[Uluru]

32 GB of RAM in a camera is a horrible idea because RAM requires constant electrical power to maintain -- the camera's battery would die within a 4 to 12 hours if it's just sitting in the bag. And if the user swaps batteries or pulls the battery after a glitch, all the pictures in RAM would be gone. ...

Think of RAM I mentioned (because I was not specifying exacting patent) as a sort of memory storage of the smartphones' like. But memory 'disks' today are of various kinds, and I did not propose an exacting solution — just a principle. Regarding battery concerns, smartphones with far greater capacity can be on standby for days. But that is beside the point — the point is that camera has both, internal memory storage and the SD card, but releases the data onto card when it's best time to do it. Also, if the data is still in memory storage, when the user turns off the camera, camera first warns that transfer of data onto a card is recommended.

Such a camera is more engaging in use that a regular digital camera, and therefore different dynamics is delivered to a suitable audience.
Say, one can choose to fill entire fast internal memory and then release all data onto a card. Other options are also possible, which a camera could predict depending on drive mode used. Regardless, a few days of use of such a camera would quickly accommodate any user to maximise on its benefits, and find a suitable way of work. Which are far greater than what current approach allows — it allows only one approach and that's bad in itself.

Current digital cameras = A large sum of many crippling 'features'

One can ask what is better; have a far more responsive, seamless and more engaging camera that surpasses smartphones in ease of operation, but which needs to be charged more often, or, a classic digital camera with all its shortcomings, and which can be charged once a month, because we don't take it out anyway for we know it's is slow, and we will take it out only when we feel forced to do it.

We find smartphones very useful and therefore don't mind charging and syncing them daily. But we don't find current camera so very useful, and that is why we engage with them occasionally, and then, we want minimum extra fuss about them: long battery life, because most of our attention is dedicated to — a smartphone, which we use and charge daily and hardly complain about it.

So, you see, the state of digital cameras today and why they lay abandoned on a shelf most of the time, is determined by a sum of compromising features of that camera, and current cameras have too many of compromising, crippling features. That crippling factors and half-baked solutions are called 'features' is another problem, because then many take them as the holy Gospel, that cannot be changed. But that is not true.

Removing some of them, and increasing level of engagement with a device and improving on positive feedback in use, increases their usability, and value.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 05-18-2017 at 04:51 PM.

[Kunzite]

In science of problem solving, brainstorming is fundamental. Unwilling audience shows they are already predetermined in a certain established mindset, and can't be moved. When I stated "RAM", I meant more permanent memory disk. But disk or drive are also wrong expressions, so I kept only RAM. I have not been particular as to an exact choice of a memory device, because I do not posses an exacting patent of application, and because of various things possible.

Brainstorming is just a tool, one I'm familiar with. Used right, and in the right circumstances it will help. In other cases it might be time lost for nothing.
One such other cases is when someone is insisting to push a "solution" without knowing what he's talking about, and without listening to those who know.

RAM a generic term. Again, RAM is not storage (well, there are some forms of non-volatile RAM but that's irrelevant in this context).
Indeed, what you're describing is eMMC or SSD storage. eMMC offers no real advantage over the regular memory cards. SSD storage is a more expensive solution, suited rather to RAW video (but then, you'd want more than a mere 32GB, and likely removable storage).

The best moment to write the image data to SD cards is asap.

[clackers]

Think of RAM I mentioned (because I was not specifying exacting patent) as a sort of memory storage of the smartphones' like. But memory 'disks' today are of various kinds, and I did not propose an exacting solution — just a principle. Regarding battery concerns, smartphones with far greater capacity can be on standby for days. But that is beside the point — the point is that camera has both, internal memory storage and the SD card, but releases the data onto card when it's best time to do it. Also, if the data is still in memory storage, when the user turns off the camera, camera first warns that transfer of data onto a card is recommended.

Such a camera is more engaging in use that a regular digital camera, and therefore different dynamics is delivered to a suitable audience.
Say, one can choose to fill entire fast internal memory and then release all data onto a card. Other options are also possible, which a camera could predict depending on drive mode used. Regardless, a few days of use of such a camera would quickly accommodate any user to maximise on its benefits, and find a suitable way of work. Which are far greater than what current approach allows — it allows only one approach and that's bad in itself.

Current digital cameras = A large sum of many crippling 'features'.

??
How many frames per second can your smart phone shoot, Uluru? What is its lagtime in focusing, taking and displaying each shot? What is its focal length other than wide and distorted? How do you change its aperture from anything other than wide open when its lens has no blades?

I'm very happy for what my Galaxy is, but it is no match for my A7 or especially my K-1.

[mecrox]

Think of RAM I mentioned (because I was not specifying exacting patent) as a sort of memory storage of the smartphones' like. But memory 'disks' today are of various kinds, and I did not propose an exacting solution — just a principle. Regarding battery concerns, smartphones with far greater capacity can be on standby for days. But that is beside the point — the point is that camera has both, internal memory storage and the SD card, but releases the data onto card when it's best time to do it. Also, if the data is still in memory storage, when the user turns off the camera, camera first warns that transfer of data onto a card is recommended.

Such a camera is more engaging in use that a regular digital camera, and therefore different dynamics is delivered to a suitable audience.
Say, one can choose to fill entire fast internal memory and then release all data onto a card. Other options are also possible, which a camera could predict depending on drive mode used. Regardless, a few days of use of such a camera would quickly accommodate any user to maximise on its benefits, and find a suitable way of work. Which are far greater than what current approach allows — it allows only one approach and that's bad in itself.

One can ask what is better; have a far more responsive, seamless and more engaging camera that surpasses smartphones in ease of operation, but which needs to be charged once a week, or, a classic digital camera with all its shortcomings, and which can e charged once a month, because we don't take it out anyway because we know it's is slow and we will take it out only when we feel forced to do it.

We find smartphones very useful and therefore don't mind charging and syncing them daily. But we don't find current camera so very useful, and that is why we engage with them occasionally, and then, we want minimum fuss about them, long battery life, because most of our attention is dedicated to — a smartphone.

So, you see, the state of digital cameras today and why they lay abandoned on a shelf most of the time, is determined by a sum of compromising features of that camera, and current cameras have too many of compromising, crippling features.

Removing some of them, and increasing level of engagement with a device and improving on positive feedback in use, increases their usability, and value.

Fair enough and it is excellent to think of other ways of doing things, but I can think of quite a few features on a camera which could be changed without altering the memory card stuff. It's not ideal but it is probably the best solution we have at present. Eventually, something else will turn up and eventually, too, we'll have much better batteries. On the other hand, I can think of several people who love photography and who would love to have a proper camera, but what they feel to be the sheer complexity of a typical modern camera puts them off so they don't buy. It's Windows Hell versus Apple all over again in this regard. A modern camera may seem easy to us but to many folks it is anything but. It may well take an outfit from far outside the industry to mate the best of the simple smartphone approach with the best of the large-sensor approach and combine the two into something a broad spread of folks can actually use without feeling they need a science degee. I suppose Apple is betting that better cameras on smartphones will do exactly that in time, but we'll see. It's always good to be pleasantly surprised.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 05-18-2017 at 05:19 PM.

[Uluru]

??
How many frames per second can your smart phone shoot, Uluru? What is its lagtime in focusing, taking and displaying each shot? What is its focal length other than wide and distorted? How do you change its aperture from anything other than wide open when its lens has no blades?
I'm very happy for what my Galaxy is, but it is no match for my A7 or especially my K-1.

Smartphones are not built around a single purpose — image processing — so that is why their operating system, and hardware, lack to deliver topmost performance in purely imaging area. However, smartphones boost digital storage, connectivity and data manipulation features that are light years ahead of current cameras. Not learning from smartphones means refusing to look at direct competitors and devices people love to use. Which despite certain limitations, snatched lots of photography market.

How was that possible? Because current digital cameras are crammed with crippling impediments many call 'features'. Say, adding two SD slots instead of one is not a new feature: it is just same old drumbeat impediment duplicated.

However that is not our (user's) problem — it's the camera manufacturer's problem and I think they deserve severe criticism because they are lazy and want to exploit endlessly same paradigm. Therefore I write here to demonstrate how they are incapable in addressing certain shortcomings that make cameras antiquated before they are launched. (Say, childish buffer size in a brand new KP — bad move)

I must say I had most hopes in Samsung. I was hoping they should learn from own smartphone division, and reinvent a purposeful digital camera for the 21st century. But their photo division just blindly copied everything Japanese camera guys do. Big mistake! Samsung became another boring player with a few small different features (different sensor), but otherwise same approach others did. Samsung crammed cameras with same flawed ideas, and had to bury camera division. It was logical end.

[johnmflores]

Smartphones are not built around a single purpose — image processing — so that is why their operating system, and hardware, lack to deliver topmost performance in purely imaging area. However, smartphones boost digital storage, connectivity and data manipulation features that are light years ahead of current cameras. Not learning from smartphones means refusing to look at direct competitors and devices people love to use. Who despite certain limitations, snatched lots of photography market.

How was that possible? Because current digital cameras are crammed with crippling impediments many call 'features'. Say, adding two SD slots instead of one is not a new feature: it is just same old drumbeat impediment duplicated.

However that is not our (user's) problem — it's the camera manufacturer's problem and I think they deserve severe criticism because they are lazy and want to exploit endlessly same paradigm. Therefore I write here to demonstrate how they are incapable in addressing certain shortcomings that make cameras antiquated before they are launched. (Say, childish buffer size in a brand new KP)

I must say I had most hopes in Samsung. I was hoping they should learn from own smartphone division, and reinvent a purposeful digital camera for the 21st century. But their photo division just blindly copied everything Japanese camera guys do. Big mistake! Samsung became another boring player with a few small different features (different sensor), but otherwise same approach others did. Samsung crammed cameras with same flawed ideas, and had to bury camera division. It was logical end.

You should just buy the new Sony A9 with a 200 shot RAW (400 shot JPG) buffer. Or for just a little more, you can buy 3 K-1s and hang them all around your neck. As one buffer fills, just pick up the next one and carry on.

The features you want have a cost associated with them. It's easy to engineer something in a vacuum with no consideration for cost.

[monochrome]

<snip>Windows Hell versus Apple all over again in this regard. A modern camera may seem easy to us but to many folks it is anything but. It may well take an outfit from far outside the industry to mate the best of the simple smartphone approach with the best of the large-sensor approach and combine the two into something a broad spread of folks can actually use without feeling they need a science degee. I suppose Apple is betting that better cameras on smartphones will do exactly that in time, but we'll see. It's always good to be pleasantly surprised.

The most complex dSLR can already do that . . . .

My (Canon) son last Saturday:

"Dad! Just put it on Automatic and PushThe Button!!!"

[kwb]

Think of RAM I mentioned (because I was not specifying exacting patent) as a sort of memory storage of the smartphones' like.

However, smartphones boost digital storage, connectivity and data manipulation features that are light years ahead of current cameras.

There's no local digital storage technologies in smartphones that are different from digital cameras today.

Smart phones use flash memory, not RAM (in the true sense of the word), for storage. For example iphone 7+ has 3GB of RAM and either 32GB, 128GB or 256GB of flash storage.

Flash memory is the same technology behind all commonly available memory cards, e.g. SD and its variants like SDXC, Compact Flash and its variants like CFast, to name a few.

Fastest of flash memory is much slower than RAM. That's the reason why digital camera buffers are actually RAM.

If you are suggesting to move data to "a sort of memory storage of the smartphones' like" before it is moved to external flash (like SD), for now it doesn't make sense as your "sort of memory storage" is flash and it's like writing to the card twice.

Flash memory is much cheper than RAM per byte. That's one of the reasons why nobody makes a smartphone with 32GB of RAM (not your "RAM", but true RAM).

As of now, I don't know of viable technology that PENTAX can use that is as cheap as flash but as fast as RAM (or even just 10 times as fast as the fastest flash as of today).

If you are claiming that such a technology is already available for consumer electronics, I disagree. There might be many things the camera makers could learn from smartphones, but local storage is not one of them.

OTOH, combination of a deep buffer (i.e. huge RAM) and the latest of fast flash memory technology already works well for digital cameras, e.g. you can continuously shoot RAW+JPG of 20MP sensor at more than 10 fps forever until your card is filled:

You Tube

You Tube

That doesn't interest me as a buyer, but I'm sure people are paying premium for that kind of performance.

(Say, childish buffer size in a brand new KP — bad move)

What is childish about a shallow buffer in KP? Maybe you have your own definition of the word "childish", just like "RAM"?

Thank you for sharing your thought, BTW.

[mecrox]

The most complex dSLR can already do that . . . .

My (Canon) son last Saturday:

"Dad! Just put it on Automatic and PushThe Button!!!"

Lol, I say the same when some of the folks i mentioned in my first post bring this up But what puts them off isn't that, it is the whole look and feel of a modern camera: an angular black box festooned with buttons and dials, menus which on first glance seem impossibly complex and filled with jargon terms which could be in Swahili, nothing pleasurable to connect to in a human way.

In fact a couple of them are now going along to a weekly photography course at a local college. The revelation for them is that the teacher isn't into the tech but into the creative craft of it all - the photowalks, the techniques of composition, what we can learn from the great photographers, etc. They are absolutely loving it.

There's an argument that this is where the modern camera industry has gone off the rails. It's retreated into a fortress of high technology which demands a certain amount of geekiness. Whereas there may well be a significant pool of users who would love to use a proper camera and who would take pleasure in much more than the "smartphone style" but can't for as long as the geeks rule the roost. It's not that surprising if you think about it - older population, more leisure time, more family and friends to share images with. But they won't buy when it all comes with a kind of Windows 3 experience. Makes a kind of sense. All the great photographers consistently say don't get hung up on the tech, it is all about the images. But that's very hard to do with the modern camera industry.

So I think Uluru is making some very good points. It would be good if one of the camera outfits got out a clean sheet of paper before Apple steamroller the industry. Apple are no saints but at least while Jobs was alive they did understand delicious simplicity. For example, is there any need to mention F-stops or ISO these days? If invariant, as it is on many modern sensors, ISO is a full auto function and F-stops can be re-expressed as a depth of field slider or even better ignored and DOF effects added in post. And why is there still a distinction between S-AF, C-AF and tracking AF? Cameras by now should be intelligent enough to automate all three into just focusing.

[Rondec]

Smart phone cameras are the way they are for the most part because they are tiny and in many situations they are an after thought. Yes, they have gotten better over time, but they are better in respect to the sensors used and also probably somewhat with respect to the post processing done on the images. If you have ever tried to post process cell phone images, you find that they are anything but clean images and there is a huge amount of native distortion in their tiny wide angle lenses.

The camera market has dropped because of two things -- one is that smart phones have gotten good enough that there is a group of people who might have chosen to get an ILC to use for special occasions that now just shoot with their smart phones. They never would have gotten into photography in a real sense and whatever camera they would have shot in auto mode and jpegs. The second reason is that people don't have a reason to upgrade their current cameras to new ones nearly as often. If someone owns a D7200, I'm not sure what the new feature would be that would make them upgrade before they wear out the shutter of their camera. The addition of 4K? I really doubt that that is such a big seller of SLRS. Faster frame rate? More megapixels? I just don't know if these things move the dial much for most photographers.

Cameras are complex, feature heavy computers that happen to take pictures, but they also (even top end cameras) have auto modes that allow a photographer to shoot with minimal effort. I really don't think that complexity is decreasing camera sales much, if at all.

[dafbp]

Smartphones are destroying compact cameras because:
1- you don't need an extra pocket, an extra charger, extra everything
2- their images are getting better each year. They have plenty of CPU power which can be used to make the pictures look very pleasing (unless you like 100% viewing), usually better than compacts. Great (in every way) smartphone screens and cheap compact screens doesn't help
3- you just need to press a button, no need to read a manual, which most people can't be bothered to do


Technology isn't hindering photography, it's helping it!
Stabilization for those that aren't sniper material; AF for those that don't have the eyesight/dexterity to focus acurately/speedilly; zoom for those that can't (for whatever reason) move to that spot; and whatever else you can come up with.
You don't need a simple camera to take good pictures, you need to know how to take them. Technology is there for when the Green button (or the take a picture button in smartphones) can't cope with the environment, or when you want some effect, like long exposure seascapes,etc..


On the buffer issue, SD cards can write at over 90MB/s, which is enough for more than 6 jpg/5 raw per second.
You can increase the buffer to minimize the problem, but the problem is in either the write speed to the cards, or the speed at which the pictures are processed and sent for writing. Or both.
To fix it, the manufacturer crashes into previously mentioned barriers: cost, space, power.

[photoptimist]

Yes, Uluru is making very good points and I agree that buffer clearing is a problem. It's whether his proposed solutions makes the buffer clearing problem better or make things worse that I'm am concerned with. An internal funnel/RAM/disk/flash subsystems adds costs, adds complexity, slows the internals of the camera (with extra tasks), and increases battery size. Worse, it makes the camera much less elegant because the photographer must now worry about whether their images are stuck in the funnel or on the card and may have to wait several minutes for the funnel to move images to a card so they can remove the card and add another one.

The camera complexity issue is a much harder problem to solve because it's not the fault of the camera, it's the fault of photography. Sure, one can create a simple camera with only one button that is 100% P-mode (professional mode!) but that market really is locked up by the smartphone makers.

Apple's design ethos of simplicity is fine if the user does not need any control over what the device is doing. But as soon as the user wants control, then all the dials, buttons, and menus start to appear. And with photography, there's a lot to control:
1) exposure(shutter speed, aperture, ISO);
2) auto-exposure(meter weighting, selection of which exposure dimensions are user-set vs. AE-controlled, the EV bias, meter locking, program line choice, ISO limits);
3) auto-focus (focus point/pattern, tracking/locking modes, AF priority/coupling to shutter action);
4) color(white balance, color temperature, color space, JPEG development);
5) flash (modes, balance, etc.);
6) drive & trigger modes (frame rate, MUP, remote, timer, interval, bracketing, etc.);
7) DR/IQ controls (highlight/shadow correction, HDR modes, RAW bit depth, noise reduction modes, sharpness);
8) SR system (on/off, horizon leveling, composition adjust, pixelshift, astrotracer, anti-moire, etc.);
9) screen controls (info mode, playback modes, zooming, etc.);
10...∞) cropping mode, viewfinder modes, card management, image size, GPS, WiFi, etc. etc.


The funny thing is, I'm sure most of us can agree that a proverbial 80% of the features of the K-1 could be removed to make the camera simpler and better. But we'd all vehemently disagree on which 20% of the features to keep. For example, I'd get rid of video but there seem to be a vocal group on PF that want Pentax to increase the camera's video performance and features.

So when I look at the K-1, I'm forced to admit that every dial, button, and menu is there for a good reason because it controls something that many photographers want to control. If anything, the K-1 is superior to all other cameras in this regard -- the function dial and setting dial is especially brilliant.

[Rondec]

You could cut 90 percent of the buttons off the back of a K-1, but it would entail making it significantly harder to change settings. People complain about the menu diving needed for many of the Sony mirrorless cameras and to me, even if I am mostly shooting in Av mode, I want to be able to change to self timer or to alter my iso or to flip to pixel shift without jumping into a bunch of menus.

In the end, it is about the image. Many folks are "satisfied" with the image from a cell phone camera or an entry level APS-C camera, but if you aren't you need to figure out how to get a better image and often that is going to come, not because you have a bigger sensor, but because you learned to understand what settings and light and composition will give the best results. In the end, it is about putting a photographer in total control of the process rather than ceding control to the camera body (which is what smart phones do best).

[Kunzite]

Why are we even talking about Apple? Their ideas can't possibly work for enthusiast-level cameras. A K-1-level Apple-like camera would appear neat, extremely compelling and well designed, outright beautiful... until you'd try to use it. Then, it would all fall apart horribly.

[johnmflores]

Why are we even talking about Apple? Their ideas can't possibly work for enthusiast-level cameras. A K-1-level Apple-like camera would appear neat, extremely compelling and well designed, outright beautiful... until you'd try to use it. Then, it would all fall apart horribly.

Shhh...we're trying to fix the camera industry...we've almost got it!