Cameras of today are packed with functions and possibilities. Most of us are only using a small part of what’s possible. Still, we often want just one other function that is not available. What function would you like to add to your camera?
I remember my first cameras. They were relatively simple tools with nothing more than the possibility to capture an image. It had an exposure metering system, and the ability to set a shutter speed and aperture. Besides a self-timer, there was not much else possible. These cameras were used for one thing, and one thing only: We used them to photograph our subject.
Much has happened since. The addition of automated functions started when we still used analog film rolls. But the possibilities a camera offered increased significantly when we got into the digital age. We got options that were once believed to be impossible.
My old cameras. There was no sophisticated computer system necessary for taking pictures. Although the light metering system can be considered a first step towards the automation.
For many photographers, it is almost unimaginable to shoot without autofocus, different sophisticated light measurement systems, continuous shooting, or the limit of 36 photos per film roll. Not to mention eye autofocus for humans and animals, and flawless tracking of subjects through the frame.
Modern cameras have even more sophisticated possibilities. time lapse functions, interval shooting, focus stacking, real-time light collecting, exposure simulation in the viewfinder, filming, and so much more. We can develop the photos in the camera itself and communicate with smartphones or other devices. We’re not photographing with a camera, but with a computer.
Modern cameras are basically computers that can take pictures. As a photographer we only need to worry about the moment and composition.
Never Enough
The more functions and possibilities we get, the less satisfied we seem to become. It almost seems to be only about the technology and features, instead of what it should be about: taking photos. Although many of the features that are present in cameras can help you get the shot you want, it’s not always about the technology involved.
Although many options are available, we still need more. Or so it seems. But in reality it should be about taking pictures, or is it?
Still, no matter what functions a camera has, there is always a function that isn’t there. Something you would like to have. Not because it’s possible, but because it can help you with your photography — or filming, for that matter. After all, modern cameras can also be used as film cameras.
Firmware Updates
Just like the computer we use at home or in our offices, a camera can be updated also. In most situations, it’s about removing bugs in the computer software, or changing simple things in order to improve user experience.
Fortunately, it doesn’t have to stop there. It is quite easy to add functions and possibilities to our camera. After all, the computer can be programmed any way we see fit. Perhaps the only limit is the amount of memory of the system itself, I think. But then again, I don’t know that much about these computer systems. Still, there is no reason to believe there can be added more functionality. Just a simple firmware update could be enough.
A firmware update for my Canon EOS R5. Probably some minor tweaks and improvements. But it could be so much more. Sometimes it is.
What Functions Would I Like to Have?
I’ve been using a lot of different cameras from all kinds of brands. It means I have seen a lot of the things that are possible and things that have become possible over time. When I look at my Canon EOS R5, I would like to have a lot of extra options, even though I wouldn’t probably need it a lot. I have made a list.
- XF-AVC codec for video like on the Canon EOS R5 C
- No video recording time limit like on the Canon EOS R7
- Wave graph for video like on the Canon EOS R5 C
- Pre-shooting option like on the Canon EOS R7 and EOS R10
- Update in customization for AF system like on the Canon EOS R3 and EOS R7
- Possibility to set self-timer delay and more than one image like on some Sony cameras
- No 30 seconds limit with exposure program like on some Nikon Z series
- 4:5 crop added to aspect ratios
- OVF simulation like the Canon EOS R3
- Real-time light gathering (live bulb) like on some Olympus cameras
The wave functions I had when testing the Canon EOS R5 C. I liked it a lot and wished I had something similar on my own camera.
It’s a long list of wishes, and perhaps there is not enough computer memory to hold all the necessary programming. But in principle, a lot should be possible with a large firmware update. Canon has done something similar already with the addition of vehicle recognition for autofocus, and the ability to disable the shutdown when overheating while filming.
If I could choose only one function to be added to my Canon EOS R5 camera, it would be live bulb, the real-time light gathering function that the Olympus owners probably know very well.
Live bulb, a real time light gathering technique that is limited to Olympus cameras. It's the one function I would add to my own camera, if I had the choice.
Wishes Don’t Come True
As you may know, most wishes don’t come true. Although it depends on the manufacturer, most won’t add significant functions to their camera any time soon. After all, they will prefer you to buy their new camera instead, packed with all those improved and new functions.
Although the AF system on the Sony A7 IV had improved over its predecessor, it wasn't perfect. A firmware update improved this.
This doesn’t mean they won’t add new functions of improvements at all. I mentioned the recent Canon firmware update for the EOS R5. Sony recently made an improved autofocus for their Sony a7 IV camera also, together with a few other things. I believe Nikon has done similar things with their Z 6 and Z 7 mirrorless cameras, and Fujifilm added new features in the past.
Although the Nikon Z series cameras are great, they were improved with firmware updates and got new functions along the way.
But most of the time, the firmware updates are just minor improvements and to get rid of known bugs in the camera software. Which is a good thing of course, but a bit limited. It would be nice if new functions would be added every now and then.
What Function Would You Like to See?
No matter what camera you are using, you probably would like a function that is currently not present. What function would that be?
I’m sure your camera is also packed with functions and possibilities, except for one that you would love to have. Perhaps it’s not a very important one, but just nice to have. If you could wish for only one function to be added by a firmware update, what would it be?
Please share your wish in the comment below. I can’t grant you any wishes, and I doubt a manufacturer would read these comments and thinks: let’s add this one function. But It would be nice to see what is missing on a certain camera. I’m looking forward to your response.
Tamas,
I get that having a large sensor that covers the entire image circle would add significantly to the cost of a camera - probably anywhere from 25% to 50%. But that would be well worth it to me, because the return I would get in my results would be worth far more to me than the extra $500 to $1,500 that I would spend on such a camera. This feature would revolutionize photography for me far more than any other feature I have seen in my lifetime, excepting digital sensors and autofocus.
Tom Reichner I don't think that your estimated price bump is close to what it would be in real life. I don't have the latest and most precise manufacturing data, but I do have some rough "idea", working as an engineer at Phase One, who produces large sensor cameras in fairly low volume.
If Canon is producing a "full frame" sensor mirrorless camera for $999 retail, then why wouldn't they be able to produce a similar body with a "full coverage" sensor, which is 2.2 times larger than the so-called full frame sensor, for $2,000? If all else was equal, such as total manufacturing and sales volume, then what is it that would make this impossible?
The $1000 camera has an image sensor of the yesteryears, end of their production cycle. Slower readout, less resolution, inferior sensel compared to the current newest. This is not what they would consider appealing to the higher segment market a larger sensor would be targeted to, imo.
It is for mass production, where if they can make a few dollars per unit, that is already fairly good, considering it as an entry drug into their system. If they can hook up a relatively large portion of the customer to invest more into their higher end offering, then they are at their money.
I guess your second best (and existing!) option is to buy into one of the medium format mirrorless system, which can adapt to your lens. I believe there is an EF to Fujifilm G mount. Fotodiox seems to have an autofocus adapter for such coupling. 33x44 covers _almost_ the full image circle. That should be within the $10k range..
I am curious, Tom Reichner. How would a round sensor improve your results?
I photograph wild animals. They often strike a good pose for a second or so, then turn their head or take a step ... and the best moment is over.
Because there is barely any time to get the camera up, focus, and fire off a shot within the second or two that they are in the optimal position, my framing is often off.
Perhaps the image too tight at the bottom of the frame, and cuts the composition off too close to the animal's feet.
Perhaps the subject is too centered in the frame, because I simply didn't have time to move the camera a wee bit to get it off center to the precise degree that I wanted it.
Perhaps I put the subject off-center, but didn't realize just how far off center it was, and I would love to have just a wee wee bit more image between the subject and the edge of the frame.
Perhaps the image is angled way crooked, because I was lying on my back in a very awkward, kinda upside-down, twisted position, in order to get the shot from the angle that I wanted.
Perhaps I was so afraid of framing the scene too tightly that I purposefully shot wider than I really wanted to, so that I would have "extra" image to allow more leeway when cropping the image later ... but that messes with the detail resolution (pixels on subject) and depth of field.
Perhaps I shot the photo so that it looks great in the native 3:2 aspect ratio, but then later I decide that I want to post a square-cropped version to Instagram ... only to find that when I crop it square, I chop parts of the image off that I really want to include. Why does this happen? Because my camera's sensor didn't capture the very top or the very bottom of the circular image that my lens produced.
With wildlife, there simply isn't time to shoot one frame optimized for 3:2 horizontal, then another frame a bit wider to allow for a square crop, then another in vertical orientation in case I want to submit the image for a cover request. We often are lucky to get just one frame ripped off before the moment is gone.
All of the afore-mentioned problems with framing happen to me A LOT - like, practically every time I go on a shoot. And every one of them could be solved if I had a sensor that would capture the entire image circle that my glass provides.
Just think about shooting vertically for a moment. The lenses that we often spend over $10,000 on are producing a circular image and projecting it back to the camera's sensor. So why should we ever, ever, ever have to turn a camera vertically to go to "vertical orientation"? Such a thing is ridiculous when our lenses are making a circular image! But the doggone cameras are effectively cropping out a lot of that circular image and only capturing a portion of it, hence the need to shoot in horizontal, then shoot in vertical, then shoot a bit wider, just to cover all of the bases.
A sensor that captures ALL of the image that my lenses are providing would solve a great number of problems, and I would have several hundred more keepers each year than I currently get.
I have a simple solution for all that which doesn't involve any odd size sensors. Give your subject (animal) more headroom. Don't frame it too tight, and you end up with lots of flexibility to crop the image to your liking in post.
Don't worry about resolution while cropping this way, the modern cameras have enough resolution to allow this flexibility. You won't miss any split second moment ever again.
I fully agree with this.
Well of course. But that is actually a problem, not a solution. See what I wrote at the end of the 7th paragraph of my last comment to see an explanation of why shooting wider is not a perfect solution.
Personally I don't think it's that much of an issue.Only of you're pixel peeping it would be noticeable, but in print, no matter how large, it doesn't make a lot of difference anymore. With small prints you'll need to loose resolution on order to get the desired DPI, and for larger prints the ideal viewing distance will reduce the distinguishable details also.
Unless you're shooting with an old 10 mp sensor perhaps, but I don't believe you do.
I am telling you what feature I would add to my camera, just like you asked me to do. And all I am getting is endless grief and arguments and challenges from you and that Tamas guy.
A sensor that crops off parts of the image circle IS an issue for me. Whether you can understand that or not is immaterial. I am not asking for you to understand my desire for a full coverage sensor. I don't care if you understand it or not. And I do not need your approval. You asked what feature I wanted, and I told you. Sheesh!
Ah well, I'm sorry about that. Just a nice discussion, I thought.
I would love it to be a nice discussion, and not statements telling me that I shouldn't want what I want, or that it wouldn't make any difference.
If you shot the wildlife that I shoot, and shot it the way that I shoot it, and sold the same types of image to the same markets that I sell to, then perhaps you would be able to understand just how useful a full coverage sensor would be to me. For someone who shoots human models, or landscapes, or still life, or just about anything else, then you're right - it wouldn't make any difference because you could just take an extra second or three and frame it more thoughtfully. But when you have, quite literally, a fraction of a second to snap the shot, you simply don't have time to zoom in or out, or to aim the camera precisely.
"Shoot a bit wider" sounds great, until your lens is at 600mm and a Pika suddenly hops out from behind a rock, strikes a cute pose for 3/4 of a second, then scampers off. If you take the time to zoom out to 500mm, then you miss the opportunity altogether because you were zooming instead of snapping the shutter. That is real life wildlife photography for me. So having a camera that captures a bit more of the scene, with no cost in pixels on subject or depth of field, would be a godsend.
I understand, and accept, that such a feature would make little or no positive difference for the things that you shoot, the way that you shoot them. But please don't tell me that it would make no difference for me, when you do not shoot what I shoot nor understand exactly what goes on when I am shooting.
Sorry if my comments caused any stress for you, Tom Reichner. I did not mean to inflict such negativity. I understand your issue, and I would really love to have a similar feature for my own wildlife subject. Especially small, fast moving subjects are hard to catch in perfect composition. But sometimes even large, slow moving subject can be an issue. For example this morning I managed to stalk too close to a laid down bull, so when he stood up, it wouldn't fit into a landscape frame. As it was moving slowly, I managed to change the orientation, and get a closeup.
By the way, some of your images at shutterstock are really nice!
Thanks for sharing!
Most of the time, such as with your nice Stag photos, there is enough time to compose and frame the image the way I want to.
But every now and then, at least a couple times each day, there is an opportunity that is so fleeting that there just isn't time, and I either get no image at all or I get an image that is framed a bit too tightly. Those are the occasions in which it would be really nice to have a little extra canvas to the images, without sacrificing pixels on subject or depth of field.
Focus peaking for all focus modes would be nice. This can be assigned to one of the Fn buttons for activation.
I think it will come in quite handy for both portraiture and landscape photography. With this feature, user can now estimate what is in focus with the aperture he/she has selected.
I don't know if there is a solution to this, but when I hike and my camera hangs down, the screen touches my sweaty shirt, I get lots of photos of the trail and my shoes. It also moves the focus point to where ever on the screen my sweaty shirt touched. My solution is to tilt screen up a little, but then I have to tilt it back down to take a photo. I have tried just turning off touch, but I use touch sometimes.
Can't you just turn the camera off after you take photos, and then turn it on again the next time you want to take a shot? Something that only takes two or three seconds is not an inconvenience at all, even though it may feel like it is.
Just like Tom Reichner says: turn off the camera. Or program the lock button to switch of the touch screen. Problem solved.
The canon r5 only goes up to 99 photos or unlimited for the internal shooting counter. Really wish it would do 3 or 4 digits, not 2. This is only in photo mode. In video timelapse mode you can go up to 4 digits.
100%
I shoot a ton of timelapse for work and it baffles me this is a thing! Who shoots a 3-4 second timelapse?
A good point. Should be easy to change, I think
Frame averaging like in the Phase One IQ4 backs for long exposure. Old school long exposure using ND filters is such a pain. Frame Averging is soooo much better in many ways and most scenarios.
Just use smartphone 😉😂
I switched from Olympus E-M1II to Nikon D5 three years ago. What I still miss is Olympus' Pro Capture which is like Canon's Pre-shooting option. All higher grade cameras with an electronic shutter should have this.
I would like a great photographer mode.
Don't we all...
:)
Sigh! As if modern cameras don't already have enough "functions". The function I would like to see if for the "USER" to add some creativity and stop relying on the camera to do all the work.
I see things differently.
If the camera takes care of ALL of the technical things for us, then our minds and hands are free to concentrate on the creative aspects of photography. If I have to help the camera do things like focus and exposure, then that limits now much of me can be focused on the creative aspects of photo-taking, such as composition, point-of-view, subject engagement, background alignment, etc.
I get that and I understand, but pretty much every camera out today does those things. Personally, I think a lot of people want all these bells and whistles (and I like some of them), but where does the "creativity" come from, other than the user pointing the camera in a certain direction?
I'm sure a lot of photographers would love to rely on the camera to do the work. Most of those photographers could be using a high-end smartphone instead. Just push the button.
But there are also functions that help you in your creativity. Creativity has nothing to do with the functions anyway.
The creativity comes from all of the things that are not technical, and have nothing (or very little) to do with camera settings.
Creativity comes from knowing exactly what you have to show about your subject. What attributes of your subject do you want to showcase and show to the viewer? How do you capture the essence and personality and mood of your subject?
How do you show your subject within the context of its environment? What things around the subject do you include in the frame, and which things do you exclude, to produce the mood and feel that you are going for?
For the things around the subject that you want to include, how do you show those things in relation to the subject? Do you show them relatively large in the frame, or small in the frame? Do you show them in a dreamy, way out of focus way, or do you show them in a more realistic kind of way?
What part of the distant background do you put directly behind your subject to get the subject to "pop" the way you want it to? Do you show the subject more subtly placed within the scene, or do you have the subject stand out of the scene, visually?
How is the ambient light interacting with you subject when it turns slightly to the left? When it turns to the right? What if you hold the camera a little higher, or get down on your belly to get the camera lower? How does the light on your subject change as you change camera positions?
These are all things that have nothing to do at all with camera functions. They are aesthetic / creative choices. And when the camera can get perfect exposure and perfect focus all by itself, then I can put all of my physical and mental energies into these aesthetic concerns.
I want a camera that dan do all of the "camera things" automatically and flawlessly, without fail, regardless of the situation or conditions. 1000 times out of 1000 times. Then my brain and eyes and hands are free to do the things I just wrote about.
No, every camera out there DOES NOT do these things. At least not in exceptional circumstances or challenging conditions.
Show me a camera that "knows" when you are shooting snow, or a scene that is mostly all white. Not going to happen. The cameras always try to expose for an 18% gray average value. And that sucks because you have to take precious time and thought to override the mistake-prone camera.
What about when I have a very dark scene, but a very bright subject within that very dark scene? Especially when that bright subject is very small in the frame. Do you think the camera will overexpose the subject? You bet it will. Even the very best of today's cameras will overexpose that subject 100% of the time in any of the auto modes. The only way you get the tiny bright subject perfectly exposed is to take control of the settings yourself, but then those are precious seconds that you are NOT assessing the overall scene for compositional nuances that could yield a slightly more interesting image.
If I was a sports photographer, and wanted to take photos where I had perfect focus on the ball - lets say a tennis ball or racquetball - where is the camera that will perfectly focus a tennis ball, or a racquetball, during fast-paced action where it is being smashed into 100+ mile per hour speeds and flying off at erratic, unpredictable directions? Is ANY camera capable of such incredible performance? Nope. Not even close. In fact, I've been told that even the best of today's cameras can't even track animal eyes when the animal is very small in the frame, or when the eyes are in shadow.
Kudos, Tom. You're much more eloquent and patient explaining it to this guy. This about the second time now he's brought this up, yet, to this day, has nothing to show for it.
Having an internal SSD would be a good next step for future cameras.
The new Hasselblad X2D has a 1TB SSD built in. Your wish is granted. ;)
A good first step, but we need to see the big players stepping up before it makes a real difference: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, etc.
Indeed.
Still, I wonder if I would prefer an internal SSD over a memory card. The latter are easy to replace and I never have to connect my camera to the computer.
Don't forget, if the data transfer over the USB-C isn't that well optimized, it can take ages to transfer the images info your computer.
That said, I wonder how fast the transfer rate of the X2D is.
I'm thinking more of the ability to have a internal backup for the card, or the ability to forgo a card altogether. From data I've seen from Backblaze, SSDs are becoming a lot more reliable. For the sports/wildlife photographer, the transfer speed to an SSD is much faster than to a card, meaning less buffering in the field.
Transfer speeds with USB-C 4.0 are up to 40 Gbps (for some of us, that's acceptable), now, granted camera manufacturers tend to be behind the curve when it comes to consumer electronics. Perhaps, it's time for them to change.
About the X2D, you still have an CF Express slot available, so the SSD can act as a backup. I'd love that option also, and perhaps even more than dual slots.
I checked the IO of the X2D: USB 3.1 Gen2 Type-C connector (transfer speed up to 10Gbit/s)
I'd be very wary about having only one storage medium in my camera, SSD or not. I'd much prefer to have dual same-type media slots along with the ability to back up via USB to a portable SSD or large thumb drive without having to use a laptop as an intermediary.
In the next Canon iteration:
- those Lightroom-like composition overlays in my EVF and/or rear screen.
- the option of a strictly stills camera
- internal emergency memory card in case you forget yours
- flash sync speeds at 1/8000 sec or faster
- base ISO's south of 100 (64, 50, 25 even)
- live AF focus peeking
- Show me exactly where the nodal point is (this is a lens issue, but hey)
- Remove 30 sec setting limit
- Crazy reduced noise at ISO 6400 and beyond
- 100+Mp with large pixels (starry night sky work)
- 30fps mechanical with no distortions
If Canon did all this in the R5x or R2, I'd bite!
Hardware theft protection, if you don't connect to the phone app now and then, the camera should stop working...
I like this idea, as long as they can't hard-reset out of it. Maybe a pass code for a reset. I'd worry that this would kick off a security arms race between criminals and camera manufacturers.
The meth heads would still steal just as many cameras ... the cameras just wouldn't work for them and they wouldn't be able to get as much for them at the pawn shop. But most of the people staling cameras have heads that are so screwed up on drugs that they wouldn't know or understand anything about what "theft protection" was built into the camera.
I mean lets face it, these people are breaking into cars - smashing their way through windows - to steal the radios out of them, so they can get $10 for the car radio. Do you really think that advanced "theft protection" is going to stop these people from stealing a camera? If someone will give them $10 or $15 for that $2,000 camera, then they're all about that.
And yes these complete idiot strung out low lives are the vast vast vast majority of people who steal cameras.
I would like:
1) sim card
2) memory card encryption
3) ability to create hidden zones on memory cards (for reports working in dangerous and or war zones)
4) Computational algorithms as in top-of-the-line smartphones
In body focus stacking and bracketing that also create a black frame in between so it is easier to identify a series of shots for post processing. In body, real-time panorama stitching possibly.
Focus staking and bracketing can be done on the Phase One XF and IQ4 150
And it even has a solution for better than a 'black frame' in a form of a metadata tag called Sequence ID, which is identical for all images in such sequence. Capture One can read it, and let the user to group those fancy images.
A DEP mode. NOT the A-DEP you find on some Canon bodies. The DEP from the 1D and 1Ds and a few of the film bodies. It allows you to tell the camera the near and far boundary of the DoF by focusing on something near and far. Then the camera sets focus distance and aperture based on your focal length giving you the right DoF.
Sure there are reverse DoF calculator apps for your phone, but that is a poor solution. It requires measuring the distance to the near and far boundaries of the DoF. Then you have to enter distances, focal length and sensor size into the app. Followed by measuring the focus distance the app gives you to set your focus and setting the aperture in the camera. Too time consuming and requires relatively precise measurements.