Topic

Brainstorming the ideal camera for backpacking photography


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Off Piste Photography Brainstorming the ideal camera for backpacking photography

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 26 through 40 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1513337
    Huzefa @ Blue Bolt Gear
    Spectator

    @huzefa

    Locale: Himalayas

    I assumed this was obvious: you use your smartphone to preview, focus and capture pics.

    #1513338
    Ashley Brown
    Member

    @ashleyb

    I don't get it. Why would you want to have a camera strapped to your head, whilst you control it via your phone? Is that what you're suggesting?

    #1513340
    Huzefa @ Blue Bolt Gear
    Spectator

    @huzefa

    Locale: Himalayas

    Yes.

    Advantage is that you wouldnt need a tripod. You just need to stand still. Also such a camera will be lighter and cheaper because you would need optical image stabilisation, gyso sensor, CPU, Image processor, storage, LCD and extra energy to power these. And it shouldnt be difficult to make it waterproof and withstand very cold temperature.

    #1513347
    Huzefa @ Blue Bolt Gear
    Spectator

    @huzefa

    Locale: Himalayas

    Ashley, dont imagine a DSLR strap to your head. Instead imagine 1/2inch thick unit consisting of liquid lens, (ultrasonic?) motor, foveon sensor, circuit board, bluetooth chip, and battery.

    #1513348
    Ashley Brown
    Member

    @ashleyb

    I wasn't imaging a dSLR, but very few people are going to want to don a "headlamp" every time they take a picture.

    #1513349
    Huzefa @ Blue Bolt Gear
    Spectator

    @huzefa

    Locale: Himalayas

    Aesthetic issue can be solved. The headband and the unit can be of a single color. And headband could be multiused as sweatband. I imagine the whole thing will be small/light enough to wear comfortably whole day.

    Question is whether people will recognize/embrace the innovation.

    #1513350
    Ashley Brown
    Member

    @ashleyb

    No offence intended but I think the concept is rather pointless! =-) Wear a headband all day, and have to muck around with two devices instead of one, then have to take pictures with my 'head'. No thanks…

    #1513352
    Franco Darioli
    Spectator

    @franco

    Locale: Gauche, CU.

    I assumed this was obvious: you use your smartphone to preview, focus and capture pics.

    And I assumed that it would be obvious that if people have enough problems keeping a camera still and composing holding it with two hands, stcking said camera on one's head will not improve the situation.
    Helmet cameras have been around for a long time (IE lipstick camera stuck on an helmet or just strapped on with an headband) however they have only been used for amateur action shots or some stunt shots, not "conventional " photography.
    Digital stabilisation is getting more and more efficient but the downside is that you lose part of the frame and some linear distortion is introduced as well as a general softening of the image, due to processing and re-compression
    That is for stills, video is a bit better but expensive and needs post processing to be done.
    See http://createdigitalmotion.com/2009/06/30/magical-3d-warping-techniques-steadies-your-videos/
    Again OK for some situations but not even close to the results keen amateurs expect (with a still camera).
    BTW there is a very good reason why photographers like to shoot at waist level when possible and certainly not at head level or above if they are not paparazzi, but this has to do with real photography, nothing to do with what you are "presenting" here…
    Franco

    #1513353
    Huzefa @ Blue Bolt Gear
    Spectator

    @huzefa

    Locale: Himalayas

    No offense taken, but you guys havent really given good reasons why this concept wouldnt work. This is just a intellectual exercise so pls forgive my questions. :)

    Ashley>Wear a headband all day, and have to muck around with two devices instead of one, then have to take pictures with my 'head'. No thanks…

    How challenging is it to use your smartphone camera? The only difference here is that images is captured by the headcamera which requires no fiddle and weights sub 5oz(just assume). People wear heavier/bulkier headlamps all night!

    Franco>

    Helmet cameras have been used while in motion. And I dont believe high quality sensor/lens have been used in them. When you take picture with a tripod the camera is still which is not how helmet camera have been used. If you have a camera strapped to your head and you are standing still I think you can get picture as good as one with a tripod.

    Same with a video. Professional video are taken from a tripod. If you stand in one place and take video by only moving your head, headcamera will take similar quality video.

    Your body acts as tripod!

    >BTW there is a very good reason why photographers like to shoot at waist level when possible and certainly not at head level or above if they are not paparazzi, but this has to do with real photography, nothing to do with what you are "presenting" here…

    You can take use the camera sitting or standing on your knees.

    #1513354
    Ashley Brown
    Member

    @ashleyb

    Well full marks for enthusiasm. Not convinced by the idea though.

    Sadly, attaching a camera to your head does not make it "stabilised". When I hold a dSLR up to my eye, I press it against my face and lock my elbows in to my body. This certainly makes it considerably steadier than holding it at full arm stretch. But like a tripod… no way! Although it seems like our head is still and unmoving when we want it to be, that isn't actually the case. It moves around very slightly, and our body does the same thing (keeps adjusting its position slightly to maintain balance). I know it seems like we are "stationary" but we are only approximately so. When you are recording images even very slight movements are enough to cause image blurring. It is simply not possible for a person to stay still in that way.

    So the stabilisation benefits would not be that great I'm afraid. Far better and more useful to have in-body or in-lens stabilisation.

    And once again, although you may be willing to wear a head band all day to save an ounce, I suspect very few other people would.

    There are so many reasons why this would be a silly idea to build IMHO. It's pretty obvious isn't it?
    * very little weight saving (if any, since you now have two objects instead of one),
    * no proper image stabilisation,
    * have to wear it on your head all day (awkward and silly looking… I would never do it!),
    * bizarre picture taking method,
    * more complexity, as you now need to rely on proper communication between the camera and the phone

    Seriously I could go on, but I really do find it a very odd suggestion for a camera design!!

    #1513361
    Franco Darioli
    Spectator

    @franco

    Locale: Gauche, CU.

    Huzefa
    You already established that you are talking about real photos not happy snappy shots, IE you keep mentioning "high quality" .
    Contrary to your perception, no taking shots with your head is not a good idea. Not the right spot and definitely not steadier than your hands in a braced position.
    You can take use the camera sitting or standing on your knees.
    I used to train the sale force for the shop I worked for (about 40 guys, plus training modules for the rest of the chain). I did have "some credibility" however if I proposed to them that as a suggestion for their customers I would have been (and rightly so…) pelted with tinned tomatoes (more effective than the fresh ones)
    Keen amateurs hate LCD/TFT/OLED/AMOLED screens because they are still not sharp enough nor bright enough in full sunlight. Of course your "phone" could have your "high quality screen" but guess who makes those screens ? The same people that make camera screens make them for phones, PMP, iPods and the rest…., so if there was a "higher quality" screen we would have that already.
    Apart from perspective , to look at a "phone screen" to compose a shot that is taken from your forehead is totally unpractical and frankly "less than clever" if you don't mind saying so.
    Franco

    #1513364
    Huzefa @ Blue Bolt Gear
    Spectator

    @huzefa

    Locale: Himalayas

    * very little weight saving
    Oly Ep1/zoom lens/battery 530g. Smartphone + Zoom lens/foveon sensor for half the weight doesnt seem impossible.

    * no proper image stabilization
    OK lets have sensor shift image stabilization. You made good arguments for it. I think it would complement the concept very well and only make it better.

    * have to wear it on your head all day (awkward and silly looking… I would never do it!),
    * bizarre picture taking method,

    I am not saying this is for everyone. But you should keep in mind what people on this forum do to save weight.

    * more complexity, as you now need to rely on proper communication between the camera and the phone

    bluetooth is pretty simple and very reliable to use.

    You have any other reasons?

    #1513455
    Franco Darioli
    Spectator

    @franco

    Locale: Gauche, CU.

    Huzefa
    A few reasons why that is a pie in the sky idea.
    1) Your camera with "high quality" lens still needs a power supply and a circuit board to operate the lens itself, the shutter and send /receive transmission. That and the head band makes it bulkier and not much lighter than a good compact camera.
    The lens/shutter block and the power board/battery are over half of the internal size of a standard compact camera.
    2) Again taking pictures with your head will lead to , at best, snapshots, not to correctly composed photographs. In turn that eliminates keen amateurs and confines the product to the niche category.
    3) There is no high quality lens outside the existing offerings from the various camera manufacturers.
    To have a lens large enough to fill a Foveon type sensor, it needs to be much larger and complex than you think. See Sigma DP1 , Olympus EP1.
    The major reason why the Sigma does not sell in any number is that it has a fixed lens. Most amateurs prefer a zoom and possibly over 4x, lens.
    Those liquid lenses just don't cut it when it comes to light transmission/sharpness/contrast/distortion control compared to the glass/acrylic combos used by camera manufacturers.
    The best lenses still use high density glass. That means heavy. Acrylic elements are used because they are light and easy to shape however they are a compromise.
    4) You cannot mix and match parts at will. Two reasons. The first is that they don't necessarily work with each other. For example a Foveon sensor does not have image stabilisation. You cannot just "add" that to it, it has to be totally re-designed. Besides sensor shift is a Konica-Minolta patent, so you need to pay royalties on that too.
    The second is that every bit of technology used at this level is patented, the more patents you have to pay for the more expensive the product is going to be.Often enough agreements (sole rights) restrict certain technologies to one or a few end users, so simply because something exists does not mean that it can be used by everyone.

    On one post you commented that to keep costs down you could write the software required for it.
    In the real world not even the larger manufacturers write their own "firmware", it is commissioned to firms that specialise in that. Not an individual ,but teams of people.
    Nikon recently created a new company to handle that, a joint venture between Fujitsu Broad Solutions and Nikon System , one of the Nikon subdivisions. They will employ 100 people with a starting capital of about 1 million dollars.
    Believe me it is a bit more complex than making balloon mats..

    Franco

    #1513518
    Huzefa @ Blue Bolt Gear
    Spectator

    @huzefa

    Locale: Himalayas

    I shouldnt have emphasized so much on the headband idea. What I am proposing is a "bluetooth" camera. Such a camera can be attached behind your smartphone (with industrial velcro?) It can also have view finder like in DP1/EP1. So here you have a "normal" camera comparable to DP1/EP1/G1.

    ___________

    Why that is NOT a pie in the sky idea.

    1)Headband argument is n/a. Since we are considering liquid lens, point is moot. Mobile phones have power board/battery/circuit board/bluetooth chip and you should see how thin they are.

    2)n/a

    3)Before EP1/DMC-G1 there were no high quality micro four thirds lens. They have been made as part micro four third design/production. Similarly, liquid lens have to be made as part of design/production of such a camera.

    >Those liquid lenses just don't cut it when it comes to light transmission/sharpness/contrast/distortion control compared to the glass/acrylic combos used by camera manufacturers.
    The best lenses still use high density glass. That means heavy. Acrylic elements are used because they are light and easy to shape however they are a compromise.

    Have you used a liquid lens camera? I doubt it. Your point is moot. Unless we make and test such a lens we will never know.

    4) Sensor shifting is used in some cameras by Sony, Oly, Panasonic, Fujifilm, Pentax, Samsung, Casio Exilim and Ricoh Caplio.

    I find it difficult to believe that no another manufacturer can use this tech. Designing this would be expensive and difficult but NOT impossible.

    No sensor has built in image stabilization. Foveon is used in sigma cams and if no sigma cams have image stabilization that doesnt mean image stabilization can not be designed with a foveon sensor.

    Ofcoure much simpler and less expensive would be to just license four third sensor and image stabilization from oly/panasonic. Four third sensor is good alternative to foveon.

    I was just saying about writing firmware myself. It is probably out my league and so is designing and manufacturing such a camera. This was intended just as an exercise of what an ideal backpacking camera would be.
    __________

    The main point is that such a camera should be much lighter and less expensive then a comparable quality conventional camera while providing same functionality.

    Plus it can be used hands-free for river rafting, skiing, paragliding, biking, under water photography without the need of expensive and heavy housing.

    #1513623
    Franco Darioli
    Spectator

    @franco

    Locale: Gauche, CU.

    Huzefa
    Lets go back to basics
    Ergonomics,aesthetics,functionality
    A camera can be a tool (Nikon D3X) a gitzmo (Canon Ixus) or a niche product (Canon D10)
    A tool is based around functionality and ergonomics. It needs to be strong, big and heavy to balance those pro lenses and stand up to abuse.
    A gitzmo is all about aesthetics and wow "features", IE lots of pixels, big zoom, 156 scene modes , but most of all it needs to look pretty.
    A niche product has to fulfill the specific requirements of that niche.
    A weatherproof camera is a niche product. That D10 for example will be hard pressed to make 1 percentage point for them.
    But you are still looking at tens of thousands of units…
    Note that the DC10 does share most of its components with other models, so the new bit is the case itself.
    What you are proposing is getting bits and pieces from all sorts of suppliers and get them to work toghether.
    That requires a lot of planning and a huge amount of research and development .
    Camera manufacturers book production lines well in advance , typically one to two years. So the components you receive today were ordered one to two years ago…
    I give you an example of a failed product.
    The Kodak EasyShare One.
    I was the buyer for Kodak DSC for the shop. Before the launch , Kodak presented the camera to me to get my view of it . They were very excited about the first "WI FI " camera and spent tonnes of money on it.
    Straight away I told them that it would fail. Why ?
    Wi FI had no real benefit for the average consumer , you can just as easily take the card out and shove it into the computer or printer without having to fiddle with the WiFi settings. As for uploading pics to the net, it did not work well or at all.(compatibility issues)
    The main problem though it was the form factor , too big and heavy and like the rest of the Kodak cameras , ugly.
    It failed and so did Kodak. At the time they were N1 in units in the US, where are they now?
    Now this is Kodak with a huge amount of resources and know how , however forgetting some very basic points.
    Sticking a camera on your forehead or with a bit of Velcro on a mobile phone will only appeal to you and three other nerds.
    Remember that you still need a battery for your "camera" Why would I want to use two batteries on the trail (phone and camera) simultaneously ?
    Ergonomics. Sticking one "camera" on top of a phone is not going to feel right. If you separate that it has to be large enough to hold comfortably. The Ixus series is about the smallest practical form factor. If I need "your camera" to be of that form factor , then I already have the Ixus, if I want higher quality, well it cannot be much smaller than the Olympus EP1.
    Franco
    Here is a comment about Nokia today (14/07/09) at DPReview :
    The company’s size as, the world’s largest handset maker, does give it the luxury of being able to shop around for sensors: ‘we’re not tied to one company, our size means we can work with many different vendors and work with multiple suppliers,'

    Think of the converse of that statement…

Viewing 15 posts - 26 through 40 (of 40 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...