No More Focus Requirements

I wonder what effect this will have. It is sometimes desirable to have just a small part of the scene in focus which is why the ability to focus in a shallow depth of field will be always be valuable. For the walk around point-and-shoots it could be popular. But this is still early in the technology. As with the Linux computer with a lens, the Pixii, this is an interesting event in a field which sometimes seems static and dead. While RF cameras have remained relatively unchanged the rest of the camera world has not.

When I was a programmer I always yearned for the "FIXIT" verb which would make everything OK. If a camera came with that it would be quite nice, too. All our photos would then be just great. I hope the propeller heads are working on it.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Maybe, but RF cameras are the last (quality) ones surviving in the 35mm world. Living fossils, perhaps? Myself, I enjoy being an analog dinosaur. A Leicasaurus, if you will.
Click to expand...

I'd quibble with you on that. I'd put my Sony A7M III and the two lenses, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and the Sony 24 - 240 zoom up against anything I have currently. It is a great camera/lens combo, the A7M III and the zoom. I have had real luck with it.

https://flic.kr/p/2mKiAtS

https://www.flickr.com/gp/sandynoyes/784Cpk

https://flic.kr/p/2mHXL3B

https://flic.kr/p/2mpvPEk

https://www.flickr.com/gp/sandynoyes/RHc9UH

https://flic.kr/p/2mj4TMk
 
boojum said:
Maybe better than SLR autofocus is everything in focus from 3 cm to 1.7 Km. It is an interesting idea but will kill the bokeh balls.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but after listening to all the YouTube reviewers, I thought LESS depth of field is always better (that's why they love "full frame.") Maybe what the researchers should be working on is an imaging system with no depth of field at all. You get one eyelash sharp and everything else is a complete blur...
 
ranger9 said:
Yeah, but after listening to all the YouTube reviewers, I thought LESS depth of field is always better (that's why they love "full frame.") Maybe what the researchers should be working on is an imaging system with no depth of field at all. You get one eyelash sharp and everything else is a complete blur...
Click to expand...

The future is with camera combos (sensors/lenses/AI) that retain/recreate depth information. So in post you can either choose to have everything sharp, or if you wish eyelash-thin.

In its early form, it is already here with some phones .
 
olakiril said:
The future is with camera combos (sensors/lenses/AI) that retain/recreate depth information. So in post you can either choose to have everything sharp, or if you wish eyelash-thin.

In its early form, it is already here with some phones .
Click to expand...

There was a camera which did this. It could not find a market and failed miserably. Unsold cameras were on the market at very low prices. This does not say the concept is bad. It only says the initial effort did not find a market.
 
So what, big deal!
I can make deep focus camera with tiny needle, aluminum can, cardboard, sheet of 5x7 paper and tape.
Sure, not as fancy, but everything at hand and almost free.
 
A solution in search of a problem. Maybe this would be good for street shooting, news events, people who want to make photos at a moment’s notice.

For landscape, cityscape, portraits, plants, animals, nature - for that I choose to focus. Even so, a 28mm or 35mm lens has such depth of field already that I feel no constraints.
 
Nice to see matryoshkas. The rest is more less theoretical nose picking article without real pictures provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom