Cameras 21st century - a step backwards

jgsi

Almost all the time using a modern compact camera such as a Lumix - still 100 quids worth of camera - it will take
a pin sharp photo of next doors cat if it aint moving.
Take photos of fast moving (sic) objects such as bike racers then 99.9% of them 10 million pixels are out of focus and the background trees pin sharp!
I just think that modern cameras are a bit thick thats all - and you have no real control over them like in the days of box brownies

So, Is there any software that can actually reprocess those 99.9% of pixels back into focus?

Hoopdriver

JGSI wrote:

Almost all the time using a modern compact camera such as a Lumix - still 100 quids worth of camera - it will take
a pin sharp photo of next doors cat if it aint moving.
Take photos of fast moving (sic) objects such as bike racers then 99.9% of them 10 million pixels are out of focus and the background trees pin sharp!
I just think that modern cameras are a bit thick thats all - and you have no real control over them like in the days of box brownies

So, Is there any software that can actually reprocess those 99.9% of pixels back into focus?

Er...I think you need a better camera, and/or perhaps learn to use the one you have. I am a photojournalist and believe me you can shoot very fast moving object, bicycles, cheetahs, sportscars whatever with a digital camera. Obviously you get what you pay for in terms of camera capability. That said, there are some very good compacts that give you full control over your exposures, depth of field, etc. Shooting in RAW makes a big different.

Shots that are out of focus are, well, out of focus. Not much you can do. There is sharpening software that can help with a bit of subtle correction (Nik makes some good stuff) but if it is really blurry or out of focus, there's not much you can do but learn from your mistakes and try again.

It sounds to me like your autofocus locked on the background and not on whatever moving object you wanted to photograph.

daviesee

I have a Lumix as my pocket camera and I can focus on anything I want.
Sounds like user error.
Sorry.

jgsi

RTFM ? such a step backwards into the Middle Ages again really aint it...?
if SKYNET came true it'd need rebooting every hour.

daviesee

My guess is that you are expecting the camera to do it all automatically.
Therefore you are expecting the camera to read your mind to know what you expect as results.

Is your mind that easy to read?

Maybe you wanted a nice photo of a forest with a blurred peloton rushing by. Saw that in Rouleur before.

declan1

Modern D-SLRs are amazing pieces of kit. You can basically make them do whatever you want.

Modern compact cameras are rubbish - they're basically the BSO of the camera world. Great for taking pictures of family on a holiday, but pretty much useless for 'proper' photos.

rolf_f

declan1 wrote:

Modern D-SLRs are amazing pieces of kit. You can basically make them do whatever you want.

Modern compact cameras are rubbish - they're basically the BSO of the camera world. Great for taking pictures of family on a holiday, but pretty much useless for 'proper' photos.

And the award for sweeping generalisation of the day goes to*.......

* (there are more options than 'cheapo compact and D-SLR. It's rather misguided to suggest that you need a DSLR to take excellent photos digitally)

VTech

As above really.

I have a Canon 6D that I bought on a whim and its just to complex for me so ive not really used it and it will remain in a box until its worthless and we throw it away. I now use the camera off my iPhone which is what I did before.
The problem with cameras is that they have become so clever and people really dont realise just how clever and complex these items have become and so how difficult they are to use (properly).

I just dont have the time to learn so for me its a no-go but one day I wouldnt mind taking a class as im sure it would be rewarding if I knew what I were doing.

seanoconn

^^ This. Got a perfectly good camera at home which can do almost anything but haven't got a scooby how to use it properly. Just use my iPhone.

declan1

Rolf F wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Modern D-SLRs are amazing pieces of kit. You can basically make them do whatever you want.

Modern compact cameras are rubbish - they're basically the BSO of the camera world. Great for taking pictures of family on a holiday, but pretty much useless for 'proper' photos.

And the award for sweeping generalisation of the day goes to*.......

* (there are more options than 'cheapo compact and D-SLR. It's rather misguided to suggest that you need a DSLR to take excellent photos digitally)

Yeah, I know....

There are some pretty good compacts out there, but the fact remains that they're simply not as good as D-SLRs. For starters the sensors are considerably smaller, as well as the fact that you can't change lenses (and standard ones aren't always very good).

HOWEVER if you're not into photography and you don't know anything about it, you can get just as good (sometimes better) photos from a compact than a D-SLR. Compacts don't require any 'fiddling' or adjustment to take photos, whereas D-SLRs do to make use of their abilities.

capt_slog

If the background is in focus and the objects are not then you are focusing in the wrong place.

Cameras have autofocus, but they are not mind readers, if you want to take a photo of something that is in coming into the shot, it doesn't have time to focus on the object; this is what the pre-focus is for.

I'm guessing that your camera will have this, most do. Taking your example of riders:- pick an object at a distance which will correspond to where your riders will be when they come into shot,it can even be the patch of road where their wheel will be and press the shutter half way down. This will vary from camera to camera but this usually locks the focus at this point. When the riders cross the place you focused on, you finish the click, pressing all the way down to get the picture.

OR

You're not panning with the riders when you take the shot.

Hard to say without seeing the pics, put one up and we'll rip it to shreds, I mean provide constructive criticism.

grim168

Used a tz25 lumix at iom tt on saturday and got a few decent shots for a compact. Bikes were doing about 140mph but had to pan and only got lucky on a few shots. It doesn't match my dslr but I was pleasantly surprised.

mamba80

VTech wrote:

As above really.

I have a Canon 6D that I bought on a whim and its just to complex for me so ive not really used it and it will remain in a box until its worthless and we throw it away. I now use the camera off my iPhone which is what I did before.
The problem with cameras is that they have become so clever and people really dont realise just how clever and complex these items have become and so how difficult they are to use (properly).

I just dont have the time to learn so for me its a no-go but one day I wouldnt mind taking a class as im sure it would be rewarding if I knew what I were doing.

So you spent the best part of £2k on a camera you dont use/know how too/cant be asked mmmmmmmm why?

For most people a decent compact (or phone) is more than enough but £100 is nt much to spend on one and even in the days of film compacts, there was very little you could do other than point and shoot and unless you pre focus and pan (move the camera with the object you want to shoot), then you ll always have a bad pic, there is just too much shutter delay and slow shutter speeds for a start.

But tbh if you can be bothered to read up on how to use the thing then there is no hope.

ballysmate

A Sean and VTech alluded to, above, some modern gadgets are so packed full of features that you may use once in a blue moon, or in some cases never, unless you are a pro or a geek, that they make their use seem daunting.
We have probably all bought in the past, something electronic that would fit in the palm of your hand, but would require a rucksack for the instruction manual.

daviesee

Ballysmate wrote:

A Sean and VTech alluded to, above, some modern gadgets are so packed full of features that you may use once in a blue moon, or in some cases never, unless you are a pro or a geek, that they make their use seem daunting.
We have probably all bought in the past, something electronic that would fit in the palm of your hand, but would require a rucksack for the instruction manual.

If you can use a film SLR, then you can use a DSLR.
Most people simply can't be bothered to learn.
Fine for them but don't complain about the results.

Wunnunda

It's interesting, my daughter is an art student and has started messing around with my old OM1 35mm SLR (which is manual except for the match-the-needles metering. What she found hard to get her head round is that the film sensitivity (ISO/ASA) can't be changed - it's just shutter and aperture. In addition her DLSR (also an Olympus) has, like all digital cameras, an enormous amount of image processing going on (even in so-called 'manual' modes) to get a usable image. Not there with film (unless you paddle around in chemicals in the darkroom!).

The features available are pretty mind numbing though (I've played with her DSLR) and it's not surprising people don't bother to learn them all. It reminds of the (probably anecdotal) story about Microsoft's survey to find out what new features people wanted to see in the next version of Word. Of the top 10 list seven were already in there, people just couldn't be arsed to look 'em up....

capt_slog

Ballysmate wrote:

A Sean and VTech alluded to, above, some modern gadgets are so packed full of features that you may use once in a blue moon, or in some cases never, unless you are a pro or a geek, that they make their use seem daunting.
We have probably all bought in the past, something electronic that would fit in the palm of your hand, but would require a rucksack for the instruction manual.

I'd had an SLR for years, but couldn't afford to go to a digital when they first came out, so had a compact. I missed the feel of SLR and eventually bought a NikonD40. One of the first things I did was go here.....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/us ... /index.htm

....and read up on how to use it.

One interesting thing I learned was that many features that were available on much higher spec Nikons were also available on mine too, there just wasn't a button for them on the outside of the camera.

This is what makes top-end stuff look so daunting, pros expect to have all those features without having to go through a menu to find them, which means a lot more buttons.

Wunnunda

The problem is that to get all that easy access through buttons the camera needs a lot of external 'real estate' and that makes them HUGE. Even people who have high end end DSLRs end up with a compact for 90% of what they shoot. There is an old saying that the best camera is the one you have with you.

VTech

mamba80 wrote:

VTech wrote:

As above really.

I have a Canon 6D that I bought on a whim and its just to complex for me so ive not really used it and it will remain in a box until its worthless and we throw it away. I now use the camera off my iPhone which is what I did before.
The problem with cameras is that they have become so clever and people really dont realise just how clever and complex these items have become and so how difficult they are to use (properly).

I just dont have the time to learn so for me its a no-go but one day I wouldnt mind taking a class as im sure it would be rewarding if I knew what I were doing.

So you spent the best part of £2k on a camera you dont use/know how too/cant be asked mmmmmmmm why?

For most people a decent compact (or phone) is more than enough but £100 is nt much to spend on one and even in the days of film compacts, there was very little you could do other than point and shoot and unless you pre focus and pan (move the camera with the object you want to shoot), then you ll always have a bad pic, there is just too much shutter delay and slow shutter speeds for a start.

But tbh if you can be bothered to read up on how to use the thing then there is no hope.

I bought it on a whim, I was working away and it kind of looked at me and said "buy me, BUY ME" and so I did. :oops:
I had the intention of learning how to use it, I get stressed at times and a friend had said photography helped him so I thought why not.
I have read the instructions but if you ever got a similar camera you will realise that the instruction manual resembles a bible so not a quick read for the loo !
I use the iPhone out of ease, I always have my phone on me and the Canon is bulky and large. It does take far better pictures but any decent cameraman will also work with packages like photoshop and work from raw images so its not as simple as point and click.
Its not the first thing ive done that wasnt the best idea, not sure it will be the last but im trying.

daviesee

Wunnunda wrote:

The problem is that to get all that easy access through buttons the camera needs a lot of external 'real estate' and that makes them HUGE. Even people who have high end end DSLRs end up with a compact for 90% of what they shoot. There is an old saying that the best camera is the one you have with you.

I don't doubt the voracity of the last statement but I will question the source of your figures.
I use a DSLR for 75% of my photos and I am not a pro. People who buy high end DSLRs tend to be enthusiasts or pros, or rich and silly.
Using a DSLR/SLR depends more on enthusiasm and wanting the best results over convenience.
If convenience is more important then a DSLR/SLR is not for you.

Buying an expensive camera does not make you a good photographer; Buying an expensive bike does not make you a fast cyclist. 8)

Wunnunda

90% was a rhetorical number (!) and you are right - real enthusiasts are prepared to carry a huge DSLR around - but I know an awful lot of people with full-fat DSLRs that won't carry them on a day out. They are just too bulky and, for most general use a good compact will do as good a job on bread and butter snapshots. (In fact cameraphones will do as good a job in a lot of cases, they are getting pretty useful now). DSLRs only really become essential in extreme situations where low light with low image noise is required or, especially, where the subject is moving at speed. Compact cameras are in most cases severely compromised in these cases.

daviesee

Thought so.
The key word in your latest response is - snapshots.

Most people are happy with snapshots so a phone or basic compact will suffice for the majority.

mamba80

Dont worry Vtech, was at a recent pro bike ride and a lass there, who judging by her pics asked me to take some shots of the approaching bunch (needed the loo), and everything was set on auto and scene "sports" mode - i asked if this was just for me and she said "no, are there any other settings i could use?" she had a decent Nikon! she had never read the manual and had no intention of doing so!

Half the thing with these cameras is the lens and she had a great one

So just stick it on Sports mode, buy a decent EF lens and fire away! delete all the ones that are oof etc and you ll be a star!

capt_slog

VTech wrote:

I bought it on a whim, I was working away and it kind of looked at me and said "buy me, BUY ME" and so I did. :oops:
I had the intention of learning how to use it, I get stressed at times and a friend had said photography helped him so I thought why not.
I have read the instructions but if you ever got a similar camera you will realise that the instruction manual resembles a bible so not a quick read for the loo !
I use the iPhone out of ease, I always have my phone on me and the Canon is bulky and large. It does take far better pictures but any decent cameraman will also work with packages like photoshop and work from raw images so its not as simple as point and click.
Its not the first thing ive done that wasnt the best idea, not sure it will be the last but im trying.

I can recommend this...

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/6d/users-guide/index.htm

I've not read through it by the way because I don't own that camera, but it's from the same chap who wrote the similar user guide for my Nikon. This was so useful to me that I made the unprecedented move of donating to his site :shock:

Giraffoto

VTech wrote:

. . .I bought it on a whim, I was working away and it kind of looked at me and said "buy me, BUY ME" and so I did. :oops: . . .
I have read the instructions but if you ever got a similar camera you will realise that the instruction manual resembles a bible so not a quick read for the loo . . .

Common mistake - you don't just read it once!

Instead of reading it cover to cover, look up the instructions for your favourite types of pictures, and try them out. Much less reading and faster learning in my experience

Hoopdriver

declan1 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Modern D-SLRs are amazing pieces of kit. You can basically make them do whatever you want.

Modern compact cameras are rubbish - they're basically the BSO of the camera world. Great for taking pictures of family on a holiday, but pretty much useless for 'proper' photos.

And the award for sweeping generalisation of the day goes to*.......

* (there are more options than 'cheapo compact and D-SLR. It's rather misguided to suggest that you need a DSLR to take excellent photos digitally)

Yeah, I know....

There are some pretty good compacts out there, but the fact remains that they're simply not as good as D-SLRs. For starters the sensors are considerably smaller, as well as the fact that you can't change lenses (and standard ones aren't always very good).

HOWEVER if you're not into photography and you don't know anything about it, you can get just as good (sometimes better) photos from a compact than a D-SLR. Compacts don't require any 'fiddling' or adjustment to take photos, whereas D-SLRs do to make use of their abilities.

Another sweeping generalisation about compacts. For my cycling camera, I use a Canon G1X whose 14mp sensor is only marginally smaller than that used by most crop-DSLR cameras, shoots in RAW and has excellent low light capacity - good enough that I would not hesitate to use it at ISO1600 and know I can get very good results. True, the images it takes are not as sharp as my Canon 5D3 - a heavyweight professional DSLR - with the Zeiss primes I use on it, nor would anyone expect them to be. But compared with most of the consumer DSLRs, that compact G1X does very, very well indeed.

Daz555

Cheap compact cameras have always been crap. It is not a 21st century thing.

bernithebiker

For any camera buffs out there (I'm not), we got a Fujifilm X100 for my wife, expensive little camera, looks retro takes great shots and it's fairly simple.

BUT, it has a clever thing where if you put your eye to the viewfinder it acts like an old school camera, but take your eye away, and it goes to the screen. Except that part died after 14 months, and I've just had to push like crazy for Fuji to pay up the £600 (yes 600!) to fix it.

RDW

One thing I hate about most compacts is the lack of a decent (or any) viewfinder. It's hard to hold the camera steady while viewing the screen on the back at arm's length, and hard to see the screen at all in bright sunlight. The X100/
X100s is one of the exceptions - I especially like the clever trick that lets you switch between a direct optical view and a live electronic view through the same eyepiece. This is one I might actually buy. Other common frustrations are slow reaction time (a 1/2 second delay when you press the button is often enough to miss the shot), and important settings buried in obscure sub-menus or controlled by fiddly multi-purpose buttons. For my money, an SLR is an easier camera to use than the vast majority of compacts. Set it to full auto and you don't have to worry about the advanced settings until you're ready for them. Size and weight are the only real disadvantages.

MichaelW

The OP has a compact camera , not an SLR so there are issues taking small, fast-moving objects.
Time to explore the focus features: can you use manual focus to pre-focus where the action will be. Do you have snap or fixed focus or hyperfocal setting? Does the AF have continuous mode?
Shutter lag is a serious issue on many compact cameras. You press the button to tell the camera to take a photo. The camera considers the scene, identifies any faces, pets or food based subjects, adjusts the exposure to take account of any areas of snow or beach, adjusts the focus to match any moving objects. It then takes a perfect photograph of what you wanted, 1/2 second too late. I have learned to pre-release my shutter to account for lag.

Kerguelen

VTech wrote:

As above really.

I have a Canon 6D that I bought on a whim and its just to complex for me so ive not really used it and it will remain in a box until its worthless and we throw it away.

Please don't do that. Te Canon 6D is a wonderful piece of kit. Even though I'm a Nikon guy. You could stick it in Program mode and continuous AF to get you going and then go from there.

It's not that an SLR is better (well, it is), but to make an effective photograph you have to understand both the artistic and physical principles that underlie visual storytelling.

Obviously an SLR can't help you with the 1st; that comes from within.

But the 2nd, the craft, is where the SLR excels as it allows fine-grained multidimensional control of the physical attributes of the captured image.

Executive summary: an SLR lets you fiddle about with the techie stuff to help you make your images tell the stories that were in your head when you put the camera to your eye and looked through the viewfinder.