What's wrong with P&S manufacturers? Rant.

[k1dude]

Many of us are in the same boat. We want a very small high performance camera. I do a lot of mountain biking, whitewater kayaking, skiing, climbing, etc. When doing these activities the scenery and action are unparalleled. So you want a good fast-action camera. Especially one with something like 5 fps continuous mode. But if you carry a DSLR with assorted lenses and equipment, it severly impacts your ability to enjoy the sport. Try biking up a 12 degree 5 mile climb with an extra 6lbs of camera equipment in your pack. Then if you wipe-out....yikes! Ka-ching! So small, good, and fast are necessities. Yet sadly, that type of camera doesn't exist. Even parents with young kids in soccer would eat up a camera like what I'm describing. The demand is huge and not being addressed.

Back in the days of film it was very easy to comprehend why an SLR outperformed a P&S. Disregarding the lens and apeture size, you needed a big body to house the mechanical motor drive. But in today's digital world, it would be a piece of cake to make it small because it's now all tiny chips.

There is no reason a P&S should not have the same fast speed and continuous mode that a DSLR has today. There is no reason for half-second shutter lag or 2 second power-up in a P&S. You could have a nice big sensor, a nice big and fast buffer, a nice fast card, and fast programming in the processor, all in a tiny body. The tiny lenses of today's P&S's have proven more than adequate in capable hands. Are there any manufacturers out there listening?

[Rhys]

But there are small inexpensive dSLRs. The Pentax dSLRs and the Olympus dSLRs spring to mind. Pack them in foam and they're not all that heavy.

[David Metsky]

I hike, mountain bike, ski, etc and have found the modern crop of ultra-compacts to be pretty darn good. My SD300 takes 2.6fps, which isn't 5 fps but is pretty darn good. It also takes 640x480 video at 30fps or 320x240 at 60fps to capture lots of action.

The difference would be faster/bigger/expensive sensors, faster processing and I/O chips. I'm sure they could fit it all in the body sizes, but at what cost and would enough people buy it to justify the cost?

-dave-

[k1dude]

I hike, mountain bike, ski, etc and have found the modern crop of ultra-compacts to be pretty darn good. My SD300 takes 2.6fps, which isn't 5 fps but is pretty darn good. It also takes 640x480 video at 30fps or 320x240 at 60fps to capture lots of action.

The difference would be faster/bigger/expensive sensors, faster processing and I/O chips. I'm sure they could fit it all in the body sizes, but at what cost and would enough people buy it to justify the cost?

-dave-

The SD300 is a good Camera. I have a Sony DSC-T1 that I generally use. But neither is fast enough. Your SD300 has a lag time of 0.6 to .8 seconds depending on how far the lens is extended.

When I'm trying to take a picture of a friend dropping off a 5 foot drop on his bike, I don't want to have to guess when to depress the shutter as he approaches the drop. At 2.6fps, you will basically wind up with the first frame of him at the precipice and the second shot will be him landing. Unless you have time to have him do it repeatedly until you get your timing right to have him mid-flight. I can't tell you how many times we have to do re-do's. Believe me, people get tired of that real fast. Especially when you have 30 miles to go.

That same scenario would be a piece of cake with 0.15 seconds of full AF lag or at 5.4fps continuous which you can get with a reasonable DSLR.

I also like to blow-up great shots into big prints (13 x 19 or 20 x 30). The SD300 is only 4mp and my T1 is only 5mp. DSLR's like the 30D or D200 are between 8 and 10 megapixels.

Believe me the demand is there. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people wish for the same thing. You hear it all the time at races or in the backcountry.

[cdifoto]

Disregarding the lens and apeture size, you needed a big body to house the mechanical motor drive. But in today's digital world, it would be a piece of cake to make it small because it's now all tiny chips.

But you CAN'T disregard aperture and lens sizes. If you really want a fast camera, you have to have a certain physical opening.

Unless you don't care about lowlight fast...just frame rate fast.

[k1dude]

But you CAN'T disregard aperture and lens sizes. If you really want a fast camera, you have to have a certain physical opening.

Unless you don't care about lowlight fast...just frame rate fast.

Frame rate fast is all I'm looking for. Since most sports I'm talking about are during the daylight hours in full sun, lowlight fast isn't important. Even on overcast days on the slopes, the snow is so bright you can still shoot fast.

[cdifoto]

Frame rate fast is all I'm looking for. Since most sports I'm talking about are during the daylight hours in full sun, lowlight fast isn't important. Even on overcast days on the slopes, the snow is so bright you can still shoot fast.

Hmmm. Yeah I can see where it'd be possible then. They'd have to address shutter lag as well but it's not like they couldn't. Maybe take an S3IS and only improve the speed, and call it the S3IS GT & charge about $80 more for it. Kinda like they do for cars. "Oh you want that Golf suped up? Ok here's the GTI."


PS: Snow actually decreases your shutter speeds, not increases. What happens is the camera wants to meter it for grey, so to compensate you have to let in MORE light by slowing your shutter down. Assuming ISO and Aperture must remain as they are.

[David Metsky]

Believe me the demand is there. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people wish for the same thing. You hear it all the time at races or in the backcountry.
I'm not sure it really is there. At races, where size of the camera isn't an issue, those folks can buy a dSLR. In the backcountry, lots of my friends carry their dSLRs, I choose not to. I wish for all sorts of things, but I may not be willing to spend 2x the price for it.

I hike, ski, bike, etc, and very few of the folks are seriously into fast action photography. They like to take nice scenery shots, people, macro, etc. When it comes time for fast action, most go into video mode. I find the 2.6fps to be adequate for my needs. Certainly, faster would be great, but I'm not willing to double my price for it if that's what it took.

In the early days of digital cameras, didn't someone (Olympus?) produce a fast camera with a long zoom specially for sports/action?

-dave-

[k1dude]

For some reason, the P&S digicam industry considers a waterproof (to about 5 feet), slow, low megapixel camera to be a sports camera. And they sell oodles of them. Then the owners complain like crazy after the fact that the cameras aren't fast enough and don't have enough pixels.

When I hear complaints at races, it's riders or paddlers drooling over all the fancy dSLR's at the event, but complaining they are too big for use out in the backcountry. We all wish we could take dSLR-type action photos with a camera we could actually take with us. It is a VERY common complaint at those events.

If you have friends taking their dSLR's out in the backcountry, I'll guarantee you they aren't doing epic rides unless the ride is solely for the purpose of action-photography. You can do it on easy cross country trails, but once you go big and epic, forget it. I can see taking it hiking or climbing, but that's about it. The size and weight penalty is too great for a non-pro.

Whenever I'm out taking action photos on the trail and other bikers come upon us, inevitably one of them will ask if my little P&S has bad shutter lag because they're looking for one that doesn't have bad lag.

I doubt the price would double to provide a camera like what I'm describing. Like cdi-buy mused, a manufacturer could soup-up an existing model and call it the "GT" and charge an extra $80.

Even if it was double the price, that would bring the camera to about $700 or $800. I guarantee you even at that price, it would sell.

Even pro-photographers would snatch one up as a backup. Soccer mom's would go nuts over something like that. Especially the ones that go home in their Mercedes SUV. I have no doubt the demand is there.

[cdifoto]

For some reason, the P&S digicam industry considers a waterproof (to about 5 feet), slow, low megapixel camera to be a sports camera. And they sell oodles of them. Then the owners complain like crazy after the fact that the cameras aren't fast enough and don't have enough pixels.

When I hear complaints at races, it's riders or paddlers drooling over all the fancy dSLR's at the event, but complaining they are too big for use out in the backcountry. We all wish we could take dSLR-type action photos with a camera we could actually take with us. It is a VERY common complaint at those events.

If you have friends taking their dSLR's out in the backcountry, I'll guarantee you they aren't doing epic rides unless the ride is solely for the purpose of action-photography. You can do it on easy cross country trails, but once you go big and epic, forget it. I can see taking it hiking or climbing, but that's about it. The size and weight penalty is too great for a non-pro.

Whenever I'm out taking action photos on the trail and other bikers come upon us, inevitably one of them will ask if my little P&S has bad shutter lag because they're looking for one that doesn't have bad lag.

I doubt the price would double to provide a camera like what I'm describing. Like cdi-buy mused, a manufacturer could soup-up an existing model and call it the "GT" and charge an extra $80.

Even if it was double the price, that would bring the camera to about $700 or $800. I guarantee you even at that price, it would sell.

Even pro-photographers would snatch one up as a backup. Soccer mom's would go nuts over something like that. Especially the ones that go home in their Mercedes SUV. I have no doubt the demand is there.


You're complaining simply because you aren't getting paid for these photos. You say it's not worth lugging everything because you aren't a pro. I would think that if you want the photos bad enough, the desire for good photos would prompt you to buy what you need to buy and carry what you need to carry. Not all dSLR owners are professionals.

If you want to just capture things as you enjoy your excursion, then do exactly that. Enjoy your excursion and get whatever you can get with the gear you're willing to take.

When I went on a Disney vacation with my family, I took everything I owned and carried it on my back. It weight 18lbs and was worth $5,000. Why did I lug it? Because I wanted damned good photos. I could have taken a P&S but I would have missed the things I went there to see, and the very things I wanted to photograph the most would have been out of reach. Did I get paid for my pics? Hell no. Quite the opposite. Disney got a lot of our money.

[k1dude]

Why the attitude?

Have you ever seen the pros set-up for a jump shoot? It takes a loooong time. The reason they do it is because they are being paid the big bucks by magazines and sponsors. They typically pick a spot that can be reached by 4WD to set up the shoot. Sometimes they have to hike in a bit. They rarely actually ride-in to a location to shoot. I want something for mere mortals.

Why should I settle for the equipment that exists? Why should I not ask for something that's new and improved? Using your logic we should never have advanced beyond clubs and rocks.

You're telling me you wouldn't leave behind your 18lbs of equipment if next year you could get away with 1lb? That makes no sense.

[cdifoto]

Why the attitude?

Have you ever seen the pros set-up for a jump shoot? It takes a loooong time. The reason they do it is because they are being paid the big bucks by magazines and sponsors. They typically pick a spot that can be reached by 4WD to set up the shoot. Sometimes they have to hike in a bit. They rarely actually ride-in to a location to shoot. I want something for mere mortals.

Why should I settle for the equipment that exists? Why should I not ask for something that's new and improved? Using your logic we should never have advanced beyond clubs and rocks.

You're telling me you wouldn't leave behind your 18lbs of equipment if next year you could get away with 1lb? That makes no sense.

You missed my point. My point is instead of bitching about what doesn't exist, I make use of what does. I doubt there is much demand for an uberfast P&S. Just because YOU want one, doesn't mean everyone else does too.

I really would NOT want a fast little P&S because the image quality cannot compare to a dSLR and I'm spoiled by the overall package - fast responsiveness, high ISO performance, extremely sharp images, good autofocus, interchangeable task-specific lensing, external and/or studio flash compatibility, etc. Not to mention actually having something to grab hold of. I can't use my bro in law's P&S because it's just too small. Nice little camera...just too small compared to what I'm used to.

[k1dude]

You missed my point. My point is instead of bitching about what doesn't exist, I make use of what does. I doubt there is much demand for an uberfast P&S. Just because YOU want one, doesn't mean everyone else does too.

Just because you don't want one doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't too.


I really would NOT want a fast little P&S because the image quality cannot compare to a dSLR and I'm spoiled by the overall package - fast responsiveness, high ISO performance, extremely sharp images, good autofocus, interchangeable task-specific lensing, external and/or studio flash compatibility, etc. Not to mention actually having something to grab hold of. I can't use my bro in law's P&S because it's just too small. Nice little camera...just too small compared to what I'm used to.

I'm glad for you that you don't want one. The vast majority of cameras sold today are P&S's. That means MOST people want one. The smallest ones also happen to be the hottest sellers. It appears that I represent the majority more than you.

In addition, the gradual progression of camera design has been addressing exactly what I am asking for. Just look at the P&S's today compared to just 3 years ago. They are far faster with more pixels in a smaller size. That would not be so if demand wasn't there asking for the speed, size, and pixels. All I'm hoping for is the next iteration of cameras should have what I ask. I'm hoping I won't have to wait 2 or 3 more years for it. I want it next year since it isn't available this year.

[cdifoto]

You want a dSLR without paying for, or carrying a dSLR.

[k1dude]

You want a dSLR without paying for, or carrying a dSLR.

Where did I ever state or imply that? All I asked for was a faster P&S. How is that a dSLR? I didn't ask for a bigger lense or aperture. I asked for speed. Technologically, the manufacturers can provide that today if they want. In fact, they have been addressing just that. Just not fast enough my taste. And who said I didn't want to pay a lot? I'd gladly pay up to $2,500 for a camera like that.

You have created some distorted perception of what I am looking for in your own mind. I suggest you go back and re-read this entire thread.

[some guy]

actually why does P&S have shutter lag or start up lag? Is it because it views through the LCD and that requires powerup? Then why not just use the viewfinder and shut off the LCD? Am I missing something? P&S is not my area.

[cdifoto]

actually why does P&S have shutter lag or start up lag? Is it because it views through the LCD and that requires powerup? Then why not just use the viewfinder and shut off the LCD? Am I missing something? P&S is not my area.

Pretty much because everything is electronic in a P&S. With a dSLR, an electric pulse is sent to fire the mechanical shutter, which is fast. The P&S has no shutter and is purely electronics, thus the need to address the speed of it all. Why or how isn't my area of expertise. I just know it has to do with a dSLR having a physical shutter to expose the sensor vs turning the sensor on and off all the time...or something like that.

[David Metsky]

Most of the long trips I take are on foot or ski, so the banging around on a bike isn't a big issue. I used to carry my SLR on long hikes and skis simply to get the best shot possible. Lately I just bring my SD300 because it meets my needs, but I'm seriously looking at an S3.

You may be experiencing observation bias, in that you hang around bikers who all want a particular camera function. I honestly don't think the market is that big. My friends who ski and hike are all pretty happy with their P&S cameras as is. In general, they don't need to be able to take 5 fps, although having it would certainly please some of them. The ones that aren't happy carry a dSLR.

It seems the main thing you are looking for is a faster burst mode. I think that will come, but the vast majority of users don't see that as a sticking point. I think it would take some engineering time and money to get that today in a compact P&S, but look at how much faster today's cameras are than the ones even 2 years ago. If camera makers perceive that there is a market that they can make money off, they will build it.

Every camera, heck every engineering project, is a tradeoff. If enough people demand faster burst mode and are willing to put their cash on the table, it'll get made. Right now I don't see that happening, but is will eventually happen.

-dave-

[Screenclutter]

I have recently been on two different vacations (Barcelona and Scotland), and from what I have noticed with fellow vacationers, small cameras are definitely in the minority. The only small cameras that I consistently saw were from the Canon SD series.

The most common type of digital camera were ultra-zooms, and then cameras that were similar in size to my Canon A610. There were noticeable numbers of dSLRs and associated lenses as well on my tours.

I'm not sure if the market for these tiny cameras are as strong as what some people claim.

[TenD]

I just did a little experiment with my S2 to see how much lag there actually was if I pre focused, there was little to none. My G2 was very similar, pre focus, and when the action started, full press. I pre focus with my SLR too, if I can't see my subject I always pre focus on something close. Even when I am in AI servo focus mode, I still follow my subject quite a bit with the shutter half pressed before I start the burst. No matter what camera you are shooting with it's going to take some time to focus. It's not as frustrating with a DSLR because you are actually seeing what is happening during the delay. Panasonic and Kodak have both come up with ultra compact ultra zoom cameras. Most people wouldn't be willing to pay $2500 for the camera you envision. You have to hit a price point, once you get to a certain price point, you might as well get a DSLR. Life is full of compromises, you want light weight, you pay with reduced performance. I want great IQ, I pay by having to hike what you may be able to ride. It depends on what's important to you, are you out for the ride? Then your photography may suffer a bit. Are you out for great photos? Then your ride may suffer a bit.

[k1dude]

I have recently been on two different vacations (Barcelona and Scotland), and from what I have noticed with fellow vacationers, small cameras are definitely in the minority. The only small cameras that I consistently saw were from the Canon SD series.

The most common type of digital camera were ultra-zooms, and then cameras that were similar in size to my Canon A610. There were noticeable numbers of dSLRs and associated lenses as well on my tours.

I'm not sure if the market for these tiny cameras are as strong as what some people claim.

I would agree that tourists in Europe would most likely carry dSLR's or ultra-zooms. I would also guess that most of them were in the 45+ age bracket. That is quite different than the young athletic demographic I'm talking about. We are more likely to sport-climb in Vietnam 150 miles from civilization than visit Cathedrals in Barcelona with the hotel 4 blocks away.

The strength of the market for tiny camera's is not speculation. It is fact.

[k1dude]

I just did a little experiment with my S2 to see how much lag there actually was if I pre focused, there was little to none. My G2 was very similar, pre focus, and when the action started, full press. I pre focus with my SLR too, if I can't see my subject I always pre focus on something close. Even when I am in AI servo focus mode, I still follow my subject quite a bit with the shutter half pressed before I start the burst. No matter what camera you are shooting with it's going to take some time to focus. It's not as frustrating with a DSLR because you are actually seeing what is happening during the delay. Panasonic and Kodak have both come up with ultra compact ultra zoom cameras. Most people wouldn't be willing to pay $2500 for the camera you envision. You have to hit a price point, once you get to a certain price point, you might as well get a DSLR. Life is full of compromises, you want light weight, you pay with reduced performance. I want great IQ, I pay by having to hike what you may be able to ride. It depends on what's important to you, are you out for the ride? Then your photography may suffer a bit. Are you out for great photos? Then your ride may suffer a bit.

When pre-focused, most camera's seem to have very little shutter lag. Perhaps I am shooting incorrectly, but I have little chance in the photos I take to pre-focus.

When I sprint ahead to a nasty looking section of trail to get ready for people to descend over it, I have to snap quickly. As one rider rounds the corner and hits the big stuff, I usually don't have time to pre-focus before I get a shot and then have to swing around to get the next person in time. Or if they are approaching a jump that I'm situated below, I can't pre-focus on the sky or the launch spot or my focus would be way off when I finally snapped the shot with the rider in mid-air half the distance from where I pre-focused. That's where a nice fast continuous burst mode would be great.

You are probably correct that I would be in a very small minority that would be willing to pay $2,500 for such a camera. However, I was just making a point when I threw that number out.

[TenD]

I would bet if you would sprint ahead and then ask your buddies to slow down a bit and come at you one at a time they would oblige. Even with a great focusing SLR you would have a very hard time getting a blind shot without pre focusing. With 2 subjects in rapid succession it's very hard to get shots of both if you follow one then rapidly turn to follow the other. Just from my brief experience with things like that I think you'd have to chose one or the other or risk getting poor shots of both. I can't find the URL now but there was a poster on one of the photo review sites that used to get fantastic results with a compact camera. I wish I could remember...

[David Metsky]

That is quite different than the young athletic demographic I'm talking about. We are more likely to sport-climb in Vietnam 150 miles from civilization than visit Cathedrals in Barcelona with the hotel 4 blocks away.

No, they are much more likely to be at the mall or out drinking. Again, while you and I are often out there, the vast majority of people are not. Most people do not need the high speed features that you find so valuable. And of the ones that do, many are too cheap or poor to be able to afford the latest expensive digital camera.


The strength of the market for tiny camera's is not speculation. It is fact.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Inigo Montoya

:)

I'm off for a hike tomorrow. I'll post some pictures.

-dave-

[ReF's temporary account]

k1dude: it'll probably cost a lot more than $80 to soup up a camera for action. take for example the 8mp 1d mkII and 8mp 20d or 30d. the 1d mkII shoots 8 frames a second and costs around $4000 while the 20d or 30d costs about $1400 or $1500. granted the weather sealing, extra features and 1.3x crop sensor contributes to the added cost, but the bigger buffer, faster shutter actuations, and more durability in the parts needed wouldn't be cheap at all. same would apply to an all-in-one. also consider that the companies have 1 big goal, and that's profit - the dslr market is highly profitable, and as you can see it seems everybody wants to get in on it. if these companies make a less profitable product that competes with their dslrs, well they'll be cutting into their own profits in terms of dslr sales lost. you may have also noticed that many if not all companies have dropped their high end all-in-one line (like the g-series, v-series, pro-1, 828) and replaced that price point with dslrs - well it goes back to the dslrs being very profitable. if they soup up their ultrazooms too much they're walking down the same path that they all decided to get off of.

[Rhys]

I would agree that tourists in Europe would most likely carry dSLR's or ultra-zooms. I would also guess that most of them were in the 45+ age bracket. That is quite different than the young athletic demographic I'm talking about. We are more likely to sport-climb in Vietnam 150 miles from civilization than visit Cathedrals in Barcelona with the hotel 4 blocks away.

The strength of the market for tiny camera's is not speculation. It is fact.

I do agree. For backpackers, small and light and inexpensive are the order of the day. I toured around without a camera for many years then with a P&S Nikon 3100. Now I have my dSLR and of course, I'm older and since I got married and as my wife likes comfort, I tend to be in the 4 blocks away from the hotel group too.

[Screenclutter]

I would agree that tourists in Europe would most likely carry dSLR's or ultra-zooms. I would also guess that most of them were in the 45+ age bracket. That is quite different than the young athletic demographic I'm talking about. We are more likely to sport-climb in Vietnam 150 miles from civilization than visit Cathedrals in Barcelona with the hotel 4 blocks away.

The strength of the market for tiny camera's is not speculation. It is fact.

Except that I was on a youth oriented tour staying in cheap hostels/hotels, not something luxurious like Trafalgar. It is safe to say that I generally am one of the older people (at 32 years) on these tours.

[Pixel8]

k1dude: .... also consider that the companies have 1 big goal, and that's profit ... if these companies make a less profitable product that competes with their dslrs, well they'll be cutting into their own profits in terms of dslr sales lost.

Yep. Remember that every feature + every performance enhancement, not to mention every new model has to be generated by a reqest from a company's sales, marketing, or mid-upper management. It then needs to compete with all the other new/improved product requests bouncing around for limited engineering and sales resources. The thinking inside the company goes roughly "Does putting my design, manufacturing and QA engineers on this project bring in more net $ than the other proposals? I have to kill something else to free up those engineers etc, why is this idea a bigger $ generator? Has anyone else tried selling that? If it flops how do I defend shorting the VP's feature suggestion from last week?..."
and so on.

I like your desired feature also, but I'll bet it will happen later once the technology makes it trivially easy to produce, OR if one company does it + that model flys off the shelves. Meanwhile, if you drag that dSLR along you'll get shots that most riders don't. Think of that as a hidden benefit - once it's easy to get those action shots, your photos won't stand out.