[wim]

I agree that one has to get used to the system their are using. It takes some time.

 

However, it's not an excuse to avoid implementing basic features requested by many photographers. I'm particularly thinking of Olympus. Everybody touts how much you can customize/configure the camera but yet some basic features that have been implemented almost a decade ago by other manufacturers are still missing from the system, namely minimum shutter speed and auto ISO implementation.

 

Another example that plagues all systems is when the user sets the aperture and shutter speed while the camera chooses ISO. Most cameras let you do this. However, most of the time, the user will very likely want a minimum shutter speed, not an exact one. Hence, why not treat the shutter speed as the minimum shutter speed? It makes much more sense and would be much less limiting from an exposure point of view.

Stuff like this makes sense. It reminds me of the first days of digital photography when ISO had to be set manually and auto ISO didn't exist. The interface and control of the camera was a carbon copy of film cameras, where ISO was fixed. It made sense with film cameras since ISO was your film, but it doesn't make sense today with a digital sensor where ISO can be changed on the fly (it's just another variable like aperture and shutter speed).

 

So much more can be done now that things can be programmed in clever ways for the benefits of the photographer. It can be much more optimal than fixed setups too, especially in dynamic situations. Yet, camera companies keep mimic-ing the way cameras used to be operated in the film days. They are hardly innovating. In fact, they are stuck in the past while a lot can be improved beyond what's available today. Cell phones (and notably google) is definitely showing the way here.

 

There are many other simple examples, such as :

• Focus bracketing/stacking could be 100% done by the camera (on a tripod obviously) and saved in a RAW file. I think Olympus implements this, but I doubt it saves RAW files.
• HDR capture using exposure bracketing and saving to RAW : today, all cameras only produce jpeg. Why not RAW? Totally doable, yet nobody does it! We could have files with huge DR this way without having to use special software to process them.
• Face detection letting you pick which face to focus on. Only Sony does this and it's really an obvious feature. Yet, nobody besides Sony does it!
• An actual modern interface such as the ones used by smartphones, especially for browsing pictures and deleting them. Take a look at how easy and fast it is on phones. Why not implement the same touchscreen interface? Cameras still use 1990s technology and interfaces.
• Same with RAW development from the camera. I'm taking Fuji's example here. Fuji provides great film simulations. The UI is clunky and cumbersome. Make it like a proper application where you can easily preview and convert your images on the fly in a very easy and quick way. Develop an easy to use, streamlined app (desktop and mobile) that can develop the RAW files and produce the same files as the jpeg engine! Sure, Lightroom or other is best, but sometimes you want to do quick edits and share on the spot. The app (in camera, mobile app, desktop app) should make it super easy to share the photos on social medias as well (facebook, flickr, etc.).
• etc.

You clearly haven't looked at recent menu implementations with Olympus. Minimum shutter speed is there, as is auto-iso range.


The same is true for hdr stacking. You can either shoot an already stacked jpeg, or a bunch of unstacked raws, jpegs and raws, or jpegs. When shooting raws, you do have to do the processing yourself, and although that makes sense, I fully expect tbis to appear as an in-camera option as well at some point in time.


In short better ask first before coming to a (wrong) conclusion.


In addition, apart from extremely good filters and filtering system, you can process your images completely, if you so like, in-camera, before or after the shot. If you'd want to, you could do without an external device for processing your raws.


And if there is one company listening to input from users, it actually is Olympus, funnily enough. I don't know where you got the opposite idea.


In short, I see a lot of opinion in your reply, but not so much checking of facts.


BTW, jpeg output on Olympus is excellent, if not the best, and that is not just my opinion.


Kind regards, Wim