[JJ_SO]

From another thread I transferred a side branch to this thread:

 

The Q-menu of Fuji has 16 positions. Per default, 6 of them are IQ for JPGs. The other 10 partly show redundant settings like ISO (on a dial). There's linited possibilities of what I can assign to it, not much help (I'd like to set the whole stuff up on a bigger screen with all menus visible to get better overview).

 

Fuji already shows with their dials and wheels and lots of hardware buttons, how they think the camera should be used. But they are very inconsequent as many functions can be assigned three times - I could assign each Fn button to the same function - what is the sense of that?

 

Oh, and on the X-T2 the Auto ISO considers the FL  I thought they put the same on the firmware of the X-T1? But I don't know...

 

I agree, UIs are individually questionable, everybody likes soemthing different. However, badly translated or inconsistent texts are a no-go everywhere.

 

The most simplest I saw so far (taking into account the camera itself is no as complex as all the others you mentioned) is the menu and the Quickmenu of the Sigma (Merill and dp quattro) series. Simple and elegant.

Q-menu : setting defaults that satisfy most customers is a daunting task and perhaps the majority of users are happy with it? I don't know. Regardless, that's why you can configure the Q-menu and change it to your taste.

 

Redundant button assignations : I agree that it seems pointless. Functions already assigned shouldn't not be assignable again. I have to check Olympus bodies, but I believe they do the same. Maybe some users like to have the same functionality accessible through different buttons? Not sure, but it surely seems silly to me.

 

Auto ISO : I have to double check the latest firmware, but I don't think it was passed down to the X-T1 :-(

 

Language : I always change the camera language to English which doesn't suffer from any translation issues. This said, I agree that language localization is very important and should definitely be rock solid.

 

One thing that strikes me among all manufacturers is that today everyone owns a computer, yet little is done to take advantage of this. The whole configuration process should be made configurable from a computer. It would obviously be much easier than directly from the camera. Yet, no manufacturers seems to be aware of this. Saving the camera configuration to a file should be an obvious feature in every camera model. With WIFI or Bluetooth, any devices can be connected. One should be able to network several cameras and update them at once, etc. Same with firmware. The whole process is so archaic and primitive. Even SD cards are still using the archaic FAT32 filesystem and silly old 8 characters filename length limitation back from the old DOS days. The whole UI / configuration / connectivity (or lack of) scheme is stuck in the past, almost 40 years ago to be precise. Even phone applications that let you control your cameras are crap. I haven't seen a single good remote camera app that works well and is not sluggish like hell, limited or just plain unreliable.

I wonder when manufacturers will finally realize that one of the major reasons why smartphones are so popular is because of their connectivity! Japanese companies are very much stuck in the past and very sluggish to adapt to changes and "new" technologies.

Besides of Japanese companies there are not much more offering cameras 

 

Except the Q-menu paragarph (it is not possible to assign it the way I need it just because there are tons of limitations) I fully agree with every single sentence.

 

Remote WiFi controls:

 

I know of

• CamRanger (one of the first, but not the best)
  
• Tether Tools case air  (not much better in terms of features, how reliable I don't know)
  
• Arsenal (currently their Kickstarter campain is 4650 % financed... so there's a need for what they offer)
  
• some genuine or proprietary devices from Nikon
  
• much more existing, also in camera WIfI which drown batteries super fast
  

So far, most of the solutions I've tried have quirks, the apps are limited in too much ways.

 

Touchscreen? Yes - but not going far enough so the menus would be "easified". In case of Fuji: Options to set up are battling themselves for first price in redundancy.

 

Do I need a function? If yes, how can it be set up quickly? Do I want to bundle it with other functions to a group of user settings? If yes, how can I make the access fast?

 

While some functions are debatable, others are a simple count of "how often do I need to press a button until the setting is done?" More than three? Bad show, do it again, developer.

 

My developer colleagues always get a very cautious look when I approach them. I have to document their "art" and sometimes diplomacy is throwing cotton balls... It's nearly the same effort to make it great to use. If they stop to early I think I have to tell them, because I like happy customers. They pay our bonuses.

[wim]

As someone who shoots Canon, Olympus and Panasonic, I would like to make a small addition.

 

The Olympus menus are not really bad at all, IMO. They are just very, very extensive, and occasionally quite deep, which makes it difficult to remember where is what. There certainly is logic to it. The neat thing with Olympus is that there is a Quick Menu for most used menu items, effectively, that it has one of the best if not the best touch screens and touch interfaces wrt cameras, and that virtually every button can be reprogrammed to whatever you like, which can also be mapped to a set controlled by one of the Custum menu options.

 

In short, if you really want to get the most out of an Olympus camera, it takes some time to set up and/or learn, possibly, depending on one's (perceived) shooting needs, but several options for different shooting types and styles can then be easily matched with one of the Custom sets (C1-C3), while it is still possible to easily adjust all the main options with the quick menu, or with the dials and buttons.

 

Generally speaking, I personally find these discussions over the top, as it is always possible to do stuff the old-fashioned and easy way, with most cameras anyway, and I reckon that will suffice 99.8% or more of most shots. Know what you want to do, and set the camera up accordingly, the simple way. You'll rarely need to use the menu in that case, and often not deep at all once the initial set up is done. That is my experience, although YMMV I guess.

 

As to Panasonic: I find the menus often too simple. And with Canon, despite the fact that I have always gelled nicely with their menu system and dials and controls set-up, even there it is hard at times and hidden fairly deep in the menus to set up something very specific.

 

All in all, unless one has become proficient with a camera menu system, take the time to learn and master the menu system, otherwise it seems rather involved, hard to do, whatever. I have heard people complain about the menu system of ANY camera brand, and that includes Fuji, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, and Sony especially. My impression is that people often expect things to work immediately the way they want or expect, even though cameras cannot yet read minds, and that people are often very impatient, and not prepared to invest the time to get to know the tools one uses.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

....My impression is that people often expect things to work immediately the way they want or expect, even though cameras cannot yet read minds, ...

 

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with this expectation. If anything, amneu has to help me, not to point out how far developed the software engineers are - or how much retro and only going ways from the past.

 

Cameras cannoz read minds, true. But a lot of actions we are doing with them are the same over and over again. It is not hard to predict one wants to set up Auto-Iso and Auto ISO has to relate on the used focal length. Soem features are so common these days, that it's embarassing why camera manufacturers act as if they have the only standard recipe.

 

A couple of times I rented a car. Did I have to read the manual to find the gear shift, light switch, brake pedal?

 

No. That only was necessary because Software engineers are sometimes too arrogant to find common ways of user interface for radio or GPS. Standardization helps and sets resources free for other projects. Look at Apple and Google and their UI- these are competing firms. Trash-bin, play button, AF-button, Menu and OK made it to hardware - and each menu has to be the reinvention of the wheel? I sort of doubt that. 

[thxbb12]

As someone who shoots Canon, Olympus and Panasonic, I would like to make a small addition.

 

The Olympus menus are not really bad at all, IMO. They are just very, very extensive, and occasionally quite deep, which makes it difficult to remember where is what. There certainly is logic to it. The neat thing with Olympus is that there is a Quick Menu for most used menu items, effectively, that it has one of the best if not the best touch screens and touch interfaces wrt cameras, and that virtually every button can be reprogrammed to whatever you like, which can also be mapped to a set controlled by one of the Custum menu options.

 

In short, if you really want to get the most out of an Olympus camera, it takes some time to set up and/or learn, possibly, depending on one's (perceived) shooting needs, but several options for different shooting types and styles can then be easily matched with one of the Custom sets (C1-C3), while it is still possible to easily adjust all the main options with the quick menu, or with the dials and buttons.

 

Generally speaking, I personally find these discussions over the top, as it is always possible to do stuff the old-fashioned and easy way, with most cameras anyway, and I reckon that will suffice 99.8% or more of most shots. Know what you want to do, and set the camera up accordingly, the simple way. You'll rarely need to use the menu in that case, and often not deep at all once the initial set up is done. That is my experience, although YMMV I guess.

 

As to Panasonic: I find the menus often too simple. And with Canon, despite the fact that I have always gelled nicely with their menu system and dials and controls set-up, even there it is hard at times and hidden fairly deep in the menus to set up something very specific.

 

All in all, unless one has become proficient with a camera menu system, take the time to learn and master the menu system, otherwise it seems rather involved, hard to do, whatever. I have heard people complain about the menu system of ANY camera brand, and that includes Fuji, Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, and Sony especially. My impression is that people often expect things to work immediately the way they want or expect, even though cameras cannot yet read minds, and that people are often very impatient, and not prepared to invest the time to get to know the tools one uses.

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

I agree that one has to get used to the system their are using. It takes some time.

 

However, it's not an excuse to avoid implementing basic features requested by many photographers. I'm particularly thinking of Olympus. Everybody touts how much you can customize/configure the camera but yet some basic features that have been implemented almost a decade ago by other manufacturers are still missing from the system, namely minimum shutter speed and auto ISO implementation.

 

Another example that plagues all systems is when the user sets the aperture and shutter speed while the camera chooses ISO. Most cameras let you do this. However, most of the time, the user will very likely want a minimum shutter speed, not an exact one. Hence, why not treat the shutter speed as the minimum shutter speed? It makes much more sense and would be much less limiting from an exposure point of view.

Stuff like this makes sense. It reminds me of the first days of digital photography when ISO had to be set manually and auto ISO didn't exist. The interface and control of the camera was a carbon copy of film cameras, where ISO was fixed. It made sense with film cameras since ISO was your film, but it doesn't make sense today with a digital sensor where ISO can be changed on the fly (it's just another variable like aperture and shutter speed).

 

So much more can be done now that things can be programmed in clever ways for the benefits of the photographer. It can be much more optimal than fixed setups too, especially in dynamic situations. Yet, camera companies keep mimic-ing the way cameras used to be operated in the film days. They are hardly innovating. In fact, they are stuck in the past while a lot can be improved beyond what's available today. Cell phones (and notably google) is definitely showing the way here.

 

There are many other simple examples, such as :

• Focus bracketing/stacking could be 100% done by the camera (on a tripod obviously) and saved in a RAW file. I think Olympus implements this, but I doubt it saves RAW files.
  
• HDR capture using exposure bracketing and saving to RAW : today, all cameras only produce jpeg. Why not RAW? Totally doable, yet nobody does it! We could have files with huge DR this way without having to use special software to process them.
  
• Face detection letting you pick which face to focus on. Only Sony does this and it's really an obvious feature. Yet, nobody besides Sony does it!
  
• An actual modern interface such as the ones used by smartphones, especially for browsing pictures and deleting them. Take a look at how easy and fast it is on phones. Why not implement the same touchscreen interface? Cameras still use 1990s technology and interfaces.
  
• Same with RAW development from the camera. I'm taking Fuji's example here. Fuji provides great film simulations. The UI is clunky and cumbersome. Make it like a proper application where you can easily preview and convert your images on the fly in a very easy and quick way. Develop an easy to use, streamlined app (desktop and mobile) that can develop the RAW files and produce the same files as the jpeg engine! Sure, Lightroom or other is best, but sometimes you want to do quick edits and share on the spot. The app (in camera, mobile app, desktop app) should make it super easy to share the photos on social medias as well (facebook, flickr, etc.).
  
• etc.
  

[JJ_SO]

Focus stacking and HDR will be done by this Arsenal device and saved as RAW - however, it would be really crazy, if Arsenal can do things inside cameras the manufacturers cannot - or wannot - do.

[stoppingdown]

Focus stacking and HDR will be done by this Arsenal device and saved as RAW - however, it would be really crazy, if Arsenal can do things inside cameras the manufacturers cannot - or wannot - do.

 

In fact, I don't believe Arsenal does. I think that the "RAW" they produce is a DNG. Alternatively, the RAW formats have been reverse engineered enough to write code that, in addition to read bits, can also write bits - maybe missing some parts that haven't been reverse engineered, but that are of minor importance. It would be, anyway, a huge waste of time IMHO. I believe it's a "DNG".

[JJ_SO]

here's what Ryan says:

 

Stacking Made Easy

 

If there’s one “secret of the pros” in landscape and real-estate photography, it’s stacking. Taking multiple photos and merging them together to capture detail that is lost in a single exposure. Arsenal makes stacking easy. It can take the optimal number of photos at the right settings, then merge the photos to a new RAW or JPG file. The new file is written back to the SD card and can be previewed on your phone.

 

I'll find out next year  by the latest.

[wim]

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with this expectation. If anything, amneu has to help me, not to point out how far developed the software engineers are - or how much retro and only going ways from the past.

 

Cameras cannoz read minds, true. But a lot of actions we are doing with them are the same over and over again. It is not hard to predict one wants to set up Auto-Iso and Auto ISO has to relate on the used focal length. Soem features are so common these days, that it's embarassing why camera manufacturers act as if they have the only standard recipe.

 

A couple of times I rented a car. Did I have to read the manual to find the gear shift, light switch, brake pedal?

 

No. That only was necessary because Software engineers are sometimes too arrogant to find common ways of user interface for radio or GPS. Standardization helps and sets resources free for other projects. Look at Apple and Google and their UI- these are competing firms. Trash-bin, play button, AF-button, Menu and OK made it to hardware - and each menu has to be the reinvention of the wheel? I sort of doubt that.

Are you trying to tell me now that you can't shoot with a random camera when you are asked to do so?


I assume you are joking.


With a car, I can drive it straight away, and very likely, I will be able to operate all the lights too. Beyond that, with modern cars, it often depends on how advanced the electronics are, whether if is a brand you know already, etc. IOW, there is a learning curve. My old car had 300 pages worth of manuals, my current one over 800, of which over 500 are for all of its electric and electronic systems. That means there is a learning curve.


Same with cameras....


Kind regards, Wim

[stoppingdown]

Are you trying to tell me now that you can't shoot with a random camera when you are asked to do so?

I assume you are joking.

 

I don't know whether JoJu really meant that, but for me there are chances it can be true. Typically I'm on the field taking photos in a place with other people around (it seldom occurs, since I tend to be in less known and possibly deserted places, but there are exceptions); having a big camera I "must be" a sort of professional, so typically somebody asks me to shoot a picture of him (it happens less frequently now that 1) I have a small mirrorless camera , but the long lenses compensate for it, and 2) there are those funny "selfie stickers" around, so most people are autonomous). Since they put into my hands a compact camera of some kind, I'm often clueless. First, typically there's no viewfinder and I'm not acquainted without it; second, I'm supposed to shot "P-mode", which I've not been using since almost two decades. Probably there is a psychologic problem in addition to the UI, because most of times they say that the camera is already set up and I only have to compose and press the trigger, but I feel so uncomfortable of not being in full control. If I actually have to set up the camera, it's going to be embarrassing, at least because I'm doing it very slowly, and the other people weren't expecting such a slowness by a sort of pro...

[wim]

I agree that one has to get used to the system their are using. It takes some time.

 

However, it's not an excuse to avoid implementing basic features requested by many photographers. I'm particularly thinking of Olympus. Everybody touts how much you can customize/configure the camera but yet some basic features that have been implemented almost a decade ago by other manufacturers are still missing from the system, namely minimum shutter speed and auto ISO implementation.

 

Another example that plagues all systems is when the user sets the aperture and shutter speed while the camera chooses ISO. Most cameras let you do this. However, most of the time, the user will very likely want a minimum shutter speed, not an exact one. Hence, why not treat the shutter speed as the minimum shutter speed? It makes much more sense and would be much less limiting from an exposure point of view.

Stuff like this makes sense. It reminds me of the first days of digital photography when ISO had to be set manually and auto ISO didn't exist. The interface and control of the camera was a carbon copy of film cameras, where ISO was fixed. It made sense with film cameras since ISO was your film, but it doesn't make sense today with a digital sensor where ISO can be changed on the fly (it's just another variable like aperture and shutter speed).

 

So much more can be done now that things can be programmed in clever ways for the benefits of the photographer. It can be much more optimal than fixed setups too, especially in dynamic situations. Yet, camera companies keep mimic-ing the way cameras used to be operated in the film days. They are hardly innovating. In fact, they are stuck in the past while a lot can be improved beyond what's available today. Cell phones (and notably google) is definitely showing the way here.

 

There are many other simple examples, such as :

• Focus bracketing/stacking could be 100% done by the camera (on a tripod obviously) and saved in a RAW file. I think Olympus implements this, but I doubt it saves RAW files.
• HDR capture using exposure bracketing and saving to RAW : today, all cameras only produce jpeg. Why not RAW? Totally doable, yet nobody does it! We could have files with huge DR this way without having to use special software to process them.
• Face detection letting you pick which face to focus on. Only Sony does this and it's really an obvious feature. Yet, nobody besides Sony does it!
• An actual modern interface such as the ones used by smartphones, especially for browsing pictures and deleting them. Take a look at how easy and fast it is on phones. Why not implement the same touchscreen interface? Cameras still use 1990s technology and interfaces.
• Same with RAW development from the camera. I'm taking Fuji's example here. Fuji provides great film simulations. The UI is clunky and cumbersome. Make it like a proper application where you can easily preview and convert your images on the fly in a very easy and quick way. Develop an easy to use, streamlined app (desktop and mobile) that can develop the RAW files and produce the same files as the jpeg engine! Sure, Lightroom or other is best, but sometimes you want to do quick edits and share on the spot. The app (in camera, mobile app, desktop app) should make it super easy to share the photos on social medias as well (facebook, flickr, etc.).
• etc.

You clearly haven't looked at recent menu implementations with Olympus. Minimum shutter speed is there, as is auto-iso range.


The same is true for hdr stacking. You can either shoot an already stacked jpeg, or a bunch of unstacked raws, jpegs and raws, or jpegs. When shooting raws, you do have to do the processing yourself, and although that makes sense, I fully expect tbis to appear as an in-camera option as well at some point in time.


In short better ask first before coming to a (wrong) conclusion.


In addition, apart from extremely good filters and filtering system, you can process your images completely, if you so like, in-camera, before or after the shot. If you'd want to, you could do without an external device for processing your raws.


And if there is one company listening to input from users, it actually is Olympus, funnily enough. I don't know where you got the opposite idea.


In short, I see a lot of opinion in your reply, but not so much checking of facts.


BTW, jpeg output on Olympus is excellent, if not the best, and that is not just my opinion.


Kind regards, Wim