Dumb things the camera companies are still doing

StewartR

StewartR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Well he goes on a bit. Actually he goes on a lot.
I didn't get anywhere near the end, or even near the middle, but what I did read makes a lot of sense. 1/4 holes. Agree totally. Long lens supports. Agree totally. Remote receivers hidden at the front of the camera between the grip and lens. Only a bozo could think that's a good idea.
Only trouble is that any company who changes any of that stuff would be flayed alive by the dodderers who think that 40 year old ideas are the best thing ever invented. EGMS will be called at camera clubs up and down the country to send a strong letter to whoever decides to tamper with the status quo.
 
I think we're probably stuck with the 1/4" UNC accessory mounting thread - 3/8" might be better but would make compacts thicker. Besides, ditching it in favour of 6mm (closest metric size) would make every accessory that uses the current standard obsolete on new equipment (and wouldn't solve anything anyway). We need some way to attach things to the base of the camera, whether it's a QR plate or a flash holder so why not keep what we've already got?
While Arca may be better than other QR systems, I (for one) find it quite fiddly (on bad days when I can barely move my fingers) while I can use the Manfrotto RC2 system with thick gloves on if necessary.
Fast WiFi file transfer and iQ charging would be great! I've long thought that the biggest weakness in waterproof cameras (especially) is the need to open doors to plug in power and remove memory cards - being able to drop the camera into a cradle or onto a smart mat for charging and file transfer would be ideal and the system could be properly sealed.
For most of the other things, just one word - Fuji! Other systems might have the same features but I'm not familiar with them.
40 year old (and that's relatively young for many standards!) ideas/standards may be a compromise but so are most things in life - tasty foods are often fattening!
 
Well @Nod, Pete Waterman is selling the very first series III E-type for £150,000.
At the other end of the scale you can still pick up a Zenit B for peanuts.
Both were widely used in their day, and still work now (allegedly).
But other than enthusiasts who would use either of these on a regular basis.
Things change, new ideas come along. It's called progress. Remember the Luddites? They fought against change - and lost. It happens and the inexorable march towards new and better will contuinue forever.
And as for tasty food being fattening? The ever delectable Mrs. Nod would have a fit if she knew what was in our oven, filling the house with delectable aromas. I'm going to die happy!
 
Nod said:
I think we're probably stuck with the 1/4" UNC accessory mounting thread - 3/8" might be better but would make compacts thicker. Besides, ditching it in favour of 6mm (closest metric size) would make every accessory that uses the current standard obsolete on new equipment (and wouldn't solve anything anyway). We need some way to attach things to the base of the camera, whether it's a QR plate or a flash holder so why not keep what we've already got?
While Arca may be better than other QR systems, I (for one) find it quite fiddly (on bad days when I can barely move my fingers) while I can use the Manfrotto RC2 system with thick gloves on if necessary.
Fast WiFi file transfer and iQ charging would be great! I've long thought that the biggest weakness in waterproof cameras (especially) is the need to open doors to plug in power and remove memory cards - being able to drop the camera into a cradle or onto a smart mat for charging and file transfer would be ideal and the system could be properly sealed.
For most of the other things, just one word - Fuji! Other systems might have the same features but I'm not familiar with them.
40 year old (and that's relatively young for many standards!) ideas/standards may be a compromise but so are most things in life - tasty foods are often fattening!
Click to expand...

There are QR 's that can fit both Arca Grooves and Manfrotto 200 plates... One is made by Nodal Ninja (I have one)

Within a few MM most pocket cameras and Mirrorless cameras could be fitted with, or better still constructed with grooves in their base plate, as well as having the heritage 1/4 screw.
The fact that a QR would need to be able to fit more than one depth groove size is a problem for QR makers that is easily solved. I fit a small rimmed plate on my Fuji X30, that fits a miniature slik type QR or can be held in the other direction, in any Arca type QR.

If the camera makers just did it... TheQR makers would fall into line.
Chinese makers would solve the problem in days, if the big boys would not.

I have never had a problem charging batteries, as I use a universal intelligent charger, you put the battery in, and it sorts voltage and charge rate and polarity for itself.
I am sure a camera could be fitted with a single waterproof cable socket. That with a suitable connector could intelligently connect to any device of what ever plug type or purpose.
 
Nod said:
I think we're probably stuck with the 1/4" UNC accessory mounting thread - 3/8" might be better but would make compacts thicker. Besides, ditching it in favour of 6mm (closest metric size) would make every accessory that uses the current standard obsolete on new equipment (and wouldn't solve anything anyway). We need some way to attach things to the base of the camera, whether it's a QR plate or a flash holder so why not keep what we've already got?
Click to expand...
The idea was to incorporate Arca Swiss compatibility directly into the camera body/lens foot, it would be easy to do and I would love that. Arca Swiss is the professional standard, and very widely ubiquitous, but there are many other systems that are not compatible (even Arca Swiss's own system isn't terribly compatible). I have to think that favoring one system, regardless of how popular, would bring outcries from manufacturers/users of other systems... I'm not entirely sure that there wouldn't be some kind of competition law against it. But they could incorporate Arca Swiss compatibility *along with* the standard 1/4-20 fitting, which is what is generally being done with the lens foot in those cases. I have to wonder what that would mean for the supply/demand market (prices) though... need an arca swiss plate because your old camera/lens doesn't have one built in?... Need a plate for your no-longer-manufactured manfrotto?...

However, his assertion that the 1/4-20 attachment is inherently weak is mistaken IMO. The shear strength of aircraft grade aluminum (6061-T, i.e. plates, feet, accessories, etc) is around 35Ksi (35,000 Psi) minimum and it's at least twice that for stainless steel (70Ksi+)... a 1/4-20 SS assembly (screw and nut/socket) can hold an axial load of around 50Ksi minimum (approx 2000lb) at the thread interface. And, in every plastic body that I know of, the 1/4-20 socket is actually part of a much larger metal plate on the inside (to spread the load). What does make it weak/wobbly is a lack of tightening or the use of small interfaces.
 
mickledore said:
Well @Nod, Pete Waterman is selling the very first series III E-type for £150,000.
At the other end of the scale you can still pick up a Zenit B for peanuts.
Both were widely used in their day, and still work now (allegedly).
But other than enthusiasts who would use either of these on a regular basis.
Things change, new ideas come along. It's called progress. Remember the Luddites? They fought against change - and lost. It happens and the inexorable march towards new and better will contuinue forever.
And as for tasty food being fattening? The ever delectable Mrs. Nod would have a fit if she knew what was in our oven, filling the house with delectable aromas. I'm going to die happy!
Click to expand...


First Series 3 is a bit like a little bit pregnant! Personally, as beautiful as the Series 1 is, by the Series 3, legislation had brushed the E-Type with an ugly frond and reduced its looks to rather less than they had been (in much the same way as BB has [shall we say] aged a bit!) As gorgeous as E-Types are (yup, even the Series 3 is a pretty car!), I'd rather have something a bit newer as a regular drive (as you point out). However, E-Types were never a standard issue item so I'm afraid your analogy falls down anyway.
Progress is all very well when it's actually progress but many things are a move sideways rather than forwards and standards aren't always what's best (look at VHS/BetaMax - BetaMax is/was arguably the better quality but VHS had the better backers).
Mrs Nod is as fond of naughty foods as the rest of us but controls the urge to succumb to her basic urges better than me!

Terry, I have no problem with charging batteries, just with "waterproof" not always remaining so when the human factor is taken into account. Like you, I tend to use a universal charger, especially on holiday - why take several chargers when one can do all the jobs? (Although the system can fall down when more than 1 needs charging and an evening drink or 2 intervenes!)

Steven, building in any type of QR mount will add size and weight and not everyone wants a tripod mount. Far better to have a demountable one than built in and who would decide which one would be the standard? As you say, even Arca Swiss isn't always compatible.
 
Nod said:
Steven, building in any type of QR mount will add size and weight and not everyone wants a tripod mount.
Click to expand...
Not really. Just imagine 2 v-grooves running along the length of the body. Could even be a better way to attach a battery grip (dovetail connection)...
 
I'd not really stopped to think about it but Japan have been falling behind the like of Korea for ages in terms of design, performance and quality (edit: in all things electronic) and this article really points that out in terms of camera design.

That said, just because something is better doesn't mean it will be a success, just look at the Samsung cameras which were, by quite a long way, the most innovative and technologically advanced cameras around. Where are they now?
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Not really. Just imagine 2 v-grooves running along the length of the body. Could even be a better way to attach a battery grip (dovetail connection)...
Click to expand...

It will happen one day...
What I can not understand is why we are still waiting.
 
It does surprise me that it's suggested a lot of stuff doesn't fit in the bodies. Especially when the swivel screens on some cameras are as big as some phones that include all the more advanced tech that the camera makers skimp on.
 
Thom makes some good points, but he's such a whinge-bag. I think it's true that most camera manufacturers are pretty staid and play it safe with an 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality and only reacting when they have to, and even then very slowly (eg connectivity) but it's unlikely that they haven't already thought of these things, and dismissed them for one reason or another. The obvious reason being extra cost (which is real, and easily quantified), weighed against the prospect of extra sales (minimal, and very hard to quantify).

I'd love to have Arca-Swiss tripod fixing grooves on my cameras, but I wouldn't change brands because of it and it'd be some way down my wants list when choosing a new camera - and I use a tripod pretty much all the time. I have L-brackets, job done, whereas building-in A-S rails, and doing it properly, would probably mean a steel plate bonded to the chassis (expensive, heavy) or titanium (very expensive). And I think a lot of people wouldn't use them for fear of inevitable cosmetic damage, and would stick a third-party plate on anyway ;) I wonder how many DSLR owners even have a tripod - I bet most DSLRs spend their entire lives without sitting on a tripod even once.

This reminds me of the hot-shoe, which is wholly unsuitable for mounting any flash gun, let alone a big one. It was originally conceived by Leica to hold an accessory rangefinder - the size of a matchbox and about as heavy. Nikon (in the 70s?) introduced a much beefier flash mount that fitted to the left of the pentaprism which was much more robust and positioned the flash better, but it didn't catch on and was soon dropped. More recently, Sony have also tried an improved hot-shoe (which wasn't actually improved but forced you to buy Sony flash) and persisted with it against strong resistance, but thankfully that's gone too.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think it's true that most camera manufacturers are pretty staid and play it safe with an 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality and only reacting when they have to, and even then very slowly (eg connectivity) but it's unlikely that they haven't already thought of these things, and dismissed them for one reason or another. The obvious reason being extra cost (which is real, and easily quantified), weighed against the prospect of extra sales (minimal, and very hard to quantify).
Click to expand...
There is also a certain resistance to change/technology evident in the photography community... i.e. the "if it aint broke don't fix it" (or even learn it) mentality.

HoppyUK said:
would probably mean a steel plate bonded to the chassis (expensive, heavy) or titanium (very expensive)
Click to expand...
The existing magnesium alloy frame used in many/most mid to upper DSLRs would be more than adequate... I envision where the current "comfort coating" (rubber/smooth curves) is a slide on/over sleeve (dovetail) secured by a 1/4-20. Remove it for arca/1/4-20 use, or to attach a battery grip in the same manner. The slide on cover would help preserve/restore cosmetics when installed and be a little more comfortable when a tripod is not in use.
Yeah, I've thought about it a bit...
 
Last edited:
I got p***ed of with b*****ks about big lumpy cameras and gave up reading.
Like many he assume you can only use one type of camera to take photos.
 
It would be fun if someone did the Arca thing (doesn't the system already clamp directly on to some large format cameras?), even though I don't think it would be a huge selling point. For extra credit, they'd have to include a second dovetail at right-angles to the base-plate, while still finding space for interface sockets and grips, or we'd still need L-plates...
 
Retune said:
For extra credit, they'd have to include a second dovetail at right-angles to the base-plate, while still finding space for interface sockets and grips, or we'd still need L-plates...
Click to expand...
That would be difficult, about impossible w/o affecting tethered shooting.
FWIW, about a year ago I picked up some Custom Brackets camera rotator mounts (like the Pro SV) from a closing studio. I like them a lot more than L-brackets in the studio/tethered.
 
HoppyUK said:
...More recently, Sony have also tried an improved hot-shoe (which wasn't actually improved but forced you to buy Sony flash) and persisted with it against strong resistance, but thankfully that's gone too...
Click to expand...

I think you are referring to the "iISO" hot shoe - which was a Minolta design which Sony then inherited when they took over the A-Mount.

After resisting change for many years, they finally caved in, but with a final cry of defiance gave us the 'MIS' shoe - which looks like the standard ISO shoe, but has a row of extra contacts on the front so while most 3rd party devices will fit, some might not quite do so...
 
I'm bemused that this thread has become about the tripod thread. I use a tripod so rarely it's quite honestly insignificant.

He also banged on about the cable entry points (singled out the M5 as the worst) after bemoaning wireless connectivity where the M5 is one of the few cameras good enough so you should never need the cables. o_O

Infra red remotes don't need more receiver points, they need total redundancy.

Histogram from raw? Why? If your JPEG settings are neutral enough, the histogram and blinkies are close enough to be a reasonable solution. It's time everyone fixed the wireless system and apps though, and get the manufacturers software to download straight to Lightroom rather than through their own file browser.

But all those things are coming.

Tripod threads? Who cares ;)
 
Phil V said:
I'm bemused that this thread has become about the tripod thread. I use a tripod so rarely it's quite honestly insignificant.



Tripod threads? Who cares ;)
Click to expand...

But that is YOU...:p
 
Steve Smith said:
Exactly. Not UNC as was stated earlier. Cameras had 1/4" BSW threads before UNC existed!


Steve.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, 1/4-20 applies to both UNC and BSW... and in this application they can reasonably be interchanged.
But somewhere in the 70's it was standardized as UNC (60* thread angle) for all tripod/camera connections. ISO 1222:2010
 
sk66 said:
If I'm not mistaken, 1/4-20 applies to both UNC and BSW... and in this application they can reasonably be interchanged.
But somewhere in the 70's it was standardized as UNC (60* thread angle) for all tripod/camera connections. ISO 1222:2010
Click to expand...

There is a five degree difference in cutting angle.

Most of my cameras are old enough to be Whitworth!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
There is a five degree difference in cutting angle.

Most of my cameras are old enough to be Whitworth!


Steve.
Click to expand...
Interestingly the standard allows for a bit of slop to be built into the nut/bolt 'to permit international interchangeability with existing apparatus', i.e. backwards compatibility with BSW.
 
sk66 said:
i.e. backwards compatibility with BSW.
Click to expand...

Yes. You can put the male thread of one into the female thread of the other, but it's not advisable the other way round. I forget which way is ok though.

The problem is that rather than putting two flat surfaces together, you are putting an edge to a flat surface which will make it more prone to wear. Probably not a big deal with today's small cameras.

I suspect that tripod manufacturers use a custom thread designed to be a good compromise between the two.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes. You can put the male thread of one into the female thread of the other, but it's not advisable the other way round. I forget which way is ok though.
Click to expand...
You can't put a UNC bolt into a BSW nut if the manufacturing tolerances are tight, at least not easily.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
You can't put a UNC bolt into a BSW nut if the manufacturing tolerances are tight, at least not easily.
Click to expand...
There are three UNC grades - the tripod screw is the first grade which is 'sloppy' enough for hand tightening. A UNC threaded tripod will easily fit a Whitworth threaded camera.

A grade 2 or 3 UNC thread, which require tightening tools, will no doubt be another matter.
 
I always thought the old 1/4 20 thread was some kind anachronism from a bygone era, but I've found it quite widely used in fishing tackle, audio and DJ equipment, decorating and window cleaning kit.

The common theme seems to be things that are put together and taken apart quite often, by hand. The 1/4 20 thread is good for that as it engages easily, is quite 'fast' and the meatier threads are more robust than similar metric.

A welcome dose of realism from Phil above. While Thom Hogan makes some good and well argued points as usual, they really only affect a small minority and we have some fairly painless workarounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top