A thought process in progress...

Dogman said:
I feel the same way.

Simplicity is important to me. I have very basic needs when it comes to my camera usage. I like the philosophy Leica has about simplicity but I can simplify my Fuji cameras pretty well. Once I set the camera up to my preferences, I seldom have to delve into the menus.
Click to expand...

Correct, just need aperture, shutter speed and ISO. And then focus whatever way you like. All the rest is marketing.
 
Simplicity is one of the reasons I returned to film.
Robert, that happened to me sometimes, to my dismay.
However, some cameras (GH5 is a case in point) allow you to save and load a complete setting
So, at the beginning of a session, or when in doubt, I reload my favorite setting, which I have elaborated to my liking, and avoid a possible disaster
 
I do enjoy my metal, mechanical film cameras be they made by Leica, Pentax, or someone else. Their simplicity and reliability (at least the K1000 remains reliable) are truly a joy.


However, my aging eyes occasionally betray me, particularly when the light becomes weak, so I find myself relying more and more often on auto focus which does not seem to come with the same level of metal, mechanical simplicity.
 
Darthfeeble said:
I've not tried focus peaking in low light, I'll try it and report back.
Click to expand...

Focus peaking utility in low light is highly variable. It depends on

  • The contrast of the intended focus region has the largest impact on focus peaking utility. High contrast in low light can work better than low contrast in brighter light.
  • The sensitivity of the AF system which is expressed in EV (smaller and negative values are better. In low light the EVF display have less detail because the overall signal-to-noise .ratio is lower.
  • The effectiveness of the in-camera AF firmware
  • For EVF finders, the inherent contrast of the finder display.
  • Phase-detection AF works best with fast lenses. Contrast detection works best in low light.(link1, link2).
  • Some cameras a small number of central AF detection sites with higher sensitivity.

It took me a while to experiment with each new camera to maximize focus peaking AF performance in low light.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Getting the focusing out of the way and watching for a somewhat decisive moment with a finder that lets me see what is happening outside the frame helps too.
Click to expand...
It's not just the finder.
Leica, in their M lenses, is the only camera/lens company that I know of who's lens markings support zone- or scale-focusing in any meaningful way. The ability to accurately pre-set focus is critical to watching the scene and not a data display. My Nikon DSLRs...no. Fuji...sorry, but the distance markings on the lenses...if they have markings at all(!)... are nearly worthless.
 
pluton said:
It's not just the finder.
Leica, in their M lenses, is the only camera/lens company that I know of who's lens markings support zone- or scale-focusing in any meaningful way. The ability to accurately pre-set focus is critical to watching the scene and not a data display.
Click to expand...
I don't know of any manual focus lens for any of the major camera brands that doesn't have a depth of field scale engraved on the lens. Leica lenses are not unique in that regard. You rarely see depth of field scales on autofocus lenses, even Leica autofocus lenses like the TL and SL series.
 
robert blu said:
Yes, of course we can use a camera with many menu options in a simple way, after having spent some time in setting up as we desire or just simply learn to live with the default options.

The problem arises when for accident, mistake or another undesired reason we hit a button we shouldn't have touched and change some settings and the camera start no to make what we desire/need...

My wife's D-109 is a nightmare when this happens, and it happens...

robert
Click to expand...

The joys of 'Custom' modes (or whatever they're called in your brand of choice) :) Set them up to taste and they will always be the same.

Every time I turn on my Pen F in C1, it has exactly the same settings, doesn't matter what I've managed to bump or change or mess around with the last time I used it.
 
Hi Bill.

I agree totally. I am all Leica for the last 3 1/2 years. I have been doing my persoanl work with an MM since 2012. For my professional work I was using DSLRs and had several. Back up for the back up. Now that I went Leica M digtial for everyhting I have two M 10s, and M 262, M-E and still rocking the MM. NO REGRETES going all Leica M and the M 10s are more than capable for all of my needs. Can't beat the siplicity.
 
I have a F2 and a DF and a bunch of manual focus lenses if I could have a M2 and a digital m and a bunch of manual focus lenses I'd be alright with that too

Fuji? Okay maybe...
 
Bill Pierce said:
Too bad simplicity costs so much more than complexity.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

jsrockit said:
For me, Fuji has everything I liked about the Leica with everything I like about modern mirrorless.
Click to expand...

I used Leica film bodies (more or less exclusively) for about decade. What I loved was that I could set the exposure manually and see what it was without bringing the camera to my eye and the viewfinder. I love seeing everything in focus, and then imagining what the scene will look like with a narrower plane of focus rather than the other way around. It makes it much easier to align background elements for example.

I'm also a minimalist. I don't like things too complicated. The Leica fit that brilliantly.

But, I'm not going to drop A$8000+ on a digital body. I'm a hobbyist with a young family, my money is better spent elsewhere.

After much deliberations I ended up with a Fuji x100F. I started looking at them when the original was announced, but it took me a while to make the leap. It ticks the boxes that the Leica ticked, without the additional stuff required for film (I don't like stuff in my life). I have the focus decoupled from the shutter, so I can effectively set the focus and shoot away without it changing. I can manually focus it, and the viewfinder is excellent bright, and contains the information I want and nothing extra. In short, "Fuji has everything I liked about the Leica" with some additional things that make it easier to get what I want. I don't go into the menu, and the back buttons stay locked. Easy. Simple. Cheap.
 
I think of a camera as the photographer's violin. And while some believe that Stradivarius is "the best," others know that some players (Sarah Chang, for example) must use a Guarnari Del Gesu, because it will do what they need it to, and the Strad won't. Hilary Hahn is similar. She uses a French copy of the Guarnarius. Either of them could have a Strad if it were right for them. So I think this same idea applies to cameras. If a Leica were the right instrument for a given photographer, as it often is, they will probably eventually get one. But some shooters will do better with something else; and I can easily believe that the "something else" will often be a Fuji.
 
Rob-F said:
I think of a camera as the photographer's violin. And while some believe that Stradivarius is "the best," others know that some players (Sarah Chang, for example) must use a Guarnari Del Gesu, because it will do what they need it to, and the Strad won't. Hilary Hahn is similar. She uses a French copy of the Guarnarius. Either of them could have a Strad if it were right for them. So I think this same idea applies to cameras. If a Leica were the right instrument for a given photographer, as it often is, they will probably eventually get one. But some shooters will do better with something else; and I can easily believe that the "something else" will often be a Fuji.
Click to expand...

The magic is done by the user.

I remember the late Chet Atkins saying that others told him in a dressing room after a live performance on stage, "it must be great to be the owner of many prototype Gretsch guitars that he had some input in their design and that might account for his great tone and skill on the instrument".

Which caused Chet to place his guitar on a chair by its self and answered the questioner, " How does it sound now?"
 
Too bad simplicity costs so much more than complexity
Click to expand...

I am not sure this is really true. I did use a clearly quite complex camera for some time (Olympus E-M1). For Olympus novices, menus are a nightmare to work with.

The thing is: if you take the time and understand the options and degrees of freedom the camera gives you, it can be configured to your specific needs really well.

Focussing and exposure correction can be made super intuitive (in my example with the E-M1) - no reason to ever dive into menus. It just means that the same camera used be someone else may actually be configured so differently, that you find it hard to operate it.

Modern cameras are often built as fit-all-tools. There are now so much more people using advanced cameras. Products are mostly judged by how much they have on board. Hello youtube. We can always make the option loaded camera a specialised tool in a lot of the cases.
 
Photon42 said:
I am not sure this is really true. I did use a clearly quite complex camera for some time (Olympus E-M1). For Olympus novices, menus are a nightmare to work with.

The thing is: if you take the time and understand the options and degrees of freedom the camera gives you, it can be configured to your specific needs really well.

Focussing and exposure correction can be made super intuitive (in my example with the E-M1) - no reason to ever dive into menus. It just means that the same camera used be someone else may actually be configured so differently, that you find it hard to operate it.

Modern cameras are often built as fit-all-tools. There are now so much more people using advanced cameras. Products are mostly judged by how much they have on board. Hello youtube. We can always make the option loaded camera a specialised tool in a lot of the cases.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I shoot with Leica M digital and that it is a true rangefinder which is important to the way I see and work. It is nice to have options and in my opinion Leica M digital is a true alternative to the one size fiits all that seems to dominate the mirrorless and DSLR world. All the camreas being made today by the big guys are, for the most part, amazing. It then gets down to preference. I am fortunate to be making my living doing this so I always have been in a possition to get the tools I need to do the job. And for me and the way I see and work Leica digital M fits just right.
 
I think simplicity in sophisticated tools is an interesting topic (examples of hammers and needs not quite work here). There are digital cameras without a screen. It that simplification or complication? For some the former, for some the latter. I can feel this "getting out of the way" thing with the Olympus I mentioned earlier as well as any of my rangefinders, but it is specific to the task.
Simplicity often in the end leads to reduction, thus to specialisation. As long as your tool matches your photographic problem, you will be fine.
I do like Bauhaus, and generally simple design. Companies in their fear to loose short term market share start to over-listen to influencers and customers. This then leads cameras without a straight concept. My only point actually is: with some cameras it does not matter so much - you can actually tailor them once to make them your concept. But that's just operational. The soul gets attracted by tactile feel, body looks and prestige (why would we think this can be different). Leicas excel in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom