Einst_Stein Posted March 19, 2023 Share #1 Posted March 19, 2023 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) In the old time, some camera features were greatly boasted but actually not so important. Examples I can think of including the number of AF/AE points, LCD size, LCD dots, etc. What modern digital camera features do you think fall into this category? Edited March 19, 2023 by Einst_Stein Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 19, 2023 Posted March 19, 2023 Hi Einst_Stein, Take a look here What digital camera feature is often the most boasted but actually the least relevant. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted March 19, 2023 Share #2 Posted March 19, 2023 All of them... 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted March 19, 2023 Author Share #3 Posted March 19, 2023 1 hour ago, Al Brown said: Megapixels. Period. I agree MP is definitely No 1, I would add the max ISO. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 19, 2023 Share #4 Posted March 19, 2023 49 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said: I agree MP is definitely No 1, I would add the max ISO. I agree completely with Al and Einst_Stein. I'm sure that there will be certain snappers out there who, in their heads, Absolutely Need ISO250,000 and for those for whom 150Mp on a FF camera would be, in their heads, Nowhere Near Enough and I pity them. Philip. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 19, 2023 Share #5 Posted March 19, 2023 (edited) Any and all features are important if those are why you bought the camera in the first place. They depend on what you want to photograph and how. Important: high ISO performance, face recognition AF, AF speed/accuracy, fast EVF, histogram display. Not important, beyond a certain level: pixels, AFc, tracking, WB options (I shoot in raw), high res EVF, buttons (3 are enough), LCD IQ. A waste of space: P-mode, Scene modes, JPGs and all the JPG options, bleeps, second SD card, tethering, wifi, Bluetooth, Fotos (i.e. any connectivity). Edit I have left out video, because this is about digital stills cameras (I think); I still want a camera that does good video. It's not digital, but I also find a tripod socket a waste of space. I haven't screwed a tripod into one since Ted Heath was PM. Just build an Arca-Swiss profile into the base FFS. Edited March 19, 2023 by LocalHero1953 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted March 19, 2023 Share #6 Posted March 19, 2023 1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said: ... Important: high ISO performance, face recognition AF, AF speed/accuracy, fast EVF, histogram display. ... Totally agree with the unimportant ones, but for myself I can even reduce the important list... Important: base ISO performance compactness, weight and handling RAW capability minimal shutter lag/viewer lag FF (if you want to use your lenses as intended) If people made award winning photo's with ISO 50 film and old manual (slow) lenses and camera's, why would I need much more than base ISO 200 today with a fast prime ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 19, 2023 Share #7 Posted March 19, 2023 Advertisement (gone after registration) 4 minutes ago, dpitt said: If people made award winning photo's with ISO 50 film and old manual (slow) lenses and camera's, why would I need much more than base ISO 200 today with a fast prime ? Well, these things are all personal, but the answers in my case would be (a) most famous old film images were taken outdoors, or indoors with flash, whereas a lot of the time I’m trying to take photos indoors without flash, and (b) I’m not expecting to take award-winning photos, just photos that I and the people I take them for like. (Though I’ll take the awards if they come my way!) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted March 19, 2023 Author Share #8 Posted March 19, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: Well, these things are all personal, but the answers in my case would be (a) most famous old film images were taken outdoors, or indoors with flash, whereas a lot of the time I’m trying to take photos indoors without flash, and (b) I’m not expecting to take award-winning photos, just photos that I and the people I take them for like. (Though I’ll take the awards if they come my way!) High ISO beyond my eyesight for triple-less makes very little sense. Edited March 19, 2023 by Einst_Stein 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 20, 2023 Share #9 Posted March 20, 2023 8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said: High ISO beyond my eyesight for triple-less makes very little sense. Sorry - I don't understand - can you explain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 20, 2023 Share #10 Posted March 20, 2023 For me it's video. MP count matters somewhat. My Leica Q images are sharper and more detailed than my old Epson RD-1s images. I do shoot for people who want to make large posters from the images, or backlit advertising. So while I don't need 60mp, I need at least 24 and arguably 40mp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 20, 2023 Share #11 Posted March 20, 2023 (edited) I think dynamic range. It goes beyond the range of the human eye in modern digital cameras. For somebody who aims to record what they saw then a camera with massive DR isn't a problem given post processing adjustments you can make. But for somebody who simply relies on the camera for the rendition of a scene excessive DR results in dull images with no contrast in an otherwise normal contrast scene. Edited March 20, 2023 by 250swb 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted March 20, 2023 Author Share #12 Posted March 20, 2023 14 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: Sorry - I don't understand - can you explain? Sorry for the confusion. I want to say if the ISO is to brighten up when light is so dark that is out of my eye sight, then it has little use to me. But then I think I should clarify the condition that the lighting is within my eye sight, but it requires longer shutter speed than I can hold, the high ISO can be useful. However, then I turned a way from high ISO again because practically I would use tripod anyway. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted March 20, 2023 Author Share #13 Posted March 20, 2023 36 minutes ago, 250swb said: I think dynamic range. It goes beyond the range of the human eye in modern digital cameras. For somebody who aims to record what they saw then a camera with massive DR isn't a problem given post processing adjustments you can make. But for somebody who simply relies on the camera for the rendition of a scene excessive DR results in dull images with no contrast in an otherwise normal contrast scene. To me, and perhaps for most people, the displayable dynamic range is around 8-10 stops. A sensor with excessive dynamic range is meant to be chopped. I think it can be analog to the excessive MP which practically is cropped or downgrade resampled for the final dispaly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 21, 2023 Share #14 Posted March 21, 2023 8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said: Sorry for the confusion. I want to say if the ISO is to brighten up when light is so dark that is out of my eye sight, then it has little use to me. But then I think I should clarify the condition that the lighting is within my eye sight, but it requires longer shutter speed than I can hold, the high ISO can be useful. However, then I turned a way from high ISO again because practically I would use tripod anyway. Yes, it's the dichotomy when people say they need higher ISO so they can photograph the city in night time, but the high ISO they choose (with high DR) starts to make the night look like the day. Digital photographers especially have become reluctant to accept black even where black exists. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansvons Posted March 22, 2023 Share #15 Posted March 22, 2023 Each to own, of course. And there is a market for bleeps and tons of programmes I'd never visit. So what I don't need, never needed, and what is the market all about? Megapixels. I want good pixels and enough to create a convincing image and to have some leeway when shooting and for minor crops in post. My sweet spot is 24MPm, which is 6K in cinema terms. Plenty enough for high-resolving greatness - if you can shoot it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted March 22, 2023 Share #16 Posted March 22, 2023 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/373540-what-digital-camera-feature-is-often-the-most-boasted-but-actually-the-least-relevant/?do=findComment&comment=4733399'>More sharing options...
35photo Posted May 27, 2023 Share #17 Posted May 27, 2023 Mostly all of them! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now