Gripes.

[AlanF]

I am in Catch 22. i would like to write my gripe is all those who gripe. But, I can't write that as I would be griping myself.

 

[jarrodeu]

People who complain that the 6D should have 2 card slots because they don't want to spend the money on a 5DIII.

 

[benperrin]

People that insist that only the latest cameras can produce great images. I think it is more purchase rationalisation than anything else and in general newer cameras are very good but there are many out there with great new cameras taking sub-par images (myself included). People seem to actually argue that when a new camera comes out the old ceases to function.

 

[AvTvM]

Well the inference that anything old is bad is stupid. Are aircraft anachronisms? don't drive cars either, or ride trains - those are 19thC inventions! And don't read books - even older!

To me a digital camera with a flapping mirror and snapping mechanical shutter blades inside in 2015 is as anachronistic as a jet aircraft with propellers would be (dont mention turboprop, they are as hopeless hybrids as Sony SLTs were), or as a 2015 hispeed train pulled by a steam locomotion or as a non-Tesla automobile powered by a stinking, clattering internal combustion engine. Looking foreard to wheels being replacrd by electro-magnetic hoverboards ...

Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera. Maybe i should try one of these in 2016: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-light-camera-almost.html
More compact than an EOS M. No more 15th century glass bricks needed in front. No more mechanical aperture iris blades, no more focus rings, no cogs, no wheels, no gear. Everything as simple and pure as digital photography itself: Photons -> electrons -> image. No slapping, no flapping, no vibrations, no oil splatters, no noise. Mirrorslappers, be gone! 8)

 

[unfocused]

Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera.

Not to get too far off topic. But by the same reasoning, one could say that whatever can be done by simple physics (light reflected by a mirror) should be done so. After all, physics is a lot more reliable and durable than solid state electronics.

 

[Orangutan]

(dont mention turboprop, they are as hopeless hybrids as

I believe they're used for good reason: balance of efficiency, reliability and short take-off. When supersonic jets can service small regional airports economically and without disturbing the peace, we can talk about getting rid of turboprops.

Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera.

So do I -- but only when they're ready. The lag problem is nearly solved; when the battery life, high-speed focus, and low-light focus problems are solved we'll have a winner!

Gripe: the fact that a given tech is a winner for a specific photo application does not mean it's a winner for all photo applications.

 

[sdsr]

Whatever can be done so much better without moving parts, should be done so. I really want a solid state camera. Maybe i should try one of these in 2016: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-light-camera-almost.html
More compact than an EOS M. No more 15th century glass bricks needed in front. No more mechanical aperture iris blades, no more focus rings, no cogs, no wheels, no gear. Everything as simple and pure as digital photography itself: Photons -> electrons -> image. No slapping, no flapping, no vibrations, no oil splatters, no noise. Mirrorslappers, be gone! 8)

I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

On camera flash is just worthless!

On camera flash IS worthless..... there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ever use it.... unless you didn't bring/have an external flash, in which case on-camera flash is wonderful

My gripe is about people complaining how fragile tilt/swivel screens are, yet I can't recall a single person on the forum who ever broke one.....

I did not break one, but bought a used S5 IS that had a broken screen. It cost me $12 for a replacement screen which I installed in 15 minutes. Its actually much easier to replace than a in-body screen, just two or three screws to take the cover off, and a few more holding the screen in place.

 

[sanj]

The word "mirrorslapper".

Agreed. I wonder, if the reflex was invented to day, in its present form, just what people would be saying about a viewing system that requires no power and shows everything in real-time.

I call a spade a spade. And any mirrorflipping camera is a just mirrorslapper. I'll definitely continue my tradition of calling early 20th century patents what they are: totally anachronistic mechanical contraptions. Moveable parts when all that needs to be movin' are photons and electrons. Yikes! 8)

Well the inference that anything old is bad is stupid. Are aircraft anachronisms? Definitely don't drive cars either, or ride trains - those are 19thC inventions! And don't read books - even older! And don't use fire for anything, or metals, or live in houses. Um...

Am hoping this thread stays fun and civil. Cheers.

 

[AvTvM]

I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....

To each their own!

Yes, there is a segment of "retro photographers" who enjoy touching and turning precision wheels, twist focus and aperture rings, pushing knobs, cranking film rewind levers and to "fondle" heavy, nicely machined, solid metal cameras and heavy, polished glass of yesteryear. I think of them as "machine operators" - their boyhood dream must have been to become a (steam!) locomotion engineer or (propeller!) aircraft pilot.
That's fine with me (and no insult intended)!

However ... me? I have no interest to try and re-create over and over again the looks of images taken with some old glass lenses that were the latest and greatest in their day but are sorely lacking in technical image quality by today's standards. Not interested either in software "art filters" to emulate the look of old Velvia film or Tri-X or some other old day chemical films. I am more interested (but admittedly not any good at) in creating new images that were never before captured, created and seen that way. I'm much more excited by the endless new imaging possibilities opening up with innovative new technology. More compact cameras to have them along at more occasions, at more unusual places, under more difficult circumstances, like where taking images or at least tripods are "strictly forbidden". Computational photography to literally see the world in a totally new light, at totally different angles and multi-perspectives - impossible to do with glass bricks or flapping mirrors that were the best available solution when chemical film was the best available solution to capture images. Today, in digital imaging mirrors are merely a "foreign object" in the lightpath.

Yes, I'd rather want to explore the new wonders of lightfield technology, capturing light and images in a much more "comprehensive" way than ever before. Directly translating incoming photons and their angles of incidence with full information of the scene before my eys and my camera ... capturing all that and transform it to information for human eyes and brains. With as few moving parts, wheels kbnobs, rings to push and turn as possible. I don't want to select AF points by pushing buttons or a nipple on the back of a camera, I'd like to do that totally intuitively via Eye Control Autofocus - the camera knows, what I want to have in focus by analyzing what i am looking at. "Pure magic" (Canon invented ECF almost 30 years ago and successfully implemented it back then. Why still no updated, improved version 2.0?).

My boyhood dream? To become an astronaut and be the first one to fly to Mars. In a spaceship with no moving mechanical parts ... ion beam drive or something similar. It did not pan out (yet) ... but, who knows?

Gripe? How slowly these innovations come about. Especially at Canon.

 

[scyrene]

I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....

To each their own!

Yes, there is a segment of "retro photographers" who enjoy touching and turning precision wheels, twist focus and aperture rings, pushing knobs, cranking film rewind levers and to "fondle" heavy, nicely machined, solid metal cameras and heavy, polished glass of yesteryear. I think of them as "machine operators" - their boyhood dream must have been to become a (steam!) locomotion engineer or (propeller!) aircraft pilot.
That's fine with me (and no insult intended)!

However ... me? I have no interest to try and re-create over and over again the looks of images taken with some old glass lenses that were the latest and greatest in their day but are sorely lacking in technical image quality by today's standards. Not interested either in software "art filters" to emulate the look of old Velvia film or Tri-X or some other old day chemical films. I am more interested (but admittedly not any good at) in creating new images that were never before captured, created and seen that way. I'm much more excited by the endless new imaging possibilities opening up with innovative new technology. More compact cameras to have them along at more occasions, at more unusual places, under more difficult circumstances, like where taking images or at least tripods are "strictly forbidden". Computational photography to literally see the world in a totally new light, at totally different angles and multi-perspectives - impossible to do with glass bricks or flapping mirrors that were the best available solution when chemical film was the best available solution to capture images. Today, in digital imaging mirrors are merely a "foreign object" in the lightpath.

Yes, I'd rather want to explore the new wonders of lightfield technology, capturing light and images in a much more "comprehensive" way than ever before. Directly translating incoming photons and their angles of incidence with full information of the scene before my eys and my camera ... capturing all that and transform it to information for human eyes and brains. With as few moving parts, wheels kbnobs, rings to push and turn as possible. I don't want to select AF points by pushing buttons or a nipple on the back of a camera, I'd like to do that totally intuitively via Eye Control Autofocus - the camera knows, what I want to have in focus by analyzing what i am looking at. "Pure magic" (Canon invented ECF almost 30 years ago and successfully implemented it back then. Why still no updated, improved version 2.0?).

My boyhood dream? To become an astronaut and be the first one to fly to Mars. In a spaceship with no moving mechanical parts ... ion beam drive or something similar. It did not pan out (yet) ... but, who knows?

Gripe? How slowly these innovations come about. Especially at Canon.

I see where you're coming from, and I respect your position - I just think (returning to the original topic) your pejorative neologism is unnecessary and it riles me

Solid state *sounds* more reliable, but is it? Electronics fail too - and it has to be said overall, they are rendered obsolete more quickly than mechanical devices. In photography, we can still use lenses from decades ago (and not just for retro/nostalgic reasons - some are still optically very good, especially compared to cheaper modern ones), but digital camera bodies from more recent times are often unusable, either because the electronics have failed, or because they use power supplies or storage that is no longer available or supported (I've been tempted by vintage DSLRs from the late 90s or turn of the century, but held off for this reason).

I totally agree with the sentiment "I am more interested ... in creating new images that were never before captured, created and seen that way" - and software offers us a great deal in that regard. I use image stacking for noise reduction in astrophotography, focus stacking for macro work, HDR, and panorama stitching - in all these cases, it's not the construction of the camera that matters, but the way we process the data afterwards. It wouldn't make any difference if the camera I used had a mirror or not.

 

[AvTvM]

I see where you're coming from, and I respect your position - I just think (returning to the original topic) your pejorative neologism is unnecessary and it riles me

Solid state *sounds* more reliable, but is it? Electronics fail too - and it has to be said overall, they are rendered obsolete more quickly than mechanical devices. In photography, we can still use lenses from decades ago (and not just for retro/nostalgic reasons - some are still optically very good, especially compared to cheaper modern ones), but digital camera bodies from more recent times are often unusable, either because the electronics have failed, or because they use power supplies or storage that is no longer available or supported (I've been tempted by vintage DSLRs from the late 90s or turn of the century, but held off for this reason).

If camera includes lenses and the whole thing costs 1500 [see below] it is Ok with me should any solid state electronics component inside fail after 10 years or so. If it happens after 1 year and 1 day upon expiry of warranty, I'd be mad. But DSLRs are actually worse, as they have both types of innards: delicate mechanical ones and electronics. Twice the risk.

Light L16
https://vimeo.com/141273851
http://www.light.co/camera
"Using a new approach to folded optics design, the Light L16 Camera packs DSLR quality into a slim and streamlined camera body. It's like having a camera body, zoom, and 3 fast prime lenses right in your pocket."

Now that's what I call "innovation" in 2015 ... it is not about having flapping mirrors in the lightpath or not! And it is certainly not yet another one of those boring, ever so incremental, fully marketing-differentiated re-iterations of old technology that Canon keeps serving up all the time.

"Disruptive technology", oh yes! Now let's see, whether they can deliver at all in 2016 and if so, how close that things gets to what they promise today ... 8)

 

[scyrene]

I see where you're coming from, and I respect your position - I just think (returning to the original topic) your pejorative neologism is unnecessary and it riles me

Solid state *sounds* more reliable, but is it? Electronics fail too - and it has to be said overall, they are rendered obsolete more quickly than mechanical devices. In photography, we can still use lenses from decades ago (and not just for retro/nostalgic reasons - some are still optically very good, especially compared to cheaper modern ones), but digital camera bodies from more recent times are often unusable, either because the electronics have failed, or because they use power supplies or storage that is no longer available or supported (I've been tempted by vintage DSLRs from the late 90s or turn of the century, but held off for this reason).

If camera includes lenses and the whole thing costs 1500 [see below] it is Ok with me should any solid state electronics component inside fail after 10 years or so. If it happens after 1 year and 1 day upon expiry of warranty, I'd be mad. But DSLRs are actually worse, as they have both types of innards: delicate mechanical ones and electronics. Twice the risk.

Light L16
https://vimeo.com/141273851
http://www.light.co/camera
"Using a new approach to folded optics design, the Light L16 Camera packs DSLR quality into a slim and streamlined camera body. It's like having a camera body, zoom, and 3 fast prime lenses right in your pocket."

Now that's what I call "innovation" in 2015 ... it is not about having flapping mirrors in the lightpath or not! And it is certainly not yet another one of those boring, ever so incremental, fully marketing-differentiated re-iterations of old technology that Canon keeps serving up all the time.

"Disruptive technology", oh yes! Now let's see, whether they can deliver at all in 2016 and if so, how close that things gets to what they promise today ... 8)

Well we'll see. Very little technology is genuinely disruptive, and it's usually only possible to tell which is some time after the fact. People keep lauding 'light field' cameras, but so far nothing has come of it (I think it has the potential to become important, but the jury is out - look at what happened to 3D).

PS this new product's marketing spiel is, like almost all advertising, partial, misleading, and ultimately not borne out by reality.

 

[AvTvM]

well "disruptive technolgies" in stills imaging we've had a few "recently"
* move from rangefinder to reflex cameras (with mirror) - disruptive technology, since it was now possible to see image in viewfinder through the lens at any focal length and without parallax error (and compensation mechanisms), and later on it was a pre-requisite for TTL exposure metering; the disruption from that move basically killed the once proud german camera/photo industry as Japan / SLRs took over in the 1960s/70s
* introduction of autofocus ca. 1986 ... advantages to users: no more ring twisting, more focus on image scene, moment and image; ramification for makers: Minolta moved too early and was killed by patent fighting with Honeywell; Canon moved faster and better than Nikon and took market leadership; Canon made disruptive move to fully electric lens mount (EF) - despite FD users crying murder that decision was an enlightended one
* move from chemical film to digital imaging - killed Kodak and a few others who moved too little/too slow
* move from reflex/OVF cameras to digital cameras with LCD and/or EVF. Customer advantages - ability to see image pretty much as it will be recorded by sensor. Smaller gear possible. Less expensive gear possible. No vibration, no noise possible. Transition currently in full swing. Ramifications on slow moving market players will become evident soon. ;D
* move to computational and/or lightfield photography gear - early stages, Lytro basically failed; Light L16 remains to be seen. Advantage user: whole raft of potential for image creation not even imaginable yet, much smaller gear, much cheaper gear.

Gripes? None. Other than it moving so slowly. ;D

 

[AcutancePhotography]

My biggest gripe about this site is the all too frequent ad hominem attacks. I can always tell when someone really does not understand the topic -- they devolve down to ad hominem attacks. That's an immediate loss of credibility for me.

I wish the forum owners would get rid of this emoticon : : It is insulting and a form of ad hominem attack. It appears that there are some members who can't write a post without using that emoticon.

Challenge the argument, not the person making it.

But there are some posters who can't seem to ever simply answer a question without being insulting.

It makes visiting this forum less enjoyable and certainly less educational.

Just an old guy's opinion.

 

[scyrene]

well "disruptive technolgies" in stills imaging we've had a few "recently"
* move from rangefinder to reflex cameras (with mirror) - disruptive technology, since it was now possible to see image in viewfinder through the lens at any focal length and without parallax error (and compensation mechanisms), and later on it was a pre-requisite for TTL exposure metering; the disruption from that move basically killed the once proud german camera/photo industry as Japan / SLRs took over in the 1960s/70s
* introduction of autofocus ca. 1986 ... advantages to users: no more ring twisting, more focus on image scene, moment and image; ramification for makers: Minolta moved too early and was killed by patent fighting with Honeywell; Canon moved faster and better than Nikon and took market leadership; Canon made disruptive move to fully electric lens mount (EF) - despite FD users crying murder that decision was an enlightended one
* move from chemical film to digital imaging - killed Kodak and a few others who moved too little/too slow
* move from reflex/OVF cameras to digital cameras with LCD and/or EVF. Customer advantages - ability to see image pretty much as it will be recorded by sensor. Smaller gear possible. Less expensive gear possible. No vibration, no noise possible. Transition currently in full swing. Ramifications on slow moving market players will become evident soon. ;D
* move to computational and/or lightfield photography gear - early stages, Lytro basically failed; Light L16 remains to be seen. Advantage user: whole raft of potential for image creation not even imaginable yet, much smaller gear, much cheaper gear.

Gripes? None. Other than it moving so slowly. ;D

I dunno whether all those are truly disruptive. The replacement of one kind of camera (rangefinder) with another (reflex) for instance. That the newer technology is better (by some measure) doesn't make it disruptive. That's just progress.

Autofocus was certainly massively important, but again - disruptive? It made many types of photography easier and more reliable, it led to the replacement of existing lenses in most lineups, but it didn't change the scene - we still have lenses, and take photographs with them in essentially the same way (attach, point, shoot).

Digital sensors - sure, I guess it's the most disruptive in photography for many decades, as it allowed cameras to be inserted into all sorts of devices, like computers, phones, etc, and images could be recorded in vastly higher numbers, and manipulated, processed, and shared in new ways (this goes hand in hand with cheap home computers, the internet, and widespread use of mobile phones, without all of which digital cameras would not be anywhere near as different from film in use or importance imho).

OVF/EVF - really? Replacing one device with another that does the same job in a different way (even with extra features) is not disruptive, surely?

Light field etc - as I say, it remains to be seen.

I think overall your bar for 'disruptive' is rather lower than mine, or the more widespread definition. What do other people think?

 

[chrysoberyl]

Sanj: Love this thread; thought provoking! But I have no gripes. Well, OK, maybe one, but I’ve said all I’ll say about that one.

AvTvM: I am intrigued; with what would you replace glass lenses? Surely not plastic or corundum. Neutronium? Nah, too heavy and expensive with which to work. Gravity lensing with quantum mechanical black holes? Please don’t be offended; I am curious as to where you are going with this.

John

 

[Tinky]

Gear snobs.

The kind of people who answer the question "should I buy a 750D or a 760D?" with "a 5D3".

Stills guys who have switched their camera into video mode, and who have therefore become DoP's.

People who have never shot any professional video ever telling video shooters how great AF is. They just don't and will never understand.. video is contiguous. af systems, as yet, are not (and i've been telling folk 'as yet' for the last 25 years)

People who confuse somebody stating an anecdotal opinion with emperical absolute fact. Context: Somebody might say, off the cuff, throwaway like "I think canon are losing the plot with the M10, it doesn't even have a hotshoe! haha"

And somebody is bound to reply "And where is your evidence for this? Do you have an assesment of the Canon boards mental health? CSC sales in South Taiwan are up this quarter against Olympus, so really you don't know what you are talking about".

People who don't understand that their opinion alone does not make something, or something not art. Regardless of the artist, they will say as fact that somebodies work isn't art because they don't get it. Philistines basically. Not on the basis of specific taste, but general artlessness.

A7 zealots. Yeah, we get it. (or rather, "we don't")

 

[Pookie]

Forum photography professionals that can't show any work with a camera (photographs) but can tell you about pixel pitch, CMOS construction and camera company business philosophy... thereby making everything said by them a FACT.

Crying, demanding and insisting how screwed a self purchased Canon camera owner is by not getting 42 stops of DR when they can't use 4 stops.

"Pros" here claiming lens X, Y or Z can't be used for a,b, or c because they can't figure it out (and everything needs IS). The answer to bokeh is a 200 f/2, for everything. These are the same people that know they just need the next "best" new lens to fix it all.

 

[unfocused]

Truncating to save space:

well "disruptive technolgies" in stills imaging we've had a few "recently" ...

I dunno whether all those are truly disruptive. The replacement of one kind of camera (rangefinder) with another (reflex) for instance...That's just progress.

Autofocus was certainly massively important, but again - disruptive?...

Digital sensors - sure...

OVF/EVF - really? Replacing one device with another that does the same job in a different way (even with extra features) is not disruptive, surely?

Light field etc - as I say, it remains to be seen.

I think overall your bar for 'disruptive' is rather lower than mine, or the more widespread definition. What do other people think?

Agree with Scyrene.

Move from rangefinder to SLRs didn't kill the German camera industry. Cheap, but high quality, post-war Japanese labor killed the German camera industry.

Autofocus was a natural evolution, like autoexposure. It made some camera and lens models obsolete, but it didn't disrupt the industry.

OVF vs. EVF is evolutionary as well. Not disruptive. Jury is still out on whether or not one will displace the other, but if it eventually occurs, most consumers won't notice any difference and all camera manufacturers will be well equipped to adapt.

Light field, if perfected, will indeed be disruptive. Companies have huge embedded investments in focusing systems. If the need to focus the camera and lens were to disappear, it would indeed disrupt the industry. The question is: is it a real possibility and how long will it take for it to be perfected?