| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2006 07:58:21 PM · #1 |
I've never thought about it before, but it suddenly dawned on me today that every camera I've ever come across is made for right handed people. I'm left-handed (though only for a few things) but it's never bothered me.
Is there anyone out there who would REALLY feel happier with a left-handed camera? And are there any other strange changes you'd like to see in camera design?
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 08:05:20 PM · #2 |
I want a knob on the back of my 30D that rotates the sensor from landscape to portrait. Why should I have to turn the camera?
Alternately, why not have a square sensor? The image circle of the lens is round, not rectangular - perfect for a square sensor!
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 08:17:53 PM · #3 |
Great idea - Then I could see something with my right eye instead of it been stuck behind my hand. Not likely to happen as it would be too expensive for limited runs.
I would like a square sensor because I just like square images in some ways and you could crop either way without rotating the camera. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 09:49:04 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I want a knob on the back of my 30D that rotates the sensor from landscape to portrait. Why should I have to turn the camera? |
Freaking hell, you are right! I can understand back in the film days that it isn't possible (or too tough a feat to pull off) by design, but now that we are doing digital, it should be a piece of cake (just like digital shutters). I wonder what's stopping the designers from doing this?
On another note on the left-handed camera - frankly, I dont think it would ever be made simply because of the cost involved, coupled with a smaller market demand. It's like writing viruses for a mac as compared to writing one for windows - you will prefer to write one that is accepted by the majority and not the minority. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 09:51:56 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I want a knob on the back of my 30D that rotates the sensor from landscape to portrait. Why should I have to turn the camera? |
Freaking hell, you are right! I can understand back in the film days that it isn't possible (or too tough a feat to pull off) by design, but now that we are doing digital, it should be a piece of cake (just like digital shutters). I wonder what's stopping the designers from doing this?
On another note on the left-handed camera - frankly, I dont think it would ever be made simply because of the cost involved, coupled with a smaller market demand. It's like writing viruses for a mac as compared to writing one for windows - you will prefer to write one that is accepted by the majority and not the minority. |
thats just one more knob to forget about, and take all in portrait mode when you wanted landscape.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:03:01 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I want a knob on the back of my 30D that rotates the sensor from landscape to portrait. Why should I have to turn the camera? |
actually, why cant they just make a square-shaped sensor? sheesh. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:03:02 PM · #7 |
They can't do it because then the sensor would be moveable...and if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 10:05:03 PM · #8 |
| I have a left handed stearing wheel on my car. |
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:28:56 PM · #9 |
I'm left handed and actually find the way cameras are designed are best this way. Pressing the shutter and spinning dials with my right hand is no big deal as it doesnt require a lot of precise moevements. Whereas my left hand is the one being used to adjust the zoom and focus on my lens - much more important in my mind as far as precision.
Now the viewfinder is where I get my trouble. I would like it better if the viewfinder was designed in such a way that it could be adjusted for whichever eye is your dominant one without having to smash your nose up against the back of the camera.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2006 11:36:49 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Now the viewfinder is where I get my trouble. I would like it better if the viewfinder was designed in such a way that it could be adjusted for whichever eye is your dominant one without having to smash your nose up against the back of the camera. |
Just swap your eye :) actually I know it's easier said than done.
I personally find using my left eye easier, and besides, I already familiar with the white-balance of my left eye enough to know if my camera WB is accurate :p (and no, I dont shoot RAW most of the time) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:10:57 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by deapee:
They can't do it because then the sensor would be moveable...and if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing. |
Wrong! Ask minolta or check any of dozens of video cams - sensors move al the time - it's called image stabilization!
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:17:17 AM · #12 |
| I'm right handed, but left eye dominant. I want a camera built for me so I still use my right hand to push the shutter, but don't smear nose grease all over my LCD while shooting. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:20:35 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by deapee:
They can't do it because then the sensor would be moveable...and if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing. |
Wrong! Ask minolta or check any of dozens of video cams - sensors move al the time - it's called image stabilization! |
So you're saying that if your sensor moves say forward, one millimeter, your focus isn't going to be way off? I invite you to try it.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:26:19 AM · #14 |
I think I heard that most right handed people are left eye dominant... I am.
I too would like a square sensor camera to be available.
I think it would be a perfect thing if someone like RolleiFlex would get off their sorry butts and get a square 8MP sensor with similar characteristics to the 6MP 300D with regards to pixel pitch...
A camera like that would be able to produce fantastic images, while keeping the overall cost low enough that there would not be any troubles putting it in the same market as entry level DSLR's.
600-700 dollars US doesn't sound too out to lunch for the market and I would be genuinely shocked if their old Rollei body couldn't be modified quite simply.
I know at least 3 or 4 guys right off the bat that would buy one today.
The current offerings from Rollei are embarrassing. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:30:30 AM · #15 |
Not to mention, your petal-type lens hoods would all have to be taken off too.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:42:11 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by deapee:
They can't do it because then the sensor would be moveable...and if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing. |
Wrong! Ask minolta or check any of dozens of video cams - sensors move al the time - it's called image stabilization! |
So you're saying that if your sensor moves say forward, one millimeter, your focus isn't going to be way off? I invite you to try it. |
Image-stabilization systems work by moving the sensor or lens in the left/right and up/down (x,y) axes. I haven't heard of any systems which compensate for forward/back (z-axis) movement. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:49:32 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by deapee:
So you're saying that if your sensor moves say forward, one millimeter, your focus isn't going to be way off? I invite you to try it. |
I never suggested the sensor move fwd/backward did I? You said if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing - the KM sensor moves, right? Up and down, left and right - but not in the 3rd dimension. I suggest the sensor rotate in only one dimesion - i don't suggest it moves fwd/backward. You thought that one up all by yourself.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 01:57:07 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by deapee:
So you're saying that if your sensor moves say forward, one millimeter, your focus isn't going to be way off? I invite you to try it. |
I never suggested the sensor move fwd/backward did I? You said if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing - the KM sensor moves, right? Up and down, left and right - but not in the 3rd dimension. I suggest the sensor rotate in only one dimesion - i don't suggest it moves fwd/backward. You thought that one up all by yourself. |
Yup, and having a rotating sensor should not involve the movement of the sensor in the 3rd axis at all. If KM can do it, that means it's a possible thing :) |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 02:01:40 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by deapee:
So you're saying that if your sensor moves say forward, one millimeter, your focus isn't going to be way off? I invite you to try it. |
I never suggested the sensor move fwd/backward did I? You said if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing - the KM sensor moves, right? Up and down, left and right - but not in the 3rd dimension. I suggest the sensor rotate in only one dimesion - i don't suggest it moves fwd/backward. You thought that one up all by yourself. |
I believe his point is (and I tend to agree with it) if the sensor moves at ALL there's no guarantee that it will return to rest in precisely the right plane; there has to be a little slop for movement to occur at all, and even just a fraction of a millimeter fore or aft can have a noticeable effect on critical focus.
Of course, it's just a gut feeling on my part, that this could be a problem. I just think it's unnecessary complexity that adds cost and another area of vulnerability to the system.
In any case, if we COULD move/rotate the sensors, then we'd be looking at the potential of using the dSLR as a view camera with a shift back, but it would require a complete redesign of the box. Also, consider the problem of setting it up so the (optical) viewfinder shows what the sensor is actually covering. We gonna have a red-outline frame that moves around within a larger image circle in the viewfinder to reflect where the sensor's oriented at currently?
Hell, if we're gonna have rotating sensors, we can do away with one of the 3 planes of adjustment on our tripod heads, LOL: just rotate the sensor to level the horizon...
I do LOVE the idea of a square sensor; I've always wondered why they stick to the rectangle in these cameras. I suspect it's because of compatibility with automated photoprocessing machinery, LOL.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 02:16:54 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I believe his point is (and I tend to agree with it) if the sensor moves at ALL there's no guarantee that it will return to rest in precisely the right plane; there has to be a little slop for movement to occur at all, and even just a fraction of a millimeter fore or aft can have a noticeable effect on critical focus. |
Rotation should only involve the sensor moving in a 2D plane, and should not have any effect on the front-back movement. I guess the example used about KM having an anti-shake on the sensor is the evidence that having a rotating sensor is indeed very possible.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Also, consider the problem of setting it up so the (optical) viewfinder shows what the sensor is actually covering. We gonna have a red-outline frame that moves around within a larger image circle in the viewfinder to reflect where the sensor's oriented at currently? |
The viewfinder should be square as well, of course :p
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Hell, if we're gonna have rotating sensors, we can do away with one of the 3 planes of adjustment on our tripod heads, LOL: just rotate the sensor to level the horizon... |
Wouldn't it be really sweet to have an option to auto-horizon detect or something, so we can get perfectly horizontal pics with just one button push? :)
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I do LOVE the idea of a square sensor; I've always wondered why they stick to the rectangle in these cameras. I suspect it's because of compatibility with automated photoprocessing machinery, LOL. |
Yeah, when something's been around for so long (film and paper), it's not easy to perform a paradigm shift - as in this case, a square sensor. Many things need be changed, I guess. But wouldn't it be really sweet if someone does came out with a square sensor, and in-camera allow user to select the normal landscape as an option? This would be great for people who love cropping and post-edits.
Message edited by author 2006-06-05 02:17:51. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 03:52:36 AM · #21 |
What I want is a proper street camera; basically, a Leica M with the Canon CMOS sensor and DIGIC II processor in it.
e |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:25:24 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I want a knob on the back of my 30D that rotates the sensor from landscape to portrait. Why should I have to turn the camera?
Alternately, why not have a square sensor? The image circle of the lens is round, not rectangular - perfect for a square sensor! |
On the contrary - perfect for a round sensor, I think that you will find!
|
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:39:20 AM · #23 |
I think a square sensor would have an inefficent use of pixels.
First of all, not as many scenes/objects look good with a square crop.
Secondly, there are not as many uses for a picture that is cropped as a square.
This would lead to people takin pictures, with the intention of cropping it as a rectangle in post processing. To do this, we wouldn't frame the object as tightly. Then we would cut off a lot of the extra pixels that the sensor captured. The pixels on the edges of the sensor would pretty much be useless, if they are just going to be cropped out of the picture later. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:42:55 AM · #24 |
| Also, a rotating sensor would also require a rotating mirror, pentaprism, focusing screen, and viewfinder. Imagine the amount of engineering involved in developing a device(s) that would do that. |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 08:08:12 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I never suggested the sensor move fwd/backward did I? You said if your sensor moves even a millimeter, your camera is now drastically mis-focusing - the KM sensor moves, right? Up and down, left and right - but not in the 3rd dimension. I suggest the sensor rotate in only one dimesion - i don't suggest it moves fwd/backward. You thought that one up all by yourself. |
Kind of obvious what I was talking about, isn't it? Obviously if your sensor moves to the side it's not going to change anything. And I didn't think anything up all by myself there chief...what I was referring to was that if the sensor was able to freely spin 90 degrees that its solidity would be severely compromised. Apparently I thought that saying that would be obvious to the readers, but I should have spelled things out for you. I'll remember that for next time.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 02:21:31 AM EDT.
