You're right... 24fps isn't necessary. But the 10 fps on the NEX has been nice. Also, the tiny 20ms shutter lag is probably the best feature that I forgot to mention.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Working on Standalone Point-and-Shoot Digital Camera?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're right... 24fps isn't necessary. But the 10 fps on the NEX has been nice. Also, the tiny 20ms shutter lag is probably the best feature that I forgot to mention.
There is already a way to make the background blurred it's called opening up the aperture. But just saying make the background blurred is meaningless, how blurred, how much light is there, what effect are you trying to achieve. Is Siri supposed to magically understand this without you telling her? A touch screen for zooming is also foolish, it would make it impossible to zoom while keeping your eye to the view finder (which is what actual cameras have not just a screen).
The reason you don't get "professional images" from non "professional" products is because what really makes an image professional is having a basic understanding of what you're manipulating. It's more about the photographer than the camera (within reasonable limits)
And it's not always about getting the "best" image it's about manipulating the setting (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, lens etc.) to generate the image you want.
Attempting to "simplify" this process is just stupid and redundant, if you wan't to take a good quality image without learning the basics you already can, the technology is here. Point and shoot cameras take great photos, hell smart phones take great photos.
But if you're aim is to let non-pros take pro photos you're wasting your time because you've already removed the critical element (ie* the pro).
Lytro is a scam, it will never give you the freedom you want AND the image quality of high end cameras. For every degree of freedom the camera could give you, you need to multiply the data by a factor. The files sizes end up being insane, and you need a ton of light hitting the sensor. It's just not feasible, or anywhere close to practical.
This idea has been around since the 1990's and there are good reasons why Canon or Nikon didn't pick it up.
This idea has been around since the 1990's and there are good reasons why Canon or Nikon didn't pick it up.
So with an image taken by a light field camera I can move a control in softwae and change the shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/2? Neat.
The camera is novel and might capture multiple focal planes but this has nothing to do with exposure. The camera isn't going to know if you want to take a crisp stop-action picture or something with some motion blur. In the world of Instagram the idea of shutter speed, aperture and ISO might be meaningless but they definitely aren't useless.
The Orange San Diego came out today can do close to 10fps. It is using an Intel based cpu, so with the right software and hardware combo I am sure the iPhone can also get close to 10fps.
So with an image taken by a light field camera I can move a control in softwae and change the shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/2? Neat.
I laughed pretty hard to, it seems that the camera has somehow incorporated a time machine...
The Ng LFC as seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field_camera is size constrained by the touch screen on one end of the device. If the screen is decoupled such as with an iPhone and the camera were parallel with one thin edge of the phone, the lens would be smaller, but the aspect ratio of the active space could be just as long.
With miniaturization of the internal components and a rectangularization of the space, it could be done at the same resolution right now in a phone. In about 3 years the resolution would be about 10x what it is now. But the limiting factor seems to be GPU capacity unless you don't mind laggy processing of a focused image.
Another way to do it is with an edit preview mode locally, and transfer the image processing to the cloud, because as with all Apple images, they are sent to the cloud moments after capture.
Rocketman
With miniaturization of the internal components and a rectangularization of the space, it could be done at the same resolution right now in a phone. In about 3 years the resolution would be about 10x what it is now. But the limiting factor seems to be GPU capacity unless you don't mind laggy processing of a focused image.
Another way to do it is with an edit preview mode locally, and transfer the image processing to the cloud, because as with all Apple images, they are sent to the cloud moments after capture.
Rocketman
Little known fact - depth of field scales with sensor crop factor, just like focal length. Actually, it scales with real focal length, but that rarely matters because you generally can't get a huge apature with a long lens. A 4/3 with an apature of 2.0/f is equivalent to a 4.0/f full frame (in terms of DoF). IIRC, the iPhone has 2.0/f, but it's *nothing* like a real camera's apature, it is roughly equivalent to a 14.0/f full frame. You can get bokeh (blur), but only if you are really close to the subject you want in focus, that's why all the bokeh shots you see are of sushi or maple leaves.
FWIW, I'd love a 30mm equivalent pancake prime with a 4/3 or even 2/3 sensor. But it would make the iPhone a lot bigger, and cost a lot more. I doubt they'll make an uglier camera that only enthusiasts will buy.
This is correct.
Lytro's business model exists because they think people can't focus when they take a picture, and are willing to compromise image quality for focusing ability. "Why focus when we can use 16x the pixels to bracket focus?" yah right.. good luck with that.
Lytro is basically useless for photography. Too bad their investors don't know that yet.
Proper exposure requires only two controls. Professional cameras of the past, which were used to produce famous prints, had hardly any controls compared to now. Considering Steve Jobs love for Leica cameras, I would think Apple would follow the right track as they remain simple and photo-centric in this day of excess.
My canon P has shutter speed and aperture control. That is all a camera needs to offer, preferably with hardware controls. Very simple. A digital camera only needs ISO control after that.
That is a camera, not stupid face detect, auto tracking, etc. etc. and so on and so on, till all a person does is trigger the shutter release, or by dialing exposure comp +1 by themselves, assumes a smug Internet personality. Cameras are packed with unnecessary parts and features as they cater tote bottom.
The most packed camera for the best price is the winner. Nikon and canon won't solve this problem. They are android makers of the camera world.
I'm waiting for a digital sensor behind a sensible mount that allows use of all sorts off glass. The camera has external hardware controls for the two/three controls that actually matter to photography: aperture, shutter speed, and now ISO.
Then an only then can a photographer take photos the way she wants. Current circuitry takes control completely away from the photographer and buries it in menus and unnecessary features.
I think the Lytro concept as a whole is interesting, but I don't think it will be a legitimate option for at least several years. Calling it a scam is a little harsh though IMO.
Interesting!
I don't think they'll come out with their own camera. I could see them buying companies like Lytro or others and improving the iPhone/iPad cameras.
The Lytro technology is so new - maybe there's a way to improve on it and fit it within devices.
Who knows.
We know one thing - they have the money to buy a few companies and they've got the resources within their teams to foster something.
I don't think they'll come out with their own camera. I could see them buying companies like Lytro or others and improving the iPhone/iPad cameras.
The Lytro technology is so new - maybe there's a way to improve on it and fit it within devices.
Who knows.
We know one thing - they have the money to buy a few companies and they've got the resources within their teams to foster something.
QFT
It introduces big compromises in image quality for no good reason. 'Focus later' is a gimmick with no purpose.
The first gen Lytro cameras don't even work that well... because the slow lens and tiny sensor gives little selective focus effect.
I hope Apple avoids this!!
Integrate an instagram like service to it and it may be cool, but not my cup of tea still. I only take pictures of value with a DSLR cause I want to mess with my settings and get the picture I want. I use main for reference pictures, IE notes on a board. parts of presentations, works well for that.
That is quite interesting.
Considering this what is the cause of all the infatuation with full frame sensors? I never really understood the love for them beyond the wide availability of relatively inexpensive fast 50mm primes (which really are much more useful on a ffs.)
But beyond this I don't really see the appeal (especially if you're functionally losing aperture).
----------
What are you talking about?
Every dSLR I've ever used lets you easily control aperture, ISO, and shutter speed with two buttons and a physical scroll wheel...?
Playing with menus is typically a very small part of using a dSLR.
You can bemoan the mentality, but this is just an acknowledgement of reality: consumers DON'T understand those terms or use those features on a standard camera. That's true whether or not Apple makes a camera. So why not have a camera takes better pictures for the average user?
This is utter nonsense.
The point and click market is dyingrapidlydue to the fact that cameras in cell phones are good enough for most of the market.
Why would Apple enter a dying business? Particularly one they are playing a key roll in its demise?
The point and click market is dyingrapidlydue to the fact that cameras in cell phones are good enough for most of the market.
Why would Apple enter a dying business? Particularly one they are playing a key roll in its demise?
Because point and shoots and smart-phones already take excellent photos for the average user.
Beyond that taking "better pictures" involves actually understanding.
A better set of training wheels might make learning to ride a bike easier, but you aren't really going to be able to ride until you take them off...
I don't know if I'd go so far to call it a scam but I agree with you that it's definitely far from what most seem to think it is. In addition to what you've said, due to its tiny sensor Lytro's depth of field is too deep which means it's mostly useless other than in the macro shots. I think focus bracketing coupled with lightning fast burst would be the way to go.
Regardless I'd love to see Apple get involved in camera business. It's an odd business where a rampant love for old nostalgic ideals are intermingled with latest digital technology. A streamlined UI with strong app eco system both in and out of the camera would be an interesting change.
Aye, there is the rub. The pros know that the videocam is going to replace the pro-camera for all but very specialized settings. In short FPS, not focus control is the way to go.
You'll probably find that its companies like sony, lg and sharp that makes the camera, not apple.
Of course they're working on a camera, this is a consumer/prosumer market that sells millions of moderately expensive devices every year, and the devices get more complicated to use every single year.
But that doesn't mean that any Apple camera will ever see the light of day, unless Cook thinks that the company has a winner on its hands that will not only be a bit player on the market, but has the potential to be a game-changer and maybe even dominate the market.
But that doesn't mean that any Apple camera will ever see the light of day, unless Cook thinks that the company has a winner on its hands that will not only be a bit player on the market, but has the potential to be a game-changer and maybe even dominate the market.