Camera feature bloat - or how did I ever live without this...

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p><br />The nine megapixel Samsung ST10 is set apart by being the world's first digital camera to feature face recognition, which is claimed to actually recognise the people you're taking photos of and then prioritises friends, family and those you photograph most.</p>

</blockquote>

<P> It also has an MP3 player built in. Geez. I thought the new EOS 5D MkII had everything, then Samsung have to go and spoil the party...</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>I have been trying to form a question for a couple of days about something similar. We spend all our money buying equipment that most of use don't even use half the features. There are really only four features on a camera that I really need. Aperture, shutter speed, focus ring and ISO setting. So when I buy these expensive toys I am not using most of the other feathers like AE lock, AF lock, video mode, vivid color, image merge, auto focus adjustment, etc. etc.<br>

I wish some manufacturer will recognize this and make us a camera that is simply basic, strip of features but super rugged and light weight so we can take it anywhere to create extraordinary images.</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>It is cheaper to manufacture ONE model with every feature built in than many different models without this that and the other thing.<br />Big ticket items such as automobiles are a different story.<br>

just try buying a digital camera that is fully manual ;)-</p>

 

[milan.ilnyckyj]

<p>What do they mean when they say it "prioritises friends, family and those you photograph most?"</p>

<p>If you are taking a group shot, will it set the focus on whichever face you have photographed most frequently?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I'm not a purist, and I like (as well as use) gadget features. In fact, give me a feature and I'll try to find a way of using it to MY benefit.</p>

<p>My humble Ford Taurus contains no less than 60 buttons and switches. I may never use the Traction Control Disable switch, but I wouldn't want to drive a car without traction control either.</p>

<p>I'm waiting for Nikon to incorporate HUD (Heads-up display) equivelent in the form of wearable goggles in their 2015 models to finally replace the silly viewfinder. Now that'd be fun.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Most of the features are software. In fact even ISO and shutter speed are software. Focus and aperture are really the only harware intensive functions, so a camera is just a lens, aperture and focus motor connected to a computer.</p>

<p>Once you've developed it, software costs nothing to add, so there no reason not to load a camera with every software feature you can think of. In terms of hardware the difference between a camera (which no can normally play and record audio in video modes) and an MP3 player is a headphone jack. So adding an MP3 player costs nothing. If it had an ethernet connector on it, you could use it to browse the web. There's no reason you couldn't build a basic image editor into the camera if you wanted to, in fact some cameras do have (very) basic image editing built in.</p>

<p>Cameras really aren't cameras anymore. They're small portable computers which happen to have a lens and digital sensor attached.</p>

<p>As for a simple camera, I doubt it would sell. Even if it would, you could probably produce the same camera with a billion bells and whistles on it for 10% higher cost and it would sell much better.</p>

[phule]

<p>Anything that gives consumers (those that are not photographers) better photos is, in my book, a win. </p>

<p> </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Cameras should have talking modes when shooting in the Green Idiot mode.</p>

<p>"You're chopping off sister Kate's feet" "You're cutting Uncle Bob's head in two with the background or the tree sticking out of her head"- "You're in Sports Mode with a 16mm lens and AF detects Lance Armstrong is greater than 15 ft. away"</p>

<p>"You're using the Kit Lens... good luck getting any decent shots of your kids!"</p>

 

[MichaelChang]

<p>Ken, that would complicate a camera substantially not to mention the challenge of delivering audio in difficult situations such as bars or underwater.</p>

<p>It would be much easier to to simply deliver a mild electric shock until an image is correct according to its designers. Every offending error can then be logged for later review.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>As to selling more cameras by removing features, Panasonic now has what has been described as a DSLR without an SLR, in fact an interchangeable lens camera which uses an electronic display for viewing. That is a major feature extraction. If such a camera appeared in a mount compatible with my lenses, I would buy one.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>How about making it a less-than-mild-electric shock? It would cut down on the crappy visual spam all over the web. Three shocks and the camera self destructs.</p>

[squareframe]

<p>it isn't all that unreasonable, I guess, to anticipate a serious 'RETRO-VINTAGE' camera movement, for outdated camera equipment with LCD's, less than 25 Mpixel sensors, pre-GPS and without voice synthesis. </p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>Once you've developed it, software costs nothing to add, so there no reason not to load a camera with every software feature you can think of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This isn't strictly true; when you add software, you usually need more memory and processing power to support all those feature. And the more features you add, the more complex the software becomes and the more expensive it is to develop. So there's no free lunch. From a business perspective, it's a relatively straightforward to differentiate in the market based on more intelligent functions, which do require software. Faster AF? You can add hardware, but you will need more software. Intelligent exposure? Add software. Better WB? Add software.<br>

As for the face recognition feature, I think it's more of an logical evolution of autofocus in general. Camera makers have been adding focus points and more intelligence to AF for a long time (and you Canon users didn't stick to your FDs did you? ;-)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Facial recognition! Straight from the black helicopters to your camera bag :-) Now if they just had a FLIR-Cam.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Society wants toys. They want their cameras, phones, PDAs to be toys. They want them to play music, games, and email too. It's about features, not utility! These devices do everything so-so, but not any one thing particularly well. These devises are electronic pacifiers that adults "suck" on; the dumbing down of America.<br>

The more descerning use tools that are more specific, big on quality, small on features.<br>

Most people want to be entertained; their tools to be entertaining.</p>

[bernardwest]

<blockquote>Cameras should have talking modes when shooting in the Green Idiot mode.

 

"You're chopping off sister Kate's feet" "You're cutting Uncle Bob's head in two with the background or the tree sticking out of her head"- "You're in Sports Mode with a 16mm lens and AF detects Lance Armstrong is greater than 15 ft. away"

 

"You're using the Kit Lens... good luck getting any decent shots of your kids!"</blockquote><p>

 

Ken, don't forget - "You are using flash in a stadium to light up Ussain Bolt even though he is 150 metres away, and you look like a total idiot"...

[KenPapai]

<p>Eve to this day I chuckle at the Auto Flash in the stadiums trying to catch that Bolt of lightening.</p>

<p>What WOULD life be without common people to make fun of and laugh at?! ;-) It does get some of us thru our days.</p>

<p>However, why do these toy P&S cams flash -- don't they know focus is at infinity and their flash is good for what -- lighting up a 40 sqr. ft. room? I'll bet even a pop-up flash on a d-Reb would ignite in Green mode at night with AF beyond 20 ft. What kind os crappy software design is THAT?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>We spend all our money buying equipment that most of use don't even use half the features. There are really only four features on a camera that I really need. Aperture, shutter speed, focus ring and ISO setting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shutter button?</p>

<p>That aside, you mention things like "video mode" and "vivid color", I take it you shoot digital...</p>

<ul>

<li>You don't need a white balance control, because you always shoot in sunlight, or because you like orange or green people when you come indoors?</li>

<li>You don't need mirror lockup, or you just don't know what it's for?</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish some manufacturer will recognize this and make us a camera that is simply basic, strip of features but super rugged and light weight so we can take it anywhere to create extraordinary images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there's one little detail...</p>

<p>You're talking about a camera without a lot of "mass market" appeal. As a low volume item, a "specialty camera", it will cost a lot more than a higher volume camera. Are you actually going to buy this camera you "wish some manufacturer" will make, if it costs as much as a Leica M8? If so, why aren't you out shooting an M8, right now?</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Features? I'm still trying to get a camera with a working meter. ;)</p>

[bobatkins]

 

<blockquote>

<p>EXILIM models EX- Z400, EX-Z270, and EX-S12 <br />Taking advantage of the high-speed image processing abilities of Casio’s state-of-the-art EXILIM Engine 4.0, which is built into these models, the new Dynamic Photo function allows the photographer to cut out the main subject of interest in an image that has just been captured and then combine it with another image to form the background. Users can also cut and paste several rapid-succession images to create a moving subject on a still background. This function makes it easy for users to create composite scenes from an image juxtaposition that exists only in virtual reality, or they can create a composite image that conveys a certain message. Casio technologies like these are creating whole new avenues of enjoyment that go far beyond mere picture-taking, delivering greater creative and viewing pleasure.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That what I need. New avenues of enjoyment and greater viewing pleasure...</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

<p>There is a feature I have been waiting a long time for. A camera booklet with nice size print that explains the camera and its basic software features. In English would be nice but I will learn Esperanto if you insist. Saving money by Eng/Fr/ Spanish is gobbledeygook with asterisks in threes and fours...<br>

Yeah, With diagrams that are easy to follow.</p>

<p>I have at least three manuals to hope to understand a little bit. Just teach me the basics, but teach them in a clear fashion. I need to know exposure compensation. I need to know ISO. I need to know how to get out of menu hell. Some companies just hype them and never really explain why and when to use them. So, to Olympus especially, I say Mercy...or a Hove book. Sorry if I digressed over the edge.<br>

Next up:I can set a camera to ignore or opaque faces of people who are not on my social invitation list:-)</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Hey, my phone has a camera; I'm waiting for the 5D3 to have a phone option...and games...games would be good...and how about a shoot direct to Facebook upload via the built-in 3G transceiver? <br /> <br /> Consumers seem to eat this stuff up, who can blame the mfrs for turning cameras into a parody of photography?<br /></p>

[User_4136860]

<p>Cameras these days are designed by advertizing copywriters, the most important feature of a camera is that it sells.</p>

[kari v]

Facial recognition and learning... it could be good for shooting [your favorite band]. Just snap 50 pics of a poster that features your favorite person and then at the gig camera could just home in.<br />

Positive thinking day. :)<br />

[kari v]

<p>A middle aged in his underwear man was rescued hanging from a balcony today, reports Gadgetzan Daily. Apparently his wife had uploaded photos from a new digital camera with facial (pun intended) recognition memory and found 728 references to their neighbor Nadja Livingstone.</p>