United Science's eFit 14-megapixel ear-scanning headphone camera

What you see isn't a headphone. It's a 3D ear scanner comprising three fourteen megapixel cameras which flash away at your oracular nether regions at 20 frames per second. It's canvas? 3D impressions of your ears, which are sent to earphone, earplug, or hearing aid companies.

Headfi's got more:

Let's start with that headphone-looking device. Those dots on it are called tracking fiducials. Among many other things, the handheld scanner contains three 14-megapixel cameras, running at around 20 frames per second. As Karol describes it, "The two outside cameras look at the dots on the headset the customer is wearing. The position of the three-camera system is calculated, relative to the headset the customer is wearing. The third, middle camera is used to reconstruct each slice, either ring or line. As the three-camera system is moved, we reconstruct the whole ear, by assembling the slices.

Read more

'Mirrorless is the tablets of the camera world'

Speaking of DPReview's interview with Samsung, clickbait, and all that, DPReview member, sfpeter, distills the state of mirrorless cameras perfectly: 

“I’m as attached to a mirror as I am to whether you turn the on switch left or right. Right now mirrorless cameras are for the most part like advanced bridge cameras that can change lenses. Give me a mirrorless that is full frame, has the picture quality, battery life, and performance of a DSLR ad I’d use it. It HAS to have an EVF, and really the only shooting advantage I’ve seen is the display shows more clearly what the end result image will look like. Otherwise I keep feeling like mirrorless is the tablets of the camera world, something manufacturers tell us we need but we’re not too sure yet.”

Of course, mirrorless cameras must be defined as a non-Leica dSLR-alike interchangeable cameras that rely on a naked sensor for all photographic tasks from focusing to exposure. And, which are marketed as 'small', 'light', and 'the future of photography', among other things.

Thom Hogan addressed the interview perfectly in his article entitled: How Internet News Distorts Things.

Sans Mirror: Mirrorless to Outsell DSLRs ‘in three years’

Last week's headline-grabbing DPReview article entitled: CES 2015 Samsung Interview: Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years is bubbling with market-baiting undercurrents.

In Thom Hogan's words: 

“However, the actual quote in the interview is “In the last year…market reports are predicting that in 2018/19 mirrorless cameras will outsell DSLRs.” In other words, Samsung was quoting one of those private, for-money-only market analyst reports. I say “one” and not “reports” because I only know of one that makes the prediction Samsung claims. Others that I’m aware of say something slightly different. Indeed, there’s great disagreement amongst analysts on where DSLR sales will eventually settle (if they don’t just decline into oblivion).

I’d also point out that, even if that analyst report quoted by Samsung turns out to be correct, that doesn’t necessarily mean great things for mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras peaked in sales two years ago and have been flat since. The report Samsung referenced assumes that significant current DSLR volume will become mirrorless volume, for example.

Oh, and did I point out that these expensive reports are targeted at…you guessed it…camera and camera accessory makers, companies like Samsung? Thus, in the case of Samsung you have them parroting something they paid money for that tells them what they wanted to hear. I note that Samsung didn’t mention other aspects of that report that might be unflattering to Samsung, or other reports that disagree entirely. In other words, Samsung was picking and choosing what to repeat.”

It's like paying a seer to give you good news, then telling your supporters that you and your descendants will be around for generations, enemies, and acts of god be damned.

A shallow review of the Sony A7 MKII

Beating search engine spiders in order to maintain traffic, and Google rank, requires verbosia. It requires cut-copy-insert-paste style reviews. Here's what I mean:

Here are some images taken by (name of camera) which just got released. It is so new and hot. And the (name of feature) is vastly improved. This review of the (name of camera) will show you how (name of city) looks like [sic] through the great (name of lens) and (name of camera) combination.

Do that as often as possible. You will beat Google. Your If you're an honest blog like the super-honest The Phoblographer, you'll even put out out a proviso:

“At the moment of initially publishing this review, we haven’t done a lot of in-depth testing for the reason that Adobe Lightroom doesn’t support the RAW files at the moment, so we’re going to update this section when that happens.”

Why thank you, The Phoblographer. And congrats. You have just beat Google. Later on, all you got to do is change the wording of the title from 'Impressions' to 'Review', paste in some Lightroom comparos, and voila! Review!

But I prefer to have my leek soup with leeks.

Source: Review: Sony A7 MK II

Camera makers focusing on other camera makers, not on customers

According to Thom Hogan, camera makers look at other camera makers, not at customers, when designing new cameras.

“Further, it’s abundantly clear that the camera makers are all looking at each other, not at customers. Anything different (more pixels, different sensor size, lower light capability, different focus system, IS, you name it) tends to be quickly matched or reacted to in some way very quickly by most of the players (uh, Pentax, hello?). Sometimes it’s just marketing message or pricing that adjusts, but often we see things like the Canon EOS M putting a mirrorless stake in the ground, which has a FUD-like drag effect on the others. Short of a truly breakthrough technology that’s patent protected, none of the camera makers are going to manage to beat the others to the punch by more than a cycle or so. ”

By targeting other manufacturers, sales are netted on the slippery backs of system jumpers. Endemic to system jumping is dabbling, and its apparent market growth. This occurs only when a technology excites the enthusiast. When that technology ripens, enthusiasts move on.

It is an unsustainable market. Camera companies gaining market share in a dwindling market will result in the death of numerous mounts, the wholesale liquidation of lenses, accessories, and cameras, and the alienation of investing customers. 

Mirrorless or not, everyone is making a wannabe dSLR. Everyone is making fantastic lenses. And yes, there are some cool technologies underpinning today's latest mirrorless cameras. But apart from smartphones, nothing new, nothing that revolutionises the way the user interacts with their camera, or the world they are shooting, has hit market.

It was never the camera that we wanted: it was us. And the easiest way for us to get more of what we want is the smartphone. 

Sans Mirror: DSLRs are the new medium format

Thom doesn't see dSLRs going the way of the dodo. Cameras of all types have their uses, and niches. As mirrorless establishes a larger foothold in the dwindling camera market, the dSLR will become, in Thom's words: 

“the new Medium Format. In other words, the ones who are truly serious about extracting all they can from their imaging will still use DSLRs, while the rest will use mirrorless cameras. ”

Many FF 35mm photographers stepping down to smaller sensors notice that lens parity doesn't exist. A m43 sensor attached to a 150mm f/2,8 lens may achieve a similar angle of view as a FF 300mm lens, but its DOF will be closer to a hypothetical and compact 300mm f/5,6 lens.

Size advantages exist only when taking DOF out of the picture. In Thom's words:

“Mirrorless cameras are turning into smaller, lighter, excellent performers that do well in a limited range of focal lengths, typically 16-105mm. It’s when the subject starts moving fast and/or you need lots of reach that those three adjectives (smaller, lighter, excellent) tend to disappear.

I’m not convinced that those three things will be “fixed” in the near term, if ever. Once you get into longer telephoto lenses, the lens size and weight tends to be dictated by focal length and aperture and less by sensor size. A 300mm f/2.8 lens will be at or near 300mm in length and the front element will be over 100mm wide. Sure, m4/3, with it’s crop length, can produce a 150mm f/2.8 lens that’s “equivalent,” but it will still be 150mm in length and feature a 58mm front element or larger, and technically it has a two stop disadvantage to a full frame 300mm f/2.8, so we really should be comparing to a 300mm f/5.6. An APS system will need a 200mm lens, and it’ll have a 72mm front element at f/2.8 and just over a one stop disadvantage. In other words, there’s some scaling, but the size/weight of telephoto options tends to start creeping beyond the small, light category and aren’t delivering the same subject isolation at f/2.8.”

I'm assuming that by 16-105mm, Thom is referring to 35mm FF equivalent focal lengths, as 16mm on 1", on m43, on APS-C frames quite different images. Extrapolating on the above, lenses for smaller sensors returning FF-equivalent framing and DOF to a 300mm f/2,8 would be just as large, if not larger, than the lens they were designed to emulate. Which is why compromises exist.

All systems are limited by two pillars: size and performance. Small-sensor mirrorless cameras have certain advantages. Equating FF DOF and angles of view limit much of their utility and every size advantage they boast. And yet, dSLRs grew up to be beasts. Even Nikon's compact D5000 is a beast next to a typical film-era SLR.

Which is one reason Thom concludes thusly:

“Maybe there isn’t one [be-all, end-all product] any more, and you simply use mirrorless for one set of tasks and DSLRs for another.”

l-camera forum: Should the next M have a Hybrid viewfinder?

While Fujifilm X fans debate endlessly whether or not the hybrid OVF should be completely replaced by an EVF, Leica fans are staunch in their support of the integrated rangefinder/focusing window. 

The few dissenters raise suggestions such as the following:

“Perhaps they could replace the Frame Line device with a transparent EVF screen. It would be in the optical path of the RF mechanism, so the RF would still be mechanical, but the Frame lines would be via the EVF. They could then overly all kinds of focus assist solutions.

A lot of people would not like that, however it would allow for the display of a single Frame-line based on the 6-bit coding, and perhaps autofocus capabilities for a new generation of lenses. If we look at the changes between the M9 and M240 then we have to assume then next M will offer a similar step up.

I like the film cameras more and more (3 dials and one button), would be happy with an affordable M60 to complement a _more_ digital M380.”

But speculation rises every three or four years in Leica camp as current products reach ostensible end-of-life cycles. Near Consensus is possible among Leica fans because the M system itself is much better targeted toward the best customers for the M.

Fujifilm makes do with people coming up from P&S cameras and down, from dSLRs; users that want everything all the time, and are ready and willing to jump ship at the drop of a hat. 

Source: Should the next M have a Hybrid Viewfinder? - Leica User Forum

DPReview: X-T1 PC Sync after 3.0 Firmware update

DPReview member, RoundVu, noticed the following after upgrading his/her Fujifilm X-T1 Firmware to 3.0:

“This may be coincidental but it seems that after updating to Firmware version 3, I can’t trigger my manual flashes with PC-Sync. I’ve taken thousands of pictures using it before to trigger my Godox V850 flashes and had no problems. Today, I can’t get it to work.”

The problem wasn't that the camera was set to silent mode. Rather, it was that the X-T1 was set to MS + ES (manual shutter + electronic shutter); and MS + ES disables all flash functionality.

Which begs the question: why does a user have to first check if a camera has been set to so-called silent mode before flash is used? Second, why does setting the X-T1 to MS + ES turn off all flash functionality?

What is it about this photographer-friendly company that is actually photographer friendly? Which begs this question: what does photographer-friendly mean?

Follow the discussion: X-T1 PC Sync after 3.0 Firmware update