alistair.o
Well-known
My apologies Rick; no insult or slight intended.
"An Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity" by Mark Dubovoy
- Thread starter eoeaa
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 63
- Views 7K
My apologies Rick; no insult or slight intended.
Lss
Well-known
For which it would be practical to have a visible ISO dial.
dabick42
Well-known
Do you want simplicity/nothing getting in the way/back to basics/no angst/no aggravation in your photography ?
Simple.
Get a Leica 11 with 50mm Elmar and learn to use a Weston Master V.
Scarcely a day goes by that I don't quietly thank Oskar for being so clever and so inventive....
Simple.
Get a Leica 11 with 50mm Elmar and learn to use a Weston Master V.
Scarcely a day goes by that I don't quietly thank Oskar for being so clever and so inventive....
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
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....😕😀
alistair.o
Well-known
Lss
Well-known
I don't know about traps, but a dial gives direct visual (even haptic) feedback. Looking into viewfinder or a menu requires you to have the camera on, lift it to your eye, etc. You can set up an R-D1 in complete darkness without turning it on. While that is a bit extreme, it has its uses in normal use and makes things simple and quick.
Obviously camera manufacturers across the board are perfectly happy without providing a dedicated ISO dial, so you win. 😀
Obviously camera manufacturers across the board are perfectly happy without providing a dedicated ISO dial, so you win. 😀
furcafe
Veteran
This gets at what is, IMHO, the big general distinction between pro/pro-am cameras made before roughly 1975 & those made afterwards (& the photographers who prefer 1 type over another): controls on pre-1975 cameras were often, if not always, set while the camera was not up to the photographer's eye, whereas post-1975 cameras seem to assume that the photographer is looking through the VF all the time, hence the trend towards more & more information displayed in the VF & controls that reflect that fact.
edge100
Well-known
To take a still photo on my X-Pro1:
1. Select aperture on the lens
2. Select shutter speed on the top dial (which is dedicated to this purpose)
3. Select ISO by pressing the the Fn button (which, admittedly, does have to be programmed as such via the in-camera menu) and selecting with the up or down buttons (all of which happens in the EVF so I don't have to take my eye away from the camera)
4. Focus via half press
5. Release shutter
That's about as uncomplicated as I have ever experience in a digital camera; in fact, once I set the camera up after buying it, I can't recall having to go into the menus at all.
It's still not as simple as my MP, but it's close.
1. Select aperture on the lens
2. Select shutter speed on the top dial (which is dedicated to this purpose)
3. Select ISO by pressing the the Fn button (which, admittedly, does have to be programmed as such via the in-camera menu) and selecting with the up or down buttons (all of which happens in the EVF so I don't have to take my eye away from the camera)
4. Focus via half press
5. Release shutter
That's about as uncomplicated as I have ever experience in a digital camera; in fact, once I set the camera up after buying it, I can't recall having to go into the menus at all.
It's still not as simple as my MP, but it's close.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I agree wholeheartedly with his piece. To be sure, many of the older cameras had inscrutable buttons for which you needed to read the manual to understand their function, but basically there were only a few at most, and once you learned it, you didn't forget it. Those cameras were basically simple -- but they did (and do) get the job done. How many additional features are really needed anyway? Don't make me pay for a video function. Why can't manufacturers sell "de-contented" versions of cameras for a lower price?
Two things -- fewer features; make access to those features be via an understandable switch, ring or dial, not a menu.
Two things -- fewer features; make access to those features be via an understandable switch, ring or dial, not a menu.
wolves3012
Veteran
I think there are a few simple reasons why "basic" digital cameras of simplicity aren't around. The overriding one is lack of market. There are some "old-school" photographers who like the idea of total control and need only the 2 basic controls of aperture and shutter speed (you can argue that ISO isn't really a 3rd control, it's only a compensation factor so we're used to a set-once control like in film days) - plus a focus control. How many would buy such a camera? Probably a lot of us on here but few in the general market.
But then, there are times it's nice to have aperture-priority, or shutter priority, or auto-focus or a whole host of other features. Being necessarily driven by a computer, a digital camera nowadays can implement all those features and plenty of other tricks relatively easily, so why not? All too easy to fall into the spiral of doing so and of offering something your competitor doesn't.
Of course, the largest demand for cameras is from people for whom the technical side of things is of no interest. They want to frame the shot (maybe optional too) and let the camera make all other decisions to obtain the optimum image. But then there's no "creative" control unless you build in the various modes that most digitals have. Enter the menu system/graphical interface, not least because it's a cheap way to make a couple of buttons or dials do many things. It's also how most computers are operated, everyone nowadays is familiar with it as a general idea. So now the camera is all things to all people. One size fits all - with reservations of course. The non-technical user finds it all too complex and the technical user finds it's too complex!
But then, there are times it's nice to have aperture-priority, or shutter priority, or auto-focus or a whole host of other features. Being necessarily driven by a computer, a digital camera nowadays can implement all those features and plenty of other tricks relatively easily, so why not? All too easy to fall into the spiral of doing so and of offering something your competitor doesn't.
Of course, the largest demand for cameras is from people for whom the technical side of things is of no interest. They want to frame the shot (maybe optional too) and let the camera make all other decisions to obtain the optimum image. But then there's no "creative" control unless you build in the various modes that most digitals have. Enter the menu system/graphical interface, not least because it's a cheap way to make a couple of buttons or dials do many things. It's also how most computers are operated, everyone nowadays is familiar with it as a general idea. So now the camera is all things to all people. One size fits all - with reservations of course. The non-technical user finds it all too complex and the technical user finds it's too complex!
NazgulKing
Established
This article is written by a person who tethers his camera to a computer? Eh?
Lots of people here tend to measure their camera by their needs which is "street photography" that generally favours minimalist controls, but for the rest of those guys who don't do much of that, all those features are necessary. And many high end cameras have an ISO button anyway. Not too difficult to use.
Lots of people here tend to measure their camera by their needs which is "street photography" that generally favours minimalist controls, but for the rest of those guys who don't do much of that, all those features are necessary. And many high end cameras have an ISO button anyway. Not too difficult to use.
icebear
Veteran
There are two basic reasons why cameras (any consumer electronics product) of today look like the way they are:
1. Inability to make a clear decision
2. Marketing / consumer research
ad #1 This is the consumer end :
If you have a clear idea what you want to do with your tool and surprisingly, even more important what NOT to do, then you will make a wise choice and end up with the most suitable tool for the job.
And here it comes - the thought of maybe at some point of time I might need a video function and this would be a "nice to have" Gotcha !
ad #2 The manufacturer marketing and consumer research department:
Different scenarios or concepts are put together and are presented to a select group of panelists for consumer research purpose. Questionnaires are analyzed and trends evaluated and numbers crunched. The result of such a decision process is the least polarizing product, stuffed with lots of "nice to have" features. The product concept which requires a decision (like "NO video!") will not get enough votes vs the all inclusive 7 in 1 package.
Unless there is someone in development taking full responsibility and overrides consumer research results, all new products will look like this. No way around it.
Unfortunately and obviously products are developed for the mass market and require huge production scale numbers, therefore the average 80% consumer who will buy the product will determine how it will look like. And not the passionate amateur (or even pro) who has made a decision what he/she wants (and he/she does not want!). Just my $0.02.
1. Inability to make a clear decision
2. Marketing / consumer research
ad #1 This is the consumer end :
If you have a clear idea what you want to do with your tool and surprisingly, even more important what NOT to do, then you will make a wise choice and end up with the most suitable tool for the job.
And here it comes - the thought of maybe at some point of time I might need a video function and this would be a "nice to have" Gotcha !
ad #2 The manufacturer marketing and consumer research department:
Different scenarios or concepts are put together and are presented to a select group of panelists for consumer research purpose. Questionnaires are analyzed and trends evaluated and numbers crunched. The result of such a decision process is the least polarizing product, stuffed with lots of "nice to have" features. The product concept which requires a decision (like "NO video!") will not get enough votes vs the all inclusive 7 in 1 package.
Unless there is someone in development taking full responsibility and overrides consumer research results, all new products will look like this. No way around it.
Unfortunately and obviously products are developed for the mass market and require huge production scale numbers, therefore the average 80% consumer who will buy the product will determine how it will look like. And not the passionate amateur (or even pro) who has made a decision what he/she wants (and he/she does not want!). Just my $0.02.
aizan
Veteran
^ that's why cameras should become programmable like thom hogan's been saying. everything you need, nothing you don't.
zuiko85
Veteran
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!
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!
Scrambler
Well-known
But they ARE programmable. The limit really is, who would make money out of selling a firmware upgrade? Or downgrade?
Or do you think that the camera manufacturers should release a SDK for them? If they did, would you create custom controls, menus etc?
Some of the Samsung cameras are Android-powered. They are even more programmable than the average. Bet it doesn't end in better control software but instead more automated "art"modes.
alistair.o
Well-known
Ha - the wonder of it all - I could sit you and Thom Hogan on a Shellac 78rpm and crank it up and away you go: let the revolution begin all over again 🙂
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Alistair,
Ah, sorry: the fault lies in my misunderstanding, not yours. I think of the settings for shutter speed, aperture, focus and ISO as controls, not functions: I reserve the word "functions" for what might equally be called "modes". You know the sort of thing: macro mode, portrait mode, second-curtain-synched-candlelit-portrait mode, sports mode, cricket-on-a-rainy-day mode, baseball-on-a-sunny-day mode. . .
Thus it was a semantic error on my part, and I apologize for the insult.
Cheers,
R.
alistair.o
Well-known
Very nice of you but I can assure you that there is nothing to apologise for.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
yes, someone a little more articulate than myself to express exactly what I was thinking
NazgulKing
Established
Samsung's problem is that they are like the Japanese in many respects. Before Android, they loved to make phones that had every whizz bang feature but most didn't give a **** about half the features bundled.
Thanks to Android, their phones are a lot more usable, but now they think Android is the best thing to slice bread with now.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
