrote:
| > A week outside in the cold on AC power? No problem because
| there are no moving parts.
|
| Yeah, cameras also need to be vacuum-proof with a passive
| heat spreader (1 square meter should be enough), support
| depths up to 3 kilometers (what if you want to visit
| Titanic?), and be rad-hardened (everybody loves taking photos
| inside the Fukushima reactor). These are really must-have
| features that 99% of the population needs during their
| vacations.
| joshvm wrote:
| You can ignore the Antarctica side of things, but the
| features that are useful here are useful everywhere.
|
| More cameras are moving to OLED rear displays (sunlight
| visible), full-frame mirrorless with electronic shutter
| (mechanical reliability), USB-C charging (took ages for
| this to become widespread), out-of-the-box UVC support for
| webcam mode, etc. These sorts of features have led to
| cameras that are not skeuomorphic representations of
| cameras from the 80s. They don't need a hump for a penta-
| prism and they can drop bulky mirror and shutter
| assemblies. I can fit my fp and the kit lens into a coat
| pocket.
|
| > These are really must-have features that 99% of the
| population needs during their vacations.
|
| > Give me a large sunlight-readable touchscreen, with
| multitouch. Also GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, and 5G/LTE for
| connectivity and geotagging. Add automatic uploads to
| Google Photos, iPhoto, WebDAV, etc. Put in a small editor
| for on-device photo touchups.
|
| I think having WiFi+GPS alone is sufficient for this
| (irritatingly few pro cameras have GPS receivers). Then you
| can do the editing on a device which is actually suitable
| for it, and you reduce the risk of obsolescence in the
| camera. TV manufacturers have shown they're unwilling to
| support changing APIs long-term.
|
| The interim solution is probably a smartphone with an add-
| on lens system like Moment's, and better RAW support.
| thunfisch wrote:
| The only thing that I wish that camera-makers would finally
| agree on is a common mount. I'd love to try out camera bodies
| from different manufacturers, but that almost always means
| switching your entire lens collection as well. No, thanks.
|
| I agree on built-in GPS (currently need to pair with a
| smartphone - which I'd rather love to leave at home), but
| everything else seems like a non-feature to me. I have zero
| interest for that on my Camera, because the experience would
| just be insanely annoying. Touchscreens are awful for camera
| operation - the feature is turned off permanently on my camera.
| Camera needs to be operatable blind, touchscreens are awful for
| this. Please give me more buttons and dials.
| yunohn wrote:
| > but that almost always means switching your entire lens
| collection as well
|
| Sadly, this is entirely by design. Like other industries,
| camera manufacturers want to ensure lock-in. At least we can
| usually keep lenses across body changes within the same
| brand.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| There are some more or less standard mounts from early days
| of film: LTM, 42mm, even Pentax K has been shared by
| numerous manufacturers. There is the m4/3 mount for digital
| which is shared across several manufacturers.
|
| The problem is that the mount is _always_ a design
| constraint. The LTM mount means your lenses cannot have AF.
| The M4 /3 mount means that your sensor size is maxed out at
| 1/4 the size of a full frame camera. Using the Pentax K
| mount means that you can't ever have a piece of glass
| closer than 45mm to the imaging surface.
|
| The most interesting manuever might be Nikon's new Z mount
| which has the closest flange distance of any full frame
| mount as well as the widest diameter. This makes it so that
| it is compatible with the largest amount of lenses of any
| mount when using adapters. Bizarrely, I can use old Canon
| EF mount lenses with new Nikon cameras with more features
| than I can using old Nikon lenses from the same era!
| a2800276 wrote:
| What you're describing is basically a modern phone. Just get an
| iPhone pro, done.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| I just need something that can feed RAW data to various ML
| tasks.
| MarioMan wrote:
| I've been using a professional camera (Sony A7C) for a bit over
| two years now, and my wishlist looks very different than yours.
|
| - Modern computational photography: Imagine having access to a
| high-end sensor combined modern computational photography
| tooling. Smartphones do incredible things with computational
| photography, including HDR, low light stacking, noise
| reduction, upscaling, and picking out smiling faces from
| multiple photos. Most of these things can be done in post on a
| professional camera with tools like Photoshop, but often they
| are inferior, using a single image to worse affect, requiring a
| lot of manual work, or just having less mature tooling. I'd
| love to have access to the raw data and computational pipelines
| to selectively apply different processing and tweak
| computational settings in post.
|
| - Better UI: Sony notoriously has a terrible UI in their camera
| menu systems. Working with it feels like something I would've
| used on a flip-phone from 20 years ago, with things buried
| multiple levels down in obscure menus and vague, sometimes
| poorly translated descriptions. The hardware is great, but the
| GUI feels like something built by engineers rather than for
| end-users.
| atoav wrote:
| Sony is the manufacturer who had me search for the battery
| release camrra for a solid minute - it was on the opposite
| side of the camera.
|
| If I didn't have to use those cameras they would be
| engineering marbels, but their professional video segment
| really could use a new generation of designers.
| dannyw wrote:
| Most computational photography inherently breaks giving the
| photographer direct manual control over how a picture is
| taken (shutter speed, aperture, ISO).
|
| For example, HDR or low light staking means taking multiple
| photos. This requires a fast shutter speed to minimise change
| in the scene or subject. However, photographers sometimes
| intentionally want a slower shutter speed for motion blur, or
| to shoot at lower ISO for less noise and more resolution.
|
| Actions like noise reduction, upscaling, etc are post-
| processing actions. They are best done on a large, high-
| resolution, color-calibrated screen; instead of a portable
| device with a small battery where you want to maximise the
| number of shots you can take before swapping or recharging
| batteries.
|
| Bear in mind that modern cameras easily shoot in 40, 60+ MP.
| To truly perform noise reduction, or upscaling on those
| images require a lot more processing power, even with fixed-
| function hardware. Your "48MP" quad-bayer smartphone is
| generally processing a "pixel-binned" 12MP image straight out
| of the sensor, that might be resampled to 24MP (iOS) after
| post-processing; but was never anything more than 12MP. The
| hardware was never more than 12MP, except they sub-divided
| each bayer pixel into 4 quad (or 12 for some Samsung chips)
| to claim 4x/12x the spec sheet w/o real world benefits.
|
| Your smartphone's SoC, is usually manufactured on the latest,
| bleeding edge 3nm or 4nm processes. They are also the most
| expensive; made practical because tens of millions of each
| chip are shipped each year. There are ~1m dedicated cameras
| shipped each year; from many different manufactures using
| different chips; usually built on N16, N12, or N7 for the
| bleeding edge ones.
|
| No, they cannot just use a smartphone SoC. Smartphone image
| signal processors simply can't process 61MP at 20FPS or 30FPS
| or whatever the burst rate sports photographers demand.
|
| Your smartphone uses an electronic shutter. Your proper
| camera probably has a mechanical shutter, which is generally
| superior but also requires more force to move.
|
| The battery in your smartphone is probably ~2x bigger than a
| professional mirrorless or DSLR. Pro photographers buy
| cameras, in a significant part based on how many shots they
| can take.
|
| > the GUI feels like something built by engineers rather than
| for end-users.
|
| Think of the GUI as being built for professional
| photographers who's been using an UI for the past 20 years of
| their livelihood. You would probably be really upset if your
| OS decided to change established keyboard shortcuts like
| Ctrl+C or Ctrl+V. You probably wouldn't choose that OS, and
| if professional photographers won't buy a camera because the
| UI is "weird to them", you've wasted your R&D costs because
| the dedicated camera market for the past decade is
| essentially only professionals; with some amateurs and
| hobbyists.
| Arcanum-XIII wrote:
| Everything you say is pretty much on target, except the UI.
| I know my Sony camera, and every time I need to do a change
| in a setting, it's plainly horrible. Confusing naming, no
| feedback, sometimes you're thrown back to the main UI
| without explanation... and the bugs. For the longuest time
| the auto off was not working properly, which, on an hybrid
| camera leads to a very short battery life.
|
| From what I've seen, it's not better on Canon and Nikon
| hardware.
|
| They spent a lot of time refining the manual control, so
| it's very good and intuitive but then fails so bad at the
| electronic UI...
| starky wrote:
| Exactly, the modern mirrorless camera should be providing
| options to use the latest technology as well as the full
| manual control for when you need it. Imagine what you could
| do with the stacking capabilities of modern smartphones with
| a stacked image sensor like on the Sony A9 series that can
| essentially take full resolution photos at video speed.
|
| Relying solely on image processing isn't be a feasible
| product. Artists want full control to create the image that
| they visualized, not just what some ML algorithm determined
| was best, but at the same time there are many situations
| where you can gain improved image quality that these features
| can accomplish. Additionally, cameras have to support
| unedited images as a large customer base is journalism that
| requires minimal to no editing be done on images.
|
| The UI thing is massive. I'm surprised nobody has created a
| UI more similar to the Hasselblad one that looks good and
| shows your settings very clearly. It would be great if the
| interface you interacted with was clear and looked like a
| modern UI, but still had the plethora of options available
| under the hood in an organized and quick to access manner.
| You don't often need to change many options, but when you do
| they need to be easy to find.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| You need physical buttons. It is about communicating with the
| machine what you really want and control it. If you want auto
| just have an option for auto.
|
| A good example is auto focus. Many has a button on the back to
| activate on an area with focus size and point control by a
| joystick. And if it is good, fix it so the machine does not
| decide to autofocus another area, subject, ...
| mihaaly wrote:
| How about buying a smartphone then?! ; )
| whoiscroberts wrote:
| Hasselblad x2d meets some of these wants.
| qingcharles wrote:
| This does look excellent indeed, as you'd expect from
| Hasselblad.
|
| https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1725356-REG/hasselbla.
| ..
| entropie wrote:
| Something like this? There is one that was very recently
| released, but could not find it, but this is the idea:
| https://petapixel.com/2021/07/10/yongnuo-yn455-a-new-android...
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > Also, ditch the old-timey film-camera look. I don't need 15
| physical switches, most of which should be automatic anyway.
|
| Yeah, you do. For the reasons others have given (adjusting the
| exposure compensation on my iPhone is a PITA. On my Olympus I
| just spin a dial).
|
| But also: if you're "out shooting", this may happen when it's
| freezing outside. If you've found a pair of warm gloves that
| allows you to comfortably use an iPhone, I'd love to hear about
| them. My Olympus' dials are usable with my winter motorcycle
| gloves. My iPhone's screen is also a pain to use if it's wet.
| Sure, it won't brick the phone, but dragging things around the
| screen? Good luck.
| cyberax wrote:
| > Yeah, you do. For the reasons others have given (adjusting
| the exposure compensation on my iPhone is a PITA. On my
| Olympus I just spin a dial).
|
| No, I don't. I haven't touched most of controls on my camera,
| and I don't have a desire to do that.
|
| > But also: if you're "out shooting", this may happen when
| it's freezing outside.
|
| Yeah, so every feature must be designed to work under water,
| at night, at -60C, on Jupiter.
|
| Here's a newsflash: people typically don't take pictures when
| it's super-cold.
| franga2000 wrote:
| For the sake of every professional (and semi-professional such
| as myself) photographer out there, I wish, to use your
| terminology, that the manufacturer's heads remain firmly up
| their asses. The only thing touching the LCD on my camera is my
| nose while I look through the viewfinder and when I am looking
| at the screen it's because I'm holding the camera in a strange
| position that doesn't allow me to use a touchscreen either.
|
| Give me an open API so I can offload all the smarts to my
| infinitely more capable phone that already has a SIM card with
| a huge data plan and keep the camera a camera.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Also, ditch the old-timey film-camera look. I don't need 15
| physical switches, most of which should be automatic anyway.
|
| No thank you. The whole point of a good camera is to have
| manual controls IF you want them. Nope that you can already use
| DSLRs and mirrorless cameras as fully automatic point and shoot
| cameras of you want to use them this way.
| egorfine wrote:
| I am a photographer with decades of experience, the vast
| majority of which is studio works.
|
| My wishlist is the exact opposite of your's. I don't need
| multitouch, couldn't care less for anything wireless, much less
| automatic uploads and on-device editing. I need physical
| buttons for everything. The more the better. And I need a
| manual AF/MF switch _badly_.
| verandaguy wrote:
| It sounds like what you want is a smartphone.
|
| > Give me a large sunlight-readable touchscreen, with
| multitouch. Also GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, and 5G/LTE for
| connectivity and geotagging. Add automatic uploads to Google
| Photos, iPhoto, WebDAV, etc. Put in a small editor for on-
| device photo touchups.
|
| Most newer cameras have _many_ of these, minus integration with
| Google Photos, iPhoto, or WebDAV, and cellular connectivity
| since many areas of photography just wouldn't benefit from it
| enough to justify the extra cost, complexity, and battery life
| hit.
|
| Many newer cameras also have smartphone control, with varying
| levels of actual usability, but that's a separate issue.
| > Put in a small editor for on-device photo touchups
|
| An editor with any amount of value-add for the kind of person
| who still buys a standalone camera would be pretty big in
| storage and would likely be painfully slow; for me, on a 2019
| Macbook Pro, Lightroom is consistently a pretty heavy app to
| run (to say nothing of Photoshop proper). >
| Also, ditch the old-timey film-camera look. I don't need 15
| physical switches, most of which should be automatic anyway.
|
| As others have said: a good haptic interface is essential for
| most shooting styles, and many of the settings do have
| automatic modes, but a big selling point of standalone cameras
| is that they allow you to express yourself creatively by
| exposing these manual controls to you.
|
| Wanna take a picture of a waterfall at dawn? Throw your master
| mode and ISO into auto and you'll probably get a really nice
| shot of a waterfall. But what if you want to blur the water so
| it looks like white streaks? There's not an auto setting that
| can just infer that for you. With a good haptic interface
| you'll be able to set that up in the dark, or in the cold while
| wearing gloves, or in the wind or on rough terrain where it
| might be tricky to keep your hands steady over a touchscreen.
|
| If you're shooting at an airshow, what balance do you want
| between shutter speed and ISO to balance crispness with the
| appearance of motion? With a good haptic interface you'll be
| able to configure that while following a jet through a long
| lens. > A physical button for the shutter and
| an analog knob for fine tuning are fine, but I don't need a
| manual switch for AF/MF. Or a "shutter delay" selector that is
| too easy to accidentally bump.
|
| Fortunately, there's a class of devices where these needs and
| gripes are served well: smartphones. The default camera apps
| and even some higher-end camera apps loaded onto modern
| smartphones are immensely powerful at making good shots with
| minimal effort.
|
| Having said all that: smartphones are usually excellent
| cameras, and arguably _much more than enough_ for the average
| person, but if you want to break out of using the bog-standard
| auto settings, interfaces get tricky, annoying, and even in the
| best case can be difficult to work with. Halide, for example,
| is great in general, but struggles with short focus (much more
| than the stock iOS camera app) for some reason; it provides a
| manual focus slider to work around that, but for nearby scenes
| with a shallow FOV, you'd usually want a hold-to-keep-in-focus
| or even an AF-C setting.
|
| Dedicated cameras -- and especially ILCs -- target a different
| audience with different goals. What you get is, relatively
| speaking, uncompromising flexibility and an ability to support
| a wide range of artistic visions, though often with a learning
| curve tied to it.
|
| So, I'll ask you a followup: what do you want out of a camera
| that a phone can't get you?
| nunoonun wrote:
| You just described a camera from hell (minus the connectivity
| part). Muscle memory is very important in photography, half
| presses, AEL/AFL lock buttons, exposure compensation. There's
| so many things that have to have physical buttons, you will not
| be looking at the screen to do these things.
|
| This is exactly the same problem Tesla created with the touch
| buttons for turn signals, not everyone is a BMW driver, we use
| turn signals.
| nakedrobot2 wrote:
| You are not a photographer are you.
| bbbrbb wrote:
| Nice!
| MaximilianEmel wrote:
| Video showing the making of it: https://youtu.be/OkfzjmY9cF8
| 3abiton wrote:
| Great project, I get excited about tools that I didn't expect to
| get the Open Source treatment pop up on the list.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I have interest in assembling this, but I'd love to buy it.
|
| I wasted about 1k on trying to design a small backup phone before
| realizing I couldn't get it down to the dimensions I wanted. I'd
| need like half a million to actually build this thing.
|
| However, I really want to see more hardware with open software.
| On the other hand you have open firmware for some cannon cameras
| if you want to do that route.
| xena wrote:
| Where do I get the parts to make one?
| dagw wrote:
| At least for the sensor, you're going to have to go scrounging
| around on eBay.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| I've thought for years that there had been dearth of open source
| cameras. It's nice to see them picking up steam, with a few
| recent posts of them.
| dheera wrote:
| Hey OP, if you ever plan to turn this into a kit for sale for
| <$2000-ish I'd be highly interested.
|
| I'm sick and tired of microscopic cameras like the RPi "HQ"
| camera being called HQ. I come from photography land and a full
| 35mm-ish sensor is the minimum of what I'd call HQ.
| _giorgio_ wrote:
| I thought this was about open source outdoor / surveillance
| camera... Do we have anything on that topic?
| icar wrote:
| I want a camera that works digitally, but all is through physical
| controls and only the photometer is digital as well. Not a single
| "auto" feature. All manual, but saves to an SD.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| fujifim tx cameras and nikon's zf might make you happy. they
| are digital cameras with a throwback "retro" manual control
| scheme.
| bjpirt wrote:
| Not cheap, but you can get a Leica that doesn't even have a
| screen, it's all manual and just treats the sensor as though it
| were film stock. One of the things I like about the Leica
| digitals is that they are still rangefinder cameras so your
| experience of using them is still through the viewfinder and
| much more akin to an analog experience because of the manual
| focus / exposure / speed control. Now I just need to save up
| :-)
|
| As others have said, the Nikon Zf is a nice manual feeling
| digital option too.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Good news is that Leica M11D has just launched last month, bad
| news is it costs $9.3k for just the body.
| ZiiS wrote:
| Why o why did "Cheep Android phone with a lenses mount" fail.
| nine_k wrote:
| Because the lens mount alone is as thick as the phone, lenses
| are heavy so the phone's.frame must become stronger and this
| heavier, and the result becomes a pretty silly phone, heavy and
| weird-shaped without a lens, and even more weird-shaped with an
| attached lens.
| ZiiS wrote:
| Not as a primary phone. I mean a purpose made mirrorless but
| reusing the screen, motherboard and battery from some ultra
| cost-optimised phone. Easy to use SDK, loads of third party
| photo sharing and camera control apps.
| dannyw wrote:
| Smartphone SoC ISPs are simply not capable enough of
| processing say 24MP (lest 45MP, 61mp) at 30FPS (for
| burst/sports shooting in RAW).
|
| At best, they could probably do 24MP RAW at like... 0.3
| FPS?
|
| With your latest iPhone, enable ProRAW and hold the camera
| shutter down, and let me know fast it takes.
|
| Then, grab a Canon R5 (or Sony A7 IV, A7R V, etc), hold the
| shutter down...
| elintknower wrote:
| Goodness, why gitlab?
| Coolbeanstoo wrote:
| I think this is an incredibly cool project. I think it'd be neat
| if they did something like MNT do and ran a crowdfunding campaign
| to try get these some what more mass produced, though I dont get
| the impression the author is looking to run a business like that
| and mostly developed it for their own enjoyment.
|
| Regardless though, it does feel like open hardware is getting a
| lot more attainable than it used to be and that is surely a good
| thing
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-30 23:01 UTC)