When will we have auto shutter speed?

[Tom Pinchenzo]

As in, where the camera sets the shutter speed based on the amount of movement in the frame - so if the camera detects minimum movement e.g. still subject, steady hand, short focal length then it will allow a longer shutter speed but if there’s fast moving subject like children of pets or shakey hands then it will detect the amount of movement and set a minimum shutter speed that will capture the motion. I imagine the tech is available - especially in iPhones etc. I wonder when it will appear MILCs.

Curious after some blurry shots with auto-iso (1/100 with 85mm)

 

[Tdes]

A big part of skill in photography is reading the scene and deciding on the best settings.

I shot someone welding once, sparks moving fast but I wouldn't want a high shutter speed. Without mind reading I don't think a circuit board would get that right!

 

[TCR4x4]

This technology already exists in some smartphone ai systems, so probably will make its way in to bigger cameras soon enough.
Not something I’d see myself using mind.

 

[Sky]

Just practice until you get it right. It's much more fulfilling than using auto everything - it means you're taking the picture instead of the camera.

FWIW, I think it's a terrible idea . . .

 

[DG Phototraining]

I'm looking forward to AI on drones, with a "Go shoot" function

I see this as being (thinking)... Hmmm looks like a nice day for photos of XYZ

So get your AI drone out, speak to it about what you'd like it to capture, then off it goes while you nip down the pub

Dave

 

[ukaskew]

Just practice until you get it right. It's much more fulfilling than using auto everything - it means you're taking the picture instead of the camera.

FWIW, I think it's a terrible idea . . .

I imagine somebody said that about Auto ISO once upon a time (or indeed Autofocus!), but that his its uses. I'm sure it wouldn't be an all or nothing thing.

When shooting motorsport I have pretty much manual everything (including focus a lot of the time), but shooting a wedding I'm more than happy to hand-off ISO control to the camera (configured by me with lowest shutter speed etc) for 95% of the day. I pretty much ride Aperture and Exposure Comp for the vast majority of the day, would rather focus on capturing moments, which can often be fleeting in the extreme.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I usually shoot landscapes and so I'm in aperture priority/manual focus, but on this occasion I was shooting some teenagers doing some conservation work - it was fairly dark so I was having to up the ISO to get hand-holdable shutter speed. I could have checked the SP for each shot and upped the ISO accordingly but tbh, I would have missed half the images. I was trying to get candids too so it was pretty run-and-gun. I wanted to focus on the shooting rather than worry about settings.

 

[riddell]

You really that lazy to learn a few basic settings?
Want the waiter to aeroplane the food into your mouth next time you go to a restaurant?

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

You really that lazy to learn a few basic settings?
Want the waiter to aeroplane the food into your mouth next time you go to a restaurant?

Someone's feeling cantankerous today! I guess you didn't read the whole thread ("You really that lazy to comment without reading it properly" is a less friendly way I could have put it).

I don't need to learn any 'basic setting' - I understand it all perfectly well thank you. My point was that it would save precious seconds with changing light/fast moving subjects and lead to more sharp images/keepers.

 

[Asha]

My point was that it would save precious seconds with changing light/fast moving subjects and lead to more sharp images/keepers.

Perhaps but do you not feel that modern digital kit is already over automated.

If we continue with this line of thought / wishes, soon we as togs will be replaced ......"RoboTog"

And no I'm not trying to come across as cantankerous , I do feel however that perhaps there is a point at which a stop to further automation would be beneficial, not least of all to make wannabe togs actually learn how to do photography instead of relying on a computer to do it.

There are masses out there with kit on auto who are not happy with their images simply because they do not understand the basic principals and yes, many are simply too darned lazy to learn.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

Perhaps but do you not feel that modern digital kit is already over automated.

If we continue with this line of thought / wishes, soon we as togs will be replaced ......"RoboTog"

And no I'm not trying to come across as cantankerous , I do feel however that perhaps there is a point at which a stop to further automation would be beneficial, not least of all to make wannabe togs actually learn how to do photography instead of relying on a computer to do it.

There are masses out there with kit on auto who are not happy with their images simply because they do not understand the basic principals and yes, many are simply too darned lazy to learn.

Yes, modern digital kit is very automated and I think if you stick it on auto-everything you're missing the point of photography. I've shot fully-manual 35mm and medium format film cameras for that reason - it's nice to slow down and spin a aperture ring now and again. For a while I used a fully manual Praktica super TL to shoot my daughter when we were out and about but found manually exposing with light meter to be a bit of a pain and I wasn't 'in the moment' as a result. I then used a Pentax ME Super, which had aperture priority, but manual focus. This helped but found manual focusing a bit slow with a toddler who didn't stand still and missing a bunch of shots was becoming expensive in film. So now I shoot a Nikon F80, with my modern 85mm af-s lens, which is great. The reason I'm saying this is because you use the tech that you feel you need. In the situation I'm talking about I was shooting a Nikon D610 in aperture priority, changing between wide open-ish for individuals and stopping down when there were more people to get all in focus, I had selected an appropriate focus mode (af-c) and metering mode (spot), I'd set the white balance to auto because I was under a canopy and didn't want a green cast. I didn't care what the shutter speed was as long as it didn't cause blur and I didn't care what ISO was as long as it wasn't unnecessarily high. What I did care about in this particular situation, was being able to respond to the fast pace in front of me, engaging with the kids (teenagers can be funny when you poke a camera at them), working with the changing natural light and getting sharp images. This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I'm not a 'wannabe tog' or lazy or ignorant, nor do I need to learn camera settings. If you want to rally against automation then let's have a conversation about Luminar's new AI editing software, sky replacement etc.

 

[Marc]

You really that lazy to learn a few basic settings?
Want the waiter to aeroplane the food into your mouth next time you go to a restaurant?

No need.

 

[Asha]

If you want to rally against automation

No I don't!

I'm not a 'wannabe tog' or lazy or ignorant,

I don't believe I was making out that YOU are.

nor do I need to learn camera settings

Nor did I say that you did.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

No I don't!




I don't believe I was making out that YOU are.



Nor did I say that you did.

Sorry Asha, my defensiveness spilled over from @riddell 's comment! I completely take your point about automation of photography but what I was trying to get at was that the automation of any element of the process can can be useful, if the process as a whole is understood - 'read the manual before you ignore it' kind of thing. If you have the ability to shoot fully manual then you're able to select what aspects of the process you want automating for different situations, retaining control over the things you need to create the images you want and letting the camera do the rest. Like I said, in that situation I didn't care what the shutter speed or ISO are as long as the former isn't too slow and the latter too high. If the camera can take those elements out of my hands, then great - it frees up more of my brain space to focus on shooting.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I usually shoot landscapes and so I'm in aperture priority/manual focus, but on this occasion I was shooting some teenagers doing some conservation work - it was fairly dark so I was having to up the ISO to get hand-holdable shutter speed. I could have checked the SP for each shot and upped the ISO accordingly but tbh, I would have missed half the images. I was trying to get candids too so it was pretty run-and-gun. I wanted to focus on the shooting rather than worry about settings.

Manual shutter and aperture plus auto ISO. Simples.

 

[Ben johns]

Personally I’d be surprised if companies put their energy into something like an auto shutter speed. It would require a far superior Ai to try to figure out what’s in the scene. It would need to know that you want to take a photo of a fast moving car for instance rather than the landscape around the car. It would most likely also vastly decrease the battery life as it would be constantly scanning the scene to decide on a shutter speed. Personally I think advancements will go into iso performance first. If it ever gets to a point where iso 3200 looks close to iso 100 then auto iso with a shutter speed left at 1/1000 would be simpler to achieve

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

Manual shutter and aperture plus auto ISO. Simples.

Yeah, I guess that would work. It would be useful for the camera to then increase shutter speed to maintain exposure when ISO reached base. Then you could just forget about exposure.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

Personally I’d be surprised if companies put their energy into something like an auto shutter speed. It would require a far superior Ai to try to figure out what’s in the scene. It would need to know that you want to take a photo of a fast moving car for instance rather than the landscape around the car. It would most likely also vastly decrease the battery life as it would be constantly scanning the scene to decide on a shutter speed. Personally I think advancements will go into iso performance first. If it ever gets to a point where iso 3200 looks close to iso 100 then auto iso with a shutter speed left at 1/1000 would be simpler to achieve

I take your point. But processors getting crazy now and battery tech is improving too to keep up. iPhones have mental processors. I think it's a matter of time before that level of AI is par for the course. And couldn't the camera make those decisions based on your focus point?

 

[Ben johns]

I take your point. But processors getting crazy now and battery tech is improving too to keep up. iPhones have mental processors. I think it's a matter of time before that level of AI is par for the course. And couldn't the camera make those decisions based on your focus point?

They probably could. I think it most likely will come but I would imagine making some kind of sensor with crazy iso performance would be first. It’s not far off and I most people would probably rather have that over the shutter speed.
It’s hard to judge really. Features like that will push the cost of a camera up. Most of the people that can justify the cost will be experienced and they tend to, not always, want more control. I wouldn’t be surprised if camera companies stop making low end consumer cameras as soon as phones get to the next level.

 

[Phil V]

As in, where the camera sets the shutter speed based on the amount of movement in the frame - so if the camera detects minimum movement e.g. still subject, steady hand, short focal length then it will allow a longer shutter speed but if there’s fast moving subject like children of pets or shakey hands then it will detect the amount of movement and set a minimum shutter speed that will capture the motion. I imagine the tech is available - especially in iPhones etc. I wonder when it will appear MILCs.

Curious after some blurry shots with auto-iso (1/100 with 85mm)

How would it know?
Using a slow shutter speed to capture movement is an old and common technique - how does the camera know when and how much movement I want for the image in my head.

Apologies, but I do honestly think this was user error - you can't shoot people going about their business at 1/100 it's just a simple fact.

My camera BTW automatically does what you needed AV, auto ISO, 1/250 min shutter speed, I'd guess yours does it too.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

How would it know?
Using a slow shutter speed to capture movement is an old and common technique - how does the camera know when and how much movement I want for the image in my head.

Apologies, but I do honestly think this was user error - you can't shoot people going about their business at 1/100 it's just a simple fact.

My camera BTW automatically does what you needed AV, auto ISO, 1/250 min shutter speed, I'd guess yours does it too.

If you wanted to utilise a slow shutter speed for creative purposes you wouldn’t use the feature. It would be used when you didn’t care what the sp was, you just wanted it sharp.
And of course it was user error - I’m not blaming my camera!

Imagine if I decided to take a posed shot where 1/100 at 85mm would work - if I was at 1/250 I could get away with lower iso. But my point is, it would be useful if the camera could detect the level of motion and allow 1/100 if there was little enough movement in the scene. Diff between 1/100 and 1/250 is over a stop - folks pay a lot of money for cameras that are f/1.2 instead of f/1.8

 

[Phil V]

If you wanted to utilise a slow shutter speed for creative purposes you wouldn’t use the feature. It would be used when you didn’t care what the sp was, you just wanted it sharp.

So it's not on all the time then? I'd have to choose to use it?

Then I can't see the point; because the feature requires my intervention (and me understanding I need to intervene) ergo, I could have simply picked an aperture and SS and left auto ISO.

And I'm ignoring the line about fast lenses, we both understand there's more to a large aperture than the stop of light

 

[Ben johns]

So it's not on all the time then? I'd have to choose to use it?

Then I can't see the point; because the feature requires my intervention (and me understanding I need to intervene) ergo, I could have simply picked an aperture and SS and left auto ISO.

And I'm ignoring the line about fast lenses, we both understand there's more to a large aperture than the stop of light

I can sort of see it being something that could be used if you left the camera on full auto. But I rarely have anything on auto so I wouldn’t have a use for it. Probably the sort of thing a newcomer might appreciate

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

Oh come on guys! It’s basically aperture priority with auto-iso but with smarter shutter speed selection allowing lower iso when the camera detects little enough movement. Phil, it’s no different to when I’m shooting landscapes it’s on manual but when I’m shootings people I select auto ISO. You wouldn’t have to select/deselect for each shot.

This discussion reminds me of a friend who was convinced the idea of having folded lasagne that you could carry around like a pasty was an amazing idea - he couldn’t understand why no one was getting on bored.

 

[robj20]

You really that lazy to learn a few basic settings?
Want the waiter to aeroplane the food into your mouth next time you go to a restaurant?

Cameras are a tool, since when has it not been a primary goal of tool design to make them easier and better to do the job.

 

[ukaskew]

Perhaps but do you not feel that modern digital kit is already over automated.

If we continue with this line of thought / wishes, soon we as togs will be replaced ......"RoboTog"

Personally the technical side of photography holds little interest with me. The equipment is a means to an end and if it can help in any way I'm not going to get precious about it. Photography for me is having an eye for composition and light, always has been.

If all the automated functions failed at a wedding or when travelling or when shooting motorsport or something I'd get by no problem, but that's not where the enjoyment comes from it for me.

That artistic element of photography will always be available to the photographer regardless of how automated things are, a good camera does not make a bad photographer any better. It may mean they get more in focus and expose things better, but that doesn't make a good photograph.

 

[riddell]

Cameras are a tool, since when has it not been a primary goal of tool design to make them easier and better to do the job.

Absolutely. The improvement of tools is always important and tools will continue to be evolve and improve and make life easier. However some tools and redesigns of tools are an evolutionary dead end.

and there have been loads of tools introduced to help the OP, such as the info being displayed in the viewfinder or on the screen, Twist a dial or two and you have settings you can work with. Takes what? a fraction of a second to do? Combine this with the options of AV, TV or even auto ISO and you have it. And don't forget you have that most wonderful tool improvement / piece of automation of autofocus.
Most amateur photographers will waste more time chimping.

However when it comes to anything creative, such as photography, music, writing, art and so on, there is an early limit to when automation stops being creative, But if you don't want to be creative, there are many tools such as mobile photos which will allow you to snap away. If you want to be creative and take qaultiy images, then you need to spend some time learning and use different tools.

This is no difference to someone using a cake mix vs the chef or why do you think handmade items are so much in demand? If an automated tool could carve wood or stone so perfectly, there would be no demand for an artisan with their chisel.

 

[Ben johns]

I just think a camera with amazing iso performance essentially does away with the need for this auto shutter speed idea. If getting images that aren’t shaky is a concern then a camera that can perform as well at 3200 as it can at 100 means a higher shutter speed. Plus it’s probably easier to implement as it’s essentially a passive addition to a camera and the company can boast about the iso performance.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I just think a camera with amazing iso performance essentially does away with the need for this auto shutter speed idea. If getting images that aren’t shaky is a concern then a camera that can perform as well at 3200 as it can at 100 means a higher shutter speed. Plus it’s probably easier to implement as it’s essentially a passive addition to a camera and the company can boast about the iso performance.

But it’s been acknowledged that improvement on camera tech through advances in hardware (such as better iso performance through better sensors) are beginning to level off - hence why the newest flagship DSLR bodies like the D6 weren’t that impressive. With hardware, eventually physics gets in the way. The curve has levelled off and we’re only getting marginal gains with each new iteration. It’s also why camera phones are hot on the heels of more advanced cameras, despite having tiny sensors and average lenses - it’s because they make up for hardware limitations with superior software and powerful processors. They’re not there yet but they’re getting there. IBIS is a tech that allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds - like 1/2 second hand held in some cases - but that still doesn’t capture motion, just reduces camera shake. I imagine 20 years ago if you said cameras would be able to move their sensors to compensate for shakes hands they would have thought it crazy. I find image stabilisation mind boggling and it’s probably not that much more difficult than a camera simply detecting how much movement there is and adjusting the shutter speed accordingly.

 

[Nod]

Isn't it easy to set the rear wheel to SS control and adjust on the fly? Aperture set to what you want/need, ISO to auto and away you go.

 

[toohuge]

I can see your idea .... the hardest thing is writing an algorithm that is ‘intelligent’ in knowing what is slow moving and what isn’t.

It will come in time - but I think sensor tech will overtake the ai development. Given the lower the shutter speed lower iso = less noise. As sensors become better and in body nr reduction improves the need for lowering iso could in many cases be eliminated.

 

[rob-nikon]

This sounds like it may be a good beginners function but as you progress with photography you learn more about the creative side of photography and how to control the camera. The problem with shutter speed is it depends what you’re trying to get. It could be a sharp photo but you could also be trying to blur the subject in a ICM photo. Also what about slower shutter speeds to accentuate movement in water and clouds. You could also have a perched bird but looking at freezing it’s movement when it takes off so use s fast shutter speed than really needed for a perched bird as you’re anticipating fast movement.

I saw this advertised a while back. I guess it going along the lines of what you’re thinking.

Arsenal 2 – Camera Body, Meet Camera Brain.

Smarter than ever, Arsenal 2 uses AI and computational photography to help you take amazing photos in any conditions.

witharsenal.com

 

[spudhead]

I cannot see why you would want auto shutter speed based on movement, I only shoot in manual shutter speed, manual iso, manual f number its easy and helps you learn

 

[SFTPhotography]

I always work to the 1/focal length rule to avoid unintended movement in the frame such as moving grasses etc.

What would be good is a variable shutter, where it can fine tuned to the scene...rather like a dimmer switch.

Why have 1/20th, 1/25th, 1/30th then 1/40th. What if you need 1/22nd of a second for the perfect exposure. Why have conventional apertures like F2.2 then say F2.4. What if you think F2.2125 is the one.

Let the whole thing be variable and my biggest plea is to make higher ISO's just as clean as lower ones...that way faster shutter speeds don't come at the expense of dynamic range, noise etc.

And why have shutters, can't the sensor just go off, then on, then off again and capture it. No movement of parts. What a dream

 

[rob-nikon]

And why have shutters, can't the sensor just go off, then on, then off again and capture it. No movement of parts. What a dream

We already have electronic shutters that are fully silent and run at ridiculous fps without any moving parts. Olympus have cameras that capture photos before you even pressed the shutter button.

If the OP is really worried about shutter count get a Sony A9. The mechanical shutter is rated at 500,000 actuations and using the electronic doesn’t rack up the shutter count (electronic shutter use isn’t captured in the mechanical shutter count).

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I cannot see why you would want auto shutter speed based on movement, I only shoot in manual shutter speed, manual iso, manual f number its easy and helps you learn

Ok, an example, so I’m shooting my kid on a walk in a darkish forest. I can see she’s about to wander through a shaft of light that will be really backlighting her. I have enough time to point my camera and shoot - maybe have time to stop down the aperture as she walking towards me to make sure focus isn’t missed. If I have to set the aperture, check the exposure, adjust the shutter speed, find the shutter speed is too slow to hand hold, so I increase the ISO to compensate. She’s half way up a tree behind me.

And there’s about a thousand more example of fast moving situations where thinking about anything other than what I’m shootings will
mean missing shots.

 

[Lensflare]

Yes, modern digital kit is very automated and I think if you stick it on auto-everything you're missing the point of photography. I've shot fully-manual 35mm and medium format film cameras for that reason - it's nice to slow down and spin a aperture ring now and again. For a while I used a fully manual Praktica super TL to shoot my daughter when we were out and about but found manually exposing with light meter to be a bit of a pain and I wasn't 'in the moment' as a result. I then used a Pentax ME Super, which had aperture priority, but manual focus. This helped but found manual focusing a bit slow with a toddler who didn't stand still and missing a bunch of shots was becoming expensive in film. So now I shoot a Nikon F80, with my modern 85mm af-s lens, which is great. The reason I'm saying this is because you use the tech that you feel you need. In the situation I'm talking about I was shooting a Nikon D610 in aperture priority, changing between wide open-ish for individuals and stopping down when there were more people to get all in focus, I had selected an appropriate focus mode (af-c) and metering mode (spot), I'd set the white balance to auto because I was under a canopy and didn't want a green cast. I didn't care what the shutter speed was as long as it didn't cause blur and I didn't care what ISO was as long as it wasn't unnecessarily high. What I did care about in this particular situation, was being able to respond to the fast pace in front of me, engaging with the kids (teenagers can be funny when you poke a camera at them), working with the changing natural light and getting sharp images. This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I'm not a 'wannabe tog' or lazy or ignorant, nor do I need to learn camera settings. If you want to rally against automation then let's have a conversation about Luminar's new AI editing software, sky replacement etc.

I wonder how Cartier-Bresson managed then? Or any of the sports photographers of the day, or the newspaper photographers... follow focussing during the exposure to get panning shots on a bend sharp throughout the car or bike, not just the plane of focus for the given aperture, working with 100ASA (ISO to you) as a luxury and often using a 500 f4 with 50ASA and a polariser, reducing the effective ISO to 12......

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I wonder how Cartier-Bresson managed then? Or any of the sports photographers of the day, or the newspaper photographers... follow focussing during the exposure to get panning shots on a bend sharp throughout the car or bike, not just the plane of focus for the given aperture, working with 100ASA (ISO to you) as a luxury and often using a 500 f4 with 50ASA and a polariser, reducing the effective ISO to 12......

A) they were better than me B) they probably missed an awful lot of shots to get the keepers

 

[Ed Sutton]

A) they were better than me B) they probably missed an awful lot of shots to get the keepers

The fear of failure is what holds a lot of people back in photography. Missed shots is one aspect of this.

Missing shots is part of photography. Stop worrying about missing shots and concentrate on making the ones you don't miss better.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

The fear of failure is what holds a lot of people back in photography. Missed shots is one aspect of this.

Missing shots is part of photography. Stop worrying about missing shots and concentrate on making the ones you don't miss better.

By 'missed shots' I mean missed focus, exposure etc. I'm not sure whether you mean shots you didn't take or shots you did take that didn't work.

My point was if you are too busy thinking about exposure, shutter speed etc. you might miss fleeting moments.