Comment by ssijak

Comment by ssijak a day ago

I have cannon r5 and previously had sony cameras. I'm bamboozeled how in this day and age software connecting cameras with PCs is so bad, not to mention tethered shooting. And the fact that 5+k camera have slow wifi chips for no reason so you cant tether via wifi just angers me.

Software on the actual camera is yet another question for me, why don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es running custom androids for example with installable apps so you can finish a lot of stuff on the camera itself or make sharing to wherever a breeze.

jpc0 a day ago

No professional wants to deal with wifi, maybe ethernet.

So it's at most a prosumer feature for which the wifi they have is fine.

For professional use we want SDI which can transmit uncompressed video at whatever frame rate the camera supports, and we pay for that... Maybe HDMI but that has it's own headaches...

And the moment you want Android with apps on it you run into all the problems that comes with Android with apps on it...

You are then also responsible for keeping said app up to date. If you think android solves that problem you purely need to look at the custom modding community for how annoying firmware support is, and these cameras won't have generic phone camera chips, they have custom processors which would then require custom firmware.

But my usual argument, if it's so easy go and do it. Many successful projects/companies has started exactly like that, why don't we have X? Go build it.

Reply View 1 reply

ssijak a day ago

Realistically, a better wifi chip would add almost nothing to production cost, but there are a lot of professionals doing product photography that would like fast wifi tethering.
Well, that would prevent them from selling overpriced grips with integrated better wifis which is 999 usd from Cannon...

Reply View | 0 replies

PetitPrince a day ago

> Software on the actual camera is yet another question for me, why don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es running custom androids for example with installable apps so you can finish a lot of stuff on the camera itself or make sharing to wherever a breeze.

A little more than 10 years ago Samsung tried that with their Galaxy NX (a bona fide DSLR running Android). It flopped and most reviewer noted that it a generally sluggish camera; a deal breaker when one of the design constraint of all their other competitor is to be reactive.

We mustn't forget that the main purpose of a camera is to take pictures, not to connect to a network.

Reply View 2 replies

ssijak a day ago

I agree on what the main purpose is and that must be executed well, but it is 2025 and for a 5 000 usd camera we should be able to get both, great working camera with amazing and fast software.

Reply View | 1 reply
- PetitPrince 21 hours ago
  
  At this price point I suspect the camera goes from "nice tool of an artist" to "business expense ofa team". With that I think people with this budget prioritize modularity and reliability over the convenience of having a all-in-one device.
  Like for the Olympics there's mention of using a gizmo (PDT-FP1) whose sole role is to connect to the camera and transmit the picture wirelessly (even though the A9 have some wifi connectivity). And of course this wireless transmitter is quite expensive.
  In cinema they have the same approach, as you don't buy "a camera", but you rent a sensor, a lens, a monitor, a focus pull, a storage disk, etc.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

toofy 8 hours ago

> why don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es running custom androids for example with installable apps…

because then you end up something that is mediocre at a bunch of random stuff rather than great at something specific.

a multitool is rarely as good at hammering as an actual hammer. a multitool is almost never as good at screwing as an actual screwdriver.