Intel "RealSense" - Big Trouble for DSLRs

<p>Just saw a demonstration on local news this morning about a new technology that is currently being added to tablets that may cause even more competition for DSLR's and maybe even small screen smart phones.<br>

The Dell tablet has 3 sensors and allows the user to select focus and types and amounts of post processing on the tablet's screen after taking each image, almost instantly. The image can be post processed and distributed without ever seeing a computer. I know that parts of these technologies are available in different forms on other devises but this is the first time I've ever seen all this integrated in one device. My words don't even come close to describing the capabilities of this tablet especially regarding the selection of focus point after the image has been taken. Of course, any of these technologies could be incorporated on a future DSLR but the manufactures seem reluctant to adopt any of these "Silicone Valley" type technologies so far.</p>

SLR fans will scoff. But, yup, Lytro type

technology is perfect for mobile devices. It

might even make sense for teensy sensor P&S

digicams, which are rapidly running out of

reasons to exist other than for a few

applications.

<p>Yes, I want to carry around a delicate tablet device that contains all my personal data at the risk of theft or damage only to primarily use it for creating fine art photography or high end looking images, however you want to describe or label the endeavors and motivations behind wanting to take pictures other than snapshots which require little thought and preparation.</p>

<p>But then I do keep seeing smartphone shooters spending way too much time adjusting, re-shooting and chimping to get the perfect selfy, event or group portrait so I'm having to assume they're not getting what they expect out of their wiz-bang device.</p>

<p>It seems like overkill technology for those just wanting to take quick snaps. Of course it would be a desired feature for DSLR's if I could actually see the results to determine whether it's going to make better photographers out of snap shooters.</p>

<p>I mean I don't feel comfortable making pictures pointing a flat rectangular shaped tablet in the general direction of what I'm wanting to capture.</p>

<p>Tim, if the tablet also has a WiFi or cell connection, I assume that the photos would be automatically uploaded to the cloud and would take a password to access them just like my iPhone. Several years ago I was photographing Half Dome in Yosemite from Glacier Point. About half the 300+ tourists at the Point were using their tablets to photograph Half Dome. Today, most of the tourists would be using smart phones because of their improved image quality. However, these smart phones are getting as large as small tablets so I can see them also using this technology in the near future. It's Intel technology so I suspect they would license it to anybody willing to pay. </p>

<p>I'm sure this technology will be appealing to the subset of photographers who either don't know how to use their DSLRs properly, or know how to use them but don't come anywhere near pushing them to their limits. And, who knows, it might even be occasionally useful to those of us who do know how to use them and regularly push their DSLR to its capabilities. I dunno though--my iPhone 5 is definitely capable of taking great photos, but it's such a PITA to do it and it can be done in such a relatively limited subset of photographic situations that I usually can't be bothered even with that device I constantly have at hand.</p>

<p>So, yeah, could it kill off low-end DSLRs or at least put a hurting on the market for them? Conceivably, certainly.</p>

<p>But until it gives superb high-ISO performance, until you can select the focus point you want instantly and accurately so you don't have to faff around with it in post (and sacrifice loads of resolution for the sake of being able to change your focus point then), until you can attach everything from a fisheye to a 500mm to it and it has a proper viewfinder so you can frame quickly and precisely instead of having to tilt the damned thing every which way to get the framing just right, then I personally--and I believe a lot of other people who actually stress their cameras regularly--would be much happier with a DSLR. (I've got a Fuji X100s and a Leica film M--they're both nice in many ways, but there are several things I shoot regularly they don't do <em>nearly</em> as well as a DSLR does them.)</p>

<p>It'll be interesting to see how things play out--in the end though, however fancy the technology gets, it's still going to come down to the vision and skill of the person using it.</p>

<p>I would probably be using a Lytro right now, were it not for the soft images. I hope that this is not inherent in the system. If it is, light-field sensors won't replace conventional sensors, no matter what kind of camera they're in.</p>

<p>While we're on this subject is there any camera technology whether new or current that allows anyone to be able to pick up their camera, turn on flash, set it to Auto mode and take a quick shot at night (maybe under 100 watt porch light or street light) of say a dog off its leash about to attack you or someone and have it come out sharp and well exposed?</p>

<p>My current 2006 DSLR can only produce blurry results either over or under exposed. I guess if I left the ISO set to Auto that may help but I feel my camera just doesn't meter fast enough.</p>

<p>Has anyone tested whether their cameras can do this without a hitch?</p>

<p>If you need to take quick snaps, with or without flash, at a predictable range the best solution may be a good teensy sensor P&S digicam. The advantage in hyperfocal setting makes accurate focus less critical for acceptably sharp snapshots - literally, snapping shots very quickly.</p>

<p>The advantage to the 1/1.7" and smaller sensor cameras is the hyperfocal setting of around 4' at f/2.8-f/4 with a 28mm equivalent focal length (actual focal length is usually around 5mm with these cameras). With an APS sensor camera you'd need to stop down to f/8-f/11 with an 18mm lens (approx. 28mm equivalent) for the same hyperfocal setting. For the same scenario, the teensy sensor camera can operate at a lower ISO; or, with auto-ISO, use less battery power with flash and recycle quickly enough for a followup shot.</p>

<p>A well designed compact P&S digicam can also be operated with one hand. Very handy if you're riding a bicycle, walking with a cane or hiking stick, or need a free hand for any reason.</p>

<p>I usually carry in my pocket or on a small belt bag a Ricoh GX100. Excellent ergonomics, especially for one-handed operation. It's noisy even at ISO 100-200 compared with more recent models but adequate for my snapshot needs. What I really like about the Ricoh G-series digicams is the customizable functionality. For example, for snapshots I can choose a preset that ensures the camera is at the desired focal length, aperture and manual focus or snap focus setting to ensure adequate DOF at typical snapshot distance. The default "snap mode" of 2.5 meters is a bit too long for this format. It's a carryover from the original 35mm film Ricoh G-series. I prefer a pre-focus distance of 1m to 1.5m, and use the manual focus preset for that. With the aperture at f/4, auto ISO and auto flash it's ready to go. If I want a bit quicker operation with flash I'll set the flash to manual and dial down the output a bit via exposure compensation (easier on the later Ricoh GRD4, with offers much more control over flash output).</p>

<p>I'm also considering an all weather, water resistant P&S. The Olympus iHS TG-series "tough" cameras may be a good buy - there's no fragile telescoping lens, and the startup time seems pretty quick. No popup flash to fiddle with. I helped a friend choose one a couple of years ago (the TG-620, I think) and it's really easy to operate. Full auto mode JPEGs look great. No raw files, but that's not important to most folks who want a good snapshot camera for casual photos. However I don't know whether the Olympus iHS TG-series offer either a snap focus mode or manual focus preset. That's helpful to getting ideal results with snapshooting.</p>

<p>I'm also partial to the Nikon 1 System but, again, I don't know whether the Nikon AW1 offers a snap focus or preset manual focus that's persistent after the camera is turned off and on again. My Nikon V1 lacks this, so the manual focus setting is less useful to me. And it's a rather expensive system. But the CX or one-inch sensor size offers a good compromise between the advantages of a teensy sensor (DOF, hyperfocal setting) and larger sensor (better IQ, especially at higher ISOs, compared with most P&S digicams and phone cams). A discontinued Nikon J1 and 10mm f/2.8 pancake lens (27mm equivalent) would make a good P&S snapshot camera. The autofocus is very quick, and the fast frame rate helps with action. Overall the Nikon 1 System is very quick, so it's outstanding for snapshots. I've had good luck with it taking snaps of friends' fast moving dogs.</p>

<p>However my V1 has no built in flash, the proprietary Nikon flash units are expensive and under-featured; and the J1 has an awkward pop-up flash on a fragile stalk, along with sync limited to 1/60th sec at fastest. Most teensy sensor P&S digicams offer built in flash that syncs at faster shutter speeds, making them more useful in daylight for fill flash.</p>

<p>I wouldn't mind tablet PCs melting into photography, but why not the conventional way? My 13x18cm's ground glas is roughly as big as a 10" tablet and seems nice (to have) for previewing an image. If I had a 10" Retina screen to work on, the entire idea of manually focusing on a MILC suddenly becomes more appealing. And an intelligent focus peaking anywhere functionality might finally make the awesome tilt shift lenses real fun?<br>

On Tim's statement: IDK what to store on a tablet or if I really want any wireless internet contract at all; they seem pretty useless for folks like me. - Average pattern around here: less than 1 CD of quick traffic per month, the rest throttled to dialup speed.<br>

Considering tablets' lack of memory I guess data on mine would give an insight into my personality but thats it. - I imagine some 4 to 6 hours of ripped mellow online radio and maybe half a dozen e-books for entertainment purposes combined with apps for photographers.</p>

<p>Wow! Lex! Thanks for taking the time to pen such a concise and informative reponse on the use of P&S for quick night snaps. I read the whole thing.</p>

<p>However, I was hoping for actual real world anecdotes or tests conducted that timed how long it took to get an actual quick night shot under low level street lights with flash using any camera with final image quality good enough to make an identification of a culprit who attacks and leaves or of any similar situation (like capturing a ghost or UFO :). My question mainly attempts to get an idea of metering speed reaction time for both focus and exposure.</p>

<p>In fact right after I posted my previous response sitting at my computer surrounded by very low evening light in my room, I grabbed my 2006 Pentax K100D DSLR, set it to Program, upped ISO to 800, popped the flash, attempted to set focus using OK button (my preset) and was stopped by the pre-flash because there wasn't enough light to set focus. It just hunted because the pre-flash wasn't staying on long enough requiring a second focus metering attempt waiting for the next pre-flash. I'ld assume this is a common issue with all cameras including P&S's due to the physics of low light, requiring pre-flash to illuminate the scene enough to set focus and the sensitivity required.</p>

<p>So to ask another way have there been big strides in current metering technology sensitivity for shooting quickly at night? My first digital camera was a Fuji F10 P&S back in 2005 and I couldn't get a decent quick night shot using flash if my life depended on it. Have presetting the P&S actually allowed quick night snaps in focus and how fast did it take?</p>

<p>But thanks for the rundown on the technical details on the differences of P&S's vs DSLR's, Lex.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Considering tablets' lack of memory I guess data on mine would give an insight into my personality but thats it. - I imagine some 4 to 6 hours of ripped mellow online radio and maybe half a dozen e-books for entertainment purposes combined with apps for photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hadn't considered the memory angle on tablets, Jochen. Good point. Makes me wonder how tablet battery life fares against DSLR's and whether newer wiz-bang technology takes a toll.</p>

<p>Price wise tablets are about the same as base DSLR's ($500-$800?) but at least a DSLR comes with a strap to secure around the neck making it difficult for a quick grab from thieves. And if tablets come with neck straps I wouldn't want to hang it from my neck in order to get that quick snap.</p>

<p>Hi, Tim. I'm afraid that for what you're saying you want to do with it, you're facing the fact that DSLRs still do that sort of thing way better than any other kind of camera.</p>

<p>For example, just last night I was shooting a protest in South London where some demonstrators had taken over and squatted a housing estate that is being sold off and demolished in order to provide new yuppie boxes. The bailiffs and police came in after dark to evict them, and of course there was quite a bit of aggro between the parties.</p>

<p>I used my Nikon D700. I set it to 1600 ISO beforehand so I could capture some of the ambient light and allow my flash to use a little less power each time, speeding up the recycle. I set my aperture to F5 to help gather a bit of ambient light while getting a little depth of field, and my shutter speed to 1/30 of a second (both to let in more ambient light and to get a bit of blur during action shots--I also set it for rear-curtain sync, something I'm sure most digicams won't allow you to do). I set the autofocus to single-shot servo so the camera wouldn't fire unless it was in focus. And in order to speed things up, I used Auto mode on the flash (an SB-800) instead of TTL, as I hate all the (power-draining) pre-flashes. All of that took just seconds to do before things kicked off--it could all be done with control dials and buttons, no need to delve into menus--and once done, nothing needed to be changed during the heat of battle.</p>

<p>The D700's autofocus system is good enough that, particularly with a fast (50/1.8) lens, I could lock focus even in the ambient light much faster than any P&S could have hoped for--and at times I turned the flash off and did exactly that. (On occasion I switched to my manual focus 28/2.0, and used zone focusing as Lex mentioned above--no need to focus at all.) I actually gave my camera a bit of help, though--my SB-800 flash emits a red focusing aid grid that allows the camera to lock focus almost instantly on whatever it is aimed at. I was able to focus and shoot practically as fast as I could compose. Really fast, in other words. And sometimes I didn't even need to compose--I just held the camera up above the scrum, let the focusing aid on the flash and the camera's AF system nail it for me, and I fired away as the two sides pushed and shoved on each other.</p>

<p>There's no way I could have successfully shot that sort of fast-moving thing in such low light without a DSLR. A couple months back I bought a Fuji X100s, as I thought it might be my low-light documentary camera. It is horrible for that: the autofocus is slow and iffy in low light, in dark conditions the EVF frame rate slows down so drastically that I found what I was seeing there was happening several fractions of a second behind what was occurring in front of me (I eventually learned I had to keep both eyes open--my right to frame the scene in the EVF and my left to actually determine when to fire the shutter), and the optical viewfinder has a projected white frame line that is so bright it effectively blinds you so that you have no idea what is going on in front of the camera. And using flash with the X100s, at least if you want to *make* it do something particular, is really difficult to do--it involves finding and overriding a lot of things in the menus and there are still some things the X100s forces you to do that are really a pain in the butt. My DSLR kills it for usability and versatility in low light situations, good a camera as the X100s is in less demanding ones. </p>

<p>As I pointed out above, phone/tablet cameras (and compact digicams) are indeed capable of making great photos--if you throw them softball conditions to shoot in. Once you step outside of that ideal environment, things get a lot more difficult for them. DSLRs may be big, nasty, noisy brutes--but there are some situations that you need the power and features they have built-in in order to get the shot. If you're not shooting in those kinds of situations then, sure, you can indeed get by with something that makes indisputably good images--but simply doesn't have the capabilities to do it effectively when the going gets tough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I used my Nikon D700. I set it to 1600 ISO beforehand so I could capture some of the ambient light and allow my flash to use a little less power each time, speeding up the recycle. I set my aperture to F5 to help gather a bit of ambient light while getting a little depth of field, and my shutter speed to 1/30 of a second (both to let in more ambient light and to get a bit of blur during action shots--I also set it for rear-curtain sync, something I'm sure most digicams won't allow you to do). I set the autofocus to single-shot servo so the camera wouldn't fire unless it was in focus. And in order to speed things up, I used Auto mode on the flash (an SB-800) instead of TTL, as I hate all the (power-draining) pre-flashes. <strong>All of that took just seconds</strong> to do before things kicked off--it could all be done with control dials and buttons, no need to delve into menus--and once done, nothing needed to be changed during the heat of battle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please don't take this the wrong way, Bernard, but it took me a lot longer than a few seconds just to read, comprehend and remember the above.</p>

<p>But I thank you for providing the most helpful real world demonstration on how to accomplish what I asked. Skill always wins out over wiz-bang technology that doesn't really help photographers. I'ld forgotten about curtain sync as a way to allow the flash to act as shutter or is that "dragging the shutter" I'm confusing it with. So many exposure strategies, so little time.</p>

<p>Now all that needs to be done is send Bernard's quoted rundown to the camera manufacturers and tell them THAT'S their new wiz-bang technology that's actually NEEDED and have THAT be their new "Night" shooting preset because there's no way I'm going to remember all of Bernard's instructions in the heat of the moment and especially at night fumbling around trying to find the settings with menus and buttons.</p>

<p>Or name it "Bernard's Protest Night Shooting" but I don't think it'll fit elegantly on the rotary dial.</p>

<p>Tim, the best night-capable dSLR and TTL flash system I've personally used is Nikon. I gripe about Nikon as much as any other dysfunctional love/hate family member, but Nikon's better dSLRs can autofocus in near dark, and the full auto TTL flash, including balanced fill flash even at night, is very impressive.</p>

<p>However, any camera and flash with full manual override can do a creditable job with photojournalist/street snap type nighttime photography. There are some compromises but it'll do in a pinch. Has done for many decades.</p>

<ol>

<li>Guesstimate the anticipated working distance.</li>

<li>Check the DOF/hyperfocal setting charts for your camera's sensor/film format and focal length.</li>

<li>Set the aperture and zone focus.</li>

<li>Set the flash to full manual, with output appropriate for the exposure and distance factors. Full manual flash eliminates any preflash delay (another advantage to Nikon's pro-tier dSLRs and flash - no perceptible preflash delay).</li>

<li>Second best flash setting is non-TTL auto flash. It's often less accurate than TTL, but there's no preflash delay. Non-TTL auto flash depends on a sensor on the flash reading the light reflected from the subject and quenching the flash. Again, I've found Nikon's non-TTL auto flash to be excellent even for nighttime and tricky scenarios.</li>

</ol>

<p>My entire <strong>"<a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1059915">Eartha Kitty</a>"</strong> series was taken using the above technique. My then-new adopted dumpster kitty was such a frenetic wild child it was impossible even for Nikon's AF and TTL flash to keep up at close range. She was hilarious, pouncing and tormenting our adult cats, so I had to snap some photos. I tried both my Nikon D2H and SB-800 flash, and smaller sensor V1 and SB-N5 flash, all in full auto mode. No-go, the equipment simply wasn't quick enough in auto mode for this sort of very close range erratic activity with small critters. I got more misses than hits with that equipment. Most of the hits came from using at least some combination of manual settings - zone focus, lens stopped way down for maximum DOF.</p>

<p>So I switched to mostly the teensy sensor Ricoh GX100 with everything preset, including zone focus set to 1m/3 ft, lens usually at 28-35mm (equivalent) stopped down to f/4-f/5.6. I used either my ancient Nikon SB-10 flash in non-TTL auto flash mode, directly on the Ricoh (the flash was larger and heavier than the camera!); or my Nikon SB-800 flash with SC-29 off-camera cord, either in non-TTL auto flash or in full manual flash. The off-camera SB-800 gave me plenty of flexibility for getting harder shadows and a more dramatic effect. Occasionally I'd use two flashes. Sometimes one flash would be on camera, the other off and triggered remotely. Sometimes I used both flashes off-camera. This combo and technique proved far superior for getting consistent results for this specific scenario.</p>

<p>I won't claim it's ideal for every candid low light situation. People seldom move as quickly as cats wrestling. And even quick motion 6 feet away is much easier to anticipate with autofocus and TTL flash, than the same motion only 12 inches away. It's just another tool in the box, another technique that's useful for some scenarios.</p>

<p>I didn't invent these techniques. Larry Fink used it years ago for his book projects on boxing, models and NYC nightlife. He mostly used a Mamiya 6 square medium format film rangefinder and off-camera flash. Bruce Gilden has used a similar technique extensively for his NYC street photography, and later adapted the approach to paid commercial gigs. The main difference is that Fink usually held the flash low for an old theatrical footlight effect (which I preferred for my cat photos), while Gilden usually holds the flash overhead in one hand (I used this technique a few times as well).</p>

<p>My only twist on this approach was to add a second flash, either directly on the camera, or triggered remotely via a wireless transmitter or simple optical trigger, sometimes with the flash suspended from the ceiling via a plant hanger. I've tried this technique on family and friends for some casual snaps but haven't tried it yet for unposed street photography. I don't really care to practice Gilden's street-ambush technique. It's fine for him in NYC, but it wouldn't work well in most situations in my hometown of Fort Worth. The only times I've used direct flash for unposed street snaps in <a href="/photo/17636316&size=lg">Fort Worth</a> and <a href="/photo/7367181">Austin</a> have been at street festivals where many folks are snapping pix and nobody really notices. Usually I like to chatter with folks while taking photos in public, and it would be interesting to try this dual-flash technique for spontaneous semi-posed street photos. I know of a photographer who lives downtown who takes lots of posed street portraits and he mostly uses an LED video light mounted on his camera. The results are good and folks he photographs seem to enjoy the interaction.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lex, I want someday to have a camera with flash I can carry in my pocket at night where I just select a preset "Night" button, point, trip the shutter and get a reasonable quality image where I can identify facial features, hair color and markings of moving people and animals before they had time to run away. We're talking 5 seconds max from looking, pulling the camera out of my pocket to pointing the camera to tripping the shutter.</p>

<p>From what I've seen fixed security cameras are the next best thing and some don't give very clear pictures to allow good identification.</p>

<p>I'm not getting the level of simplicity I seek from your responses so I'm having to assume this camera doesn't exist.</p>