"An Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity" by Mark Dubovoy

[noimmunity]

People's neurons are being bombarded by overstimulation from an early age. Simplicity is becoming more and more elusive. Just look around and see how many people really can deal with occasional boredom.

Heck, trying to come up with the cash to pay for an MM, the digital camera that probably most fully realizes "simplicity and divergence" today, is anything but simple!

The R-D1 was, as mentioned, probably the only camera that fully realized this ideal, and that partially explains its enduring popularity. Looks like the M9 will more or less be the same.

 

[thegman]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml

I am surprised I am not seeing a thread about this yet.

A good quote among many:

"Dear camera manufacturers, there are 3 ways to change exposure: Shutter speed, aperture and ISO setting. So why don't we get cameras with 3 controls, one for each function?"​

+ I would add, why not a good old (non-moterized / manual) focus ring with scales in feet or meters and depths. That would really make a lovely camera (and it does not have to be full frame!).

Anybody else?

I'm lucky in that I shoot film, and these things are easy to come by. However, in digital, they are of course not at all easy to come by and that is a shame.

I will relay my own experience, and perhaps this what camera makers are scared of... My girlfriend and I are out taking photos, me with my M3, her with a Pentax digital compact. I suggested she give the M3 a try, and she said it was too complicated and did not know how to work it. I remarked that it was far simpler than her Pentax compact, as all she had to do was focus (which she already understood how that worked on a range finder), change the aperture (did not really get what that did), and change the shutter speed (didn't truly get why she had to do that). To her, the gazillion modes of a modern digital camera is simpler than a few concepts which you need to understand.

I think understanding is where many people fall down, and camera makers, computer makers, phone makers etc. are all afraid of. You can teach people 100 routines and sequences, but teaching 1 concept seems to be a lot harder.

On the other side, maybe this digital camera with 4 controls simply would not appeal to enough people. We are so conditioned to believe that more is more, that I think the number of people would lust after such a simple camera is probably very small indeed. I am zealous proponent of simplicity in technology, but I almost certainly would not buy such a camera as I can easily get a bazillion other, cheaper, better cameras if I'm just willing to use a roll of film, which I am.

 

[thegman]

The ALPA FPS is probably the only currently manufactured still camera on the market that achieves the simplicity goal.

The above is a quote from Mark Dubovoy's article. I think it illustrates the problem perfectly, in that Mark Dubovoy himself does not seem to understand how simple simplicity is. There are of course dozens of cameras in production that are simpler than an Alpa FPS, but they probably don't fit a requirement of a zillion megapixels, ultra expensive digital back, cool buttons and sockets on the back etc.

The camera Mark Dubovoy uses to illustrate his point, is a remarkably convoluted, large and spectacularly expensive camera. Alpa themselves make far simpler cameras, as do many other manufacturers.

 

[Godfrey]

My sum-up of the article: "Just another old git who wants the good old days to come back." ;-)

I have plenty of simple cameras that address the basics, from the stone axe of my plain prism Nikon F up to and including my Leica M9.

And I have a couple of very complex cameras. One of the most complex is my latest - the Olympus E-M1. It also has the best controls of any camera I've owned, and I can configure them to work *exactly* the way I want the camera to work, from fully manual with instant access to ISO, exposure time, aperture, and focus, to fully automated.

I have no complaints about what manufacturers make. I applaud the diversity of design and ideas their products represent. I choose what I want to work with from that, and make what I choose do what I want it to. If it's too much trouble, I sell whatever it was and buy something else that does it more easily.

To me, that's the only sane way to do things. Manufacturers don't make a product for 100 people, or even 1000. They never have, not for anything that costs under $10K anyway. You pick from what they make to suit your needs best, and adapt.

G

 

[TXForester]

I would add, why not a good old (non-moterized / manual) focus ring with scales in feet or meters and depths. That would really make a lovely camera (and it does not have to be full frame!).

^^^this^^^
My Olympus kit lenses have nothing on them. To get an idea what will fall in the depth of field, I would have to measure the distance to the subject (no distance scale) then consult a chart or whip out a smart phone, tablet etc. and plug numbers into DoF Master or something similar. This would quite awkward and time consuming. Plus measuring distances in many cases would be difficult or impossible.

In the old days you simply focused, then turned the aperture ring till the DoF scale showed what you wanted, then make the photo. It took less time to do it than it took me to type the description of steps.

 

[Range-rover]

Although I sound like a broken record.......

All I want is a digital module for my OM-1 body.

The back would be the thickness of the OM data back and the power supply/supporting electronics would be no larger than attaching an auto winder. And yes, it would run on 4 standard AA batteries.

That is simplicity!

I would love someone to make a back like that, I just purchased a few
film cameras the last two weeks Olympus om's and a Nikon F3 and I forgot
how well made this stuff is. I do agree they need less crap in these
cameras do we all use everything in these cameras I don't, I just picked
up my Digital SLR today and forgot which button did what, damn! :bang:

 

[TXForester]

I don't know why it need be complicated. There is no reason why you can't manual control knobs and rings for the basic exposure functions (ISO, shutter speed and aperture). They would have markings so you can see the settings the way we did with film SLRs. You could also have the settings show up in the viewfinder for situations where you want to make changes on the fly and don't want to take your eye from the finder. These settings could also show on the LCD in larger font than on the dials/rings for people with poorer eyesight.

There is also no problem with equipping the camera with A and P settings for people who want more than a point and shoot, but want the camera to do the work. All the whiz-bang settings for AF, bracketing, etc. would still be available in menu.

You end up with a camera that is as simple or complicated as the photographer wants and adds the ease of use for basic settings just like our beloved film SLRs.

 

[noisycheese]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml

I am surprised I am not seeing a thread about this yet.

A good quote among many:

"Dear camera manufacturers, there are 3 ways to change exposure: Shutter speed, aperture and ISO setting. So why don't we get cameras with 3 controls, one for each function?"​

+ I would add, why not a good old (non-moterized / manual) focus ring with scales in feet or meters and depths. That would really make a lovely camera (and it does not have to be full frame!).

Anybody else?

We already have those cameras:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lei...mcamera.com%2Fpp%2Fleica%2Fm%2Fm3.htm;388;252

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lei...%2F%2Fwww.kenrockwell.com%2Fleica%2F;1200;827

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lei...m%2Fphotos%2Fhagen123%2F3939189229%2F;640;481

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lei...es%2FLeica%2FLeica-M6%2FM6_IPO1996%2F;701;511

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lei...%2Fphotos%2Ffotografm%2F5323201091%2F;640;455

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lei...uresinphoto.com%2Ftag%2Fleica-mp%2F;2014;1181

😉

 

[Range-rover]

I wonder if they took all the stuff out of there cameras and made it like a manual
match-needle or diode do hickey camera like a FM-2 or OM1 and made it Full frame
do you guy think it would be less money, Na.

Range

 

[StillKicking]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml


A good quote among many:

"Dear camera manufacturers, there are 3 ways to change exposure: Shutter speed, aperture and ISO setting. So why don't we get cameras with 3 controls, one for each function?"​

Anybody else?

I am still waiting for the digital Pentax K1000 (or even better MX). My daughter uses my 1977 K1000 (my first 'real' camera) simply because it makes her smile every time she shoots it.

I have never found a camera with better ergonomics - although I have to say there is nothing like the Leica M2/3/4 😀

In the digital world I still love my M9.

 

[Drago]

That's the market today and it's what it is. The more functions, menus the better. Oh and modern DSLRs are capable of shooting quite nice in video mode - with the right lenses and equipment, so that's a nice bonus if you need it. You can still put it in M mode and just change aperture/shutter if that's the problem. What i don't like in todays market is not the lack of simplicity but the lack of choice. Nikon, Canon , Sony - they all look the same to me, with a bit different lines of design, but still the same. There's no the choice of film era cameras, where you have endless choice of bodies and lenses, all so very different from each other 🙂

 

[btgc]

Manufacturers may ask back - if we deliver such cameras will this increases number of photographs, real photographs instead of test pictures, demo pictures, "I'm too!" pictures ?

 

[alistair.o]

That's the market today and it's what it is. The more functions, menus the better. Oh and modern DSLRs are capable of shooting quite nice in video mode - with the right lenses and equipment, so that's a nice bonus if you need it. You can still put it in M mode and just change aperture/shutter if that's the problem. What i don't like in todays market is not the lack of simplicity but the lack of choice. Nikon, Canon , Sony - they all look the same to me, with a bit different lines of design, but still the same. There's no the choice of film era cameras, where you have endless choice of bodies and lenses, all so very different from each other 🙂

Agreed.

I have given this subject some thought over the years. Let's say for arguments sake we look back to the days of the Nikon F. I dare say I would not find a single person who would disagree with me when I say that there are outstanding (if not brilliant) examples of photography done with that camera. It is without dispute, that the same can be said for the Leica M2/M4 (same era approx). We even collect photographic books of pictures and essays carried out with those cameras.

Are those cameras still available today? Yes, of course they are as is ample quantites of film. Why then do we want and even demand different tools for our craft? Understand me clearly, I am not a Ludite; go back in this thread and you will see that.

The latest film camera, say a Nikon F6 / Leica MP can help to leap frog the learning process of metering and understanding chiaroscuro, but even then they will not make a peron a photographer. The same for digital. I love using my digital (it's got a brand name, but that's not the point here)

Too many aspirers hooked on the bait of easy craftwork. Yet, we continue to buy those books and drool and wish to be of the same calibre as those who communicated face to face with their subjects and used ' basic tools' to produce that which we view in exhibitions and galleries.

I am of a firm belief that we as humans are losing touch with each other and this is having a direct effect on what we buy for photography and why. We need to go back to basics.

If it can be done with a light box (and you know it has) why are you chasing that which will not make you -YOU- the photographer? The machine in your hands (for less and less time because you dump it on the market for the next model) is now doing 70% and more of the work.

 

[sojournerphoto]

This isn't really a film/digital question. I love film, but have just bought a monochrom, to a very significant degree because it allows me to shoot and review more time efficiently than film. Given the requirments of my life time is important and I see the mono as an Ikon/MP without the scanning really.

In terms of choice - yes it is more limited, but it's there at a price. There is also the second hand market of course.

Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I am of a firm belief that we as humans are losing touch with each other and this is having a direct effect on what we buy for photography and why. . . .

Dear Alistair,

So when will you be at Arles?

In other words, I think you're absolutely right. Real exhibitions; real people; real pictures; real opening nights with real wine...

Does it matter what camera I use? My Gandolfi 12x15 or my M9? No. What matters is taking pictures of things that interest me; meeting other photographers; seeing their work; and showing them mine.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robert blu]

Dear Alistair,

So when will you be at Arles?

In other words, I think you're absolutely right. Real exhibitions; real people; real pictures; real opening nights with real wine...

Does it matter what camera I use? My Gandolfi 12x15 or my M9? No. What matters is taking pictures of things that interest me; meeting other photographers; seeing their work; and showing them mine.

Cheers,

R.

+1
robert

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Too many aspirers hooked on the bait of easy craftwork. Yet, we continue to buy those books and drool and wish to be of the same calibre as those who communicated face to face with their subjects and used ' basic tools' to produce that which we view in exhibitions and galleries.

How do you know this?

I look around the various channels available to me and see an enormous range of aspirations and outcomes. I see little sign of what you're writing and a great deal that contradicts this statement.

I believe we should be wary of presenting our prejudice as fact. If you're saying that this is how you feel about this issue, then that is an entirely valid view, but it only applies to you, not to the state of photography as a whole.

 

[Al Patterson]

Oh, no apology is necessary, my friend. I was simply not as coherent with my original post as I intended to be. And besides, I may be completely off-base with the way I approach this type of shooting. Either that, or I am just too damn lazy to learn all of the functions of modern day digital cameras....😕😀

To damn lazy? I second that. I work with computers all day, and don't want to program my camera prior to each use. I set them to program mode and hope their software is well written.

Add my +1 for simplicity...

 

[alistair.o]

How do you know this?

I look around the various channels available to me and see an enormous range of aspirations and outcomes. I see little sign of what you're writing and a great deal that contradicts this statement.

I believe we should be wary of presenting our prejudice as fact. If you're saying that this is how you feel about this issue, then that is an entirely valid view, but it only applies to you, not to the state of photography as a whole.

First of all, my apologies for the late reply.

What I am directly addressing is the missing out of the basic learning through the use of ever more sophisticated cameras/computers/cameras.

I hold no prejudice other than that which stops me from going further as I feel it would fall on deaf or stopped ears and perhaps even, closed minds.

 

[wallace]

Mark Dubovoy has said it all.....