Would Voice commands be useful

[Mt Spokane Photography]

At a football game you're doing for a large newspaper, the announcer screams, "Touch down!, touch down!", and the camera heard "shut down" ...
Sorry, can't resist.
-r

Security would indeed be a issue!!

It could be partially addressed by the uploading of spoken command audio files from the camera user(s) which are then linked to the desired camera functions, or even a group of settings. This would incorporate some security, since the voice would have to match within certain parameters. That gets around language barriers too. The audio files could even be stored on a memory card but I doubt that the memory taken for a few dozen 2 second compressed audio clips is significant.

 

[Mikehit]

I doubt that the memory taken for a few dozen 2 second compressed audio clips is significant.

I agree.
IIRC correctly a song takes up under 1MB per minute

 

[Don Haines]

I can't speak for the rest of you, but I can't say "camera, take picture" at ten times per second, so I'll stick to the shutter button.....

 

[lion rock]

Another:
"recalculating ... recalculating ..." coming from the camera like older GPS.
Just too many annoying quirks come to mind.
Just like touch screens on the M, just like LCD screens under bright sunlight. Good ideas, bad implementation. I'll pass on voice activation on any equipment. I turn off all sounds in computers; imagine a classroom with 40 students and everyone turns on their computer all at once. Or in a lecture and a late comer turns on the computer with Windows sound come up at full volume. 80 eyes are on you.
No thanks.
-r

 

[unfocused]

This would be number 110 on my list of the top 100 things I want from a camera.

 

[YuengLinger]

Brainstorming at its best.

For certain physical limitations, sounds useful.

 

[Don Haines]

This would be number 110 on my list of the top 100 things I want from a camera.

I don't know..... could be fun.....

I'd probably try to configure it to recognize "squirrel" as press shutter, "mew" for aperture up, "MROW" for aperture down, "Woof" as shutter speed up, "Baaaa" as shutter speed down.......

Nothing says that you are a professional photographer like "mew mew mew baaa baaa mrow woof woof SQUIRREL!!! "

 

[lion rock]

Don,
hahahahaha, best dessert after dinner.
-r

 

[unfocused]

Imagine the marketing potential: "I see you are using a 17-40 f4 'L' lens. Are you aware that we currently have a rebate available for a 16-35 mm f4 IS lens? Your in-camera GPS indicates you are at zip code 82190. If you would like us to ship the lens to you overnight, you can pick it up at Old Faithful Lodge by 11 a.m. tomorrow. Say 'yes' to order and it will be automatically billed to your card on file and shipped today."

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This would be number 110 on my list of the top 100 things I want from a camera.

For me, with fingers that barely work, voice technology saves me a lot of pain, and really helps. Like anything else, some would benefit, some would never use it.

 

[RGF]

After reading the comments like 110 on my list of top 100, tells me that this is an interesting and potentially useful idea.

To often novel ideas are panned - like who thought a phone in your pocket would ever be useful, just go to the neighborhood payphone

 

[romanr74]

Just what I need Siri in my DSLR, lol.

Why not go straight though commands?

lol - a fun movie this was...!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thinking a little ahead, but feasible now, with face recognition, you could say "shoot (Insert name of politician here)". The camera could identify the face, focus on it, and Wham, you are tackled to the floor and handcuffed by those men in black with dark sunglasses.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Now if the microphone would be in the front so that the person you are pointing the camera at can say "please don't take my picture" and the camera would not take the photograph, that could be a benefit to society.

 

[retroreflection]

Voice commands are good for the digitally impaired, some remote actions, the gee whiz set, and the imperious set.
Voice commands are slower than buttons. This is both in the machine (no words are milliseconds in duration) and in the human (muscle memory activations can approach reflex speeds rather than conscious choice speeds).
Voice commands force single lane data transmission, buttons can be paralleled.
Voice commands are poor at continuously variable inputs. Focus pulling by voice is unlikely to ever catch on.

The market for legitimate voice control of cameras is limited. Remote activations are better made via electronics, leaving the handicapped as the legitimate market. But, voice control is only useful for a fraction of that market. The critical thing about that market is the fact that design for the median human structures completely fails, and design for some other typical structure would also fail a large portion of the populace.

A standardized camera control port (NO MANUFACTURER DEVIATION ALLOWED) so than custom systems could be readily designed and built for the individual needs of handicapped people would be the most effective solution. If you need voice, get a voice interface, if you can only control via puffs of breath...
Such is not the case. Magic Lantern might place Canon in the lead slot for a custom designer trying to address this, but the interface to arbitrary control systems does seem to be lacking.

 

[Mikehit]

Not sure I would want voice commands, but it would help for it to share your pain

"Oi you stupid, pile of metalised ferret excrement! The focus point was right over its eye so why the bloody hell did you focus on the branch 50 feet behind it???"

"Sorry Mike. Will do better next time"

"That is good to know"

"it is a shame bout the shot but maybe you would consider next time using spot focus with a wider aperture"

"YOU WHAT........!!!!!"

 

[Click]

-"ISO 100, Speed 1/125, f/2,8 Focus on the eye"

-"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"

 

[rfdesigner]

Dispense with the native language recognition and just use "voice activation" to select which custom mode and upload a speech pattern that is developed and uploaded into the camera using DPP. Then the camera only needs to match what it hears against the pattern files and is also only trained to your voice.

If it was too much for a PC (not likely) to build the pattern file then Canon could offering it as part of a "Canon Cloud Photography" package or feature.

Actually you might want to record the voice directly on camera.. (same mic, same positioning etc) then connect to the PC to piggy back the processing.

 

[martti]

Hm...I tried the voice commands for the first time ever on my iPhone 6 yesterday.
So I called a lot of people I haven't been seeing lately. The responses were totally random.
Nice to know that Dr. Kolev has won a chess tournament in Lyublyana, though.
Without voice commands, that would have remained a secret.

 

[unfocused]

Voice commands are good for the digitally impaired, some remote actions, the gee whiz set, and the imperious set.
Voice commands are slower than buttons. This is both in the machine (no words are milliseconds in duration) and in the human (muscle memory activations can approach reflex speeds rather than conscious choice speeds).
Voice commands force single lane data transmission, buttons can be paralleled.
Voice commands are poor at continuously variable inputs...

Thanks for intelligently and rationally articulating my concerns.

Voice command is low on my list of desired features for the reasons you stated. In addition, I see it as a distraction in many cases.

If taking a portrait, I want to be interacting with the subject, not the camera. In meetings and events, talking to a camera would be disruptive. It would be useless for wildlife photography and for sports, where it would be both disruptive and too slow. For landscapes, it is unnecessary.

I suppose it might be of some use for astro-photography or other night-time photography, but that is not my field, thus for me, it remains 110 on my list of top 100 desired features.