semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
For me simplicity is not sufficient to "get the camera out of the way."
For me, the Nikon FA NEVER got out of my way the way that the FE2 or F3 or M6 or X-E1 does. Never liked the F90 either. There are aspects to a camera's UI that go WAY beyond the presence or absence of this or that dial or feature. How a camera feels in the hand can make a huge difference in how we perceive it. And not just the major aspects, but subtleties. The digital M's make me insane. The physical proportions are just "off" enough to constantly remind me that I'm shooting a skeuomorphic imitation of a real M film camera. The original M3 was pure Bauhausian form, following function. Leica having learned the bitter lesson of the M5, the M8/9/whatever start with form, and function is then added to the extent possible within that starting constraint.
Anyway.
Some cameras have a holistic goodness that allows fluid work; some don't. And the cameras that work best for one person will probably be different than the best cameras for another. Take Kirk Tuck. He's at his absolute best with a Hasselblad and a short or medium tele. For me, that setup -- well, I've used it but that doesn't mean I have to like it, OK?
Heck, I'm a 35mm film kinda guy, and I've had a Nikkormat FT2 in my bag for a looong time, but that almost ultimately simple, venerable warhorse and I *never* got along. Simplicity is not sufficient for operational transparency. Simplicity may not even be necessary, so long as the camera can be configured to work fluidly within a particular photographer's modus operandi.
A particularly simple and gorgeous camera that feels amazing in the hand and would -- I bet -- be incredibly fluid in operation is the Leica S/S2. I wonder if I really need that second kidney...
And another, more affordable one is the Olympus E-1. Now THAT is a camera body designed for shooting. Pity that Olympus never got the primes sorted out for the E system.
For me, the Nikon FA NEVER got out of my way the way that the FE2 or F3 or M6 or X-E1 does. Never liked the F90 either. There are aspects to a camera's UI that go WAY beyond the presence or absence of this or that dial or feature. How a camera feels in the hand can make a huge difference in how we perceive it. And not just the major aspects, but subtleties. The digital M's make me insane. The physical proportions are just "off" enough to constantly remind me that I'm shooting a skeuomorphic imitation of a real M film camera. The original M3 was pure Bauhausian form, following function. Leica having learned the bitter lesson of the M5, the M8/9/whatever start with form, and function is then added to the extent possible within that starting constraint.
Anyway.
Some cameras have a holistic goodness that allows fluid work; some don't. And the cameras that work best for one person will probably be different than the best cameras for another. Take Kirk Tuck. He's at his absolute best with a Hasselblad and a short or medium tele. For me, that setup -- well, I've used it but that doesn't mean I have to like it, OK?
Heck, I'm a 35mm film kinda guy, and I've had a Nikkormat FT2 in my bag for a looong time, but that almost ultimately simple, venerable warhorse and I *never* got along. Simplicity is not sufficient for operational transparency. Simplicity may not even be necessary, so long as the camera can be configured to work fluidly within a particular photographer's modus operandi.
A particularly simple and gorgeous camera that feels amazing in the hand and would -- I bet -- be incredibly fluid in operation is the Leica S/S2. I wonder if I really need that second kidney...
And another, more affordable one is the Olympus E-1. Now THAT is a camera body designed for shooting. Pity that Olympus never got the primes sorted out for the E system.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
It depends, having to mind red windows and cock shutters, or remember to only change shutter speeds after winding on... it can be pretty distracting. A lot of very old cameras are very much machines and never let you forget that fact. Though by the mid 1950s enough automation had become standard that for the most part one could really not mind the camera and simply think about taking pictures.
ssmc
Well-known
If the M6 TTL owes you nothing and has sentimental value, why not keep it for those times when you get the itch to shoot film again? Just run through the speeds every few months.
Unless you really, really need to sell it to buy an X100 (or better, the X100s), I would recommend keeping it. The fora are littered with examples of folks who sold their Leicas and lived to regret it (experto credite...) The Leica will keep its value and the X100 which you sold it for will be worth next to nothing in a couple of years (ditto - I sold a beautiful 0.85 M6 TTL to buy a D700 which was just over worth half what I paid for it when I switched brands - and now I could not find a comparable Leica for close to the money I paid at the time). Of course if you plan to keep it until it breaks/wears out then this is a moot point. Just sayin'
You may also wish to consider the current state of RAW converters for Fuji X-Trans-equipped cameras, and the fact that you are forever limited to 16MP. That may seem like plenty right now, but you can always use a slow film and scan at extreme resolution with your Leica (or any other film camera for that matter).
Lastly, as Godfrey pointed out, unlike their entry-level cousins, higher-end DSLRs really do just "get out of the way" once you have them set up the way you want, which really doesn't take as long as some would have you believe. You don't need to go full-frame to get this level of resonsiveness, anything from a D300s (Nikon) or 7D (Canon) for example, are speed-demons. I remember thinkign when I got my D300 (not an -s) it it was a gun I would have shot myself in the foot with it within an hour (coming from a D70). The 7D is just as speedy, if not moreso. And while they lack the RF-like form-factor of the Fuji, they do have the advantage of being able to change lenses.
But seriously dude, keep the M6 TTL!
Unless you really, really need to sell it to buy an X100 (or better, the X100s), I would recommend keeping it. The fora are littered with examples of folks who sold their Leicas and lived to regret it (experto credite...) The Leica will keep its value and the X100 which you sold it for will be worth next to nothing in a couple of years (ditto - I sold a beautiful 0.85 M6 TTL to buy a D700 which was just over worth half what I paid for it when I switched brands - and now I could not find a comparable Leica for close to the money I paid at the time). Of course if you plan to keep it until it breaks/wears out then this is a moot point. Just sayin'
You may also wish to consider the current state of RAW converters for Fuji X-Trans-equipped cameras, and the fact that you are forever limited to 16MP. That may seem like plenty right now, but you can always use a slow film and scan at extreme resolution with your Leica (or any other film camera for that matter).
Lastly, as Godfrey pointed out, unlike their entry-level cousins, higher-end DSLRs really do just "get out of the way" once you have them set up the way you want, which really doesn't take as long as some would have you believe. You don't need to go full-frame to get this level of resonsiveness, anything from a D300s (Nikon) or 7D (Canon) for example, are speed-demons. I remember thinkign when I got my D300 (not an -s) it it was a gun I would have shot myself in the foot with it within an hour (coming from a D70). The 7D is just as speedy, if not moreso. And while they lack the RF-like form-factor of the Fuji, they do have the advantage of being able to change lenses.
But seriously dude, keep the M6 TTL!
robert blu
quiet photographer
The times when in a camera you had to select only the iso and than choice aperture, shutter speed and focus are gone! That was the way I learn from my father to take pictures. Now if you buy a digital camera you must planned a learning curve for a few weeks...this is why my only digital camera is the Leica x1 with its simple controls and some weakness. It gives me a feeling similar to the one of my m7, or Nikon FM2 or the Bessa R. Times change, we are not always so ready to change...
robert
robert
thegman
Veteran
Times may change (or maybe just what manufacturers want to sell us) but we don't have to change with them if we don't want to. Some will call us luddites or whatever, but I'd rather that than go along with the crowd just because that's what the mob do.
Quartz watches replaced Automatic and manual watches a while ago, but we're free to ignore them and keep on getting mechanical watches.
I guess the point I'm making is the times may change, but very often not for the right reasons, and often it's not even an advancement. And why would it be? Camera companies have no interest in photography, their interest begins and ends at selling cameras. There is no particular reason why that would coincide with the interests of photographers.
/rant
Quartz watches replaced Automatic and manual watches a while ago, but we're free to ignore them and keep on getting mechanical watches.
I guess the point I'm making is the times may change, but very often not for the right reasons, and often it's not even an advancement. And why would it be? Camera companies have no interest in photography, their interest begins and ends at selling cameras. There is no particular reason why that would coincide with the interests of photographers.
/rant
daveleo
what?
. . . . . That said, we will never have a digital as simple as the M6... not even the M9 is. We should be happy that digital's as "simple" as the X100 exist.
I 90% agree about the X100, but . . . a bunch of times I have hit that rear dial (drive speed, macro, flash, WB) either when I grab the camera or have it bump against me on the strap. I have to check that hasn't happened before every shot (or the flash goes off, it fires continuously, or it's in macro mode). So, for me, that check list is a problem before each shot. I do wish
I could lock up that dial by a top menu choice.But at the moment, it is my first choice in cameras.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
As a user of M cameras and the Fuji X cameras, I can vouch that the X100 can get out of the way just like a M can. Once you set up the camera, then all you need to adjust is the classic shutter speed dial and aperture ring... you only have to access other features if you want to. However, I will concede that some of the buttons and dials on the fuji do move too easily. That said, we will never have a digital as simple as the M6... not even the M9 is. We should be happy that digital's as "simple" as the X100 exist.
I agree. I think these new cameras with all the buttons will always seem fiddly until the user gets it dialed in to behave like the camera they want. Then all the fiddly-ness disappears. I'm starting to feel that way about the X-Pro1. And I'm looking forward to 'taming' the X100s when they arrive.
Two other simple digitals are the Leica X2 and the Sigma DP1/2 Merill cameras.
N.delaRua
Well-known
Well its great to hear all the responses.
In thinking about this a little more I thought of this analogy. F16 fighter pilots can master a highly complex machine and do so under incredible pressure and speed.
Now of course photography is no dog fight. However, my best shots seem to last for brief moments of time. Most people do not want to pose for much longer than a couple of seconds. The photograph of the stripper was pure luck. The sea of people parted on Bourbon and she turned and leaned on the wall. The settings were about in the right place. I remember visualizing that shot and thinking damn I wish I could have taken another, but it was over after that as she turned and looked at me.
That is part of the reward of film I think. No immediate gratification. It sucks when you miss, but it feels great when you don't. You have to wait, and use your experience to know that you "probably" got the shot. Its like waiting to open a surprise present from a loved one.
Manual cameras, with some practice, are incredibly easy to shoot especially with wide angle lens in bright light or even light like an overcast day. I think its just practice.
I've shot an F100 pretty extensively, and that camera can get out of the way as well.
Maybe I should just buy a D700... That would be easy to master. Its just that there are SOOOOO many new digital cameras constantly coming out with minute improvements its overwhelming.
For someone who wants to buy one digital camera, and keep it for a loooooonnnnngg time, I have been waiting patiently for compromises and technology to stabilize. That of course will probably never happen....
In thinking about this a little more I thought of this analogy. F16 fighter pilots can master a highly complex machine and do so under incredible pressure and speed.
Now of course photography is no dog fight. However, my best shots seem to last for brief moments of time. Most people do not want to pose for much longer than a couple of seconds. The photograph of the stripper was pure luck. The sea of people parted on Bourbon and she turned and leaned on the wall. The settings were about in the right place. I remember visualizing that shot and thinking damn I wish I could have taken another, but it was over after that as she turned and looked at me.
That is part of the reward of film I think. No immediate gratification. It sucks when you miss, but it feels great when you don't. You have to wait, and use your experience to know that you "probably" got the shot. Its like waiting to open a surprise present from a loved one.
Manual cameras, with some practice, are incredibly easy to shoot especially with wide angle lens in bright light or even light like an overcast day. I think its just practice.
I've shot an F100 pretty extensively, and that camera can get out of the way as well.
Maybe I should just buy a D700... That would be easy to master. Its just that there are SOOOOO many new digital cameras constantly coming out with minute improvements its overwhelming.
For someone who wants to buy one digital camera, and keep it for a loooooonnnnngg time, I have been waiting patiently for compromises and technology to stabilize. That of course will probably never happen....
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Wow... I just went through EXACTLY this exercise in soul-searching. I sold my last M4 kit ten or twelve years ago after I bought my first Olympus DSLR(s) and I've been with Olympus 4/3rds now since the E1 was released. With each iteration, the E series cameras have become more complex. Not more competent necessarily, just more complex.
I decided I wanted to go back to a bright-line finder camera. I bought a Fuji X-Pro1 hoping to replicate the simplicity of process that I'd enjoyed with my Leicas over the years. It was not to be. There are many things about automation and especially the X-Pro1's automation that I just couldn't find a way to fit MY process. It doesn't "think" like I do, so I found myself having to stop to figure out what the camera was doing, and THEN have to figure out how to force it to work the way I wanted it to. It became an exercise in frustration for me. I'm not slamming the camera; it's a techno wonder and makes amazing images... I just couldn't get it to work like an M.
So... I've now mostly reacquired my M kit... in digital. I like digital for the work flow and I haven't shot film in over ten years, BUT... if I want to... I have the glass already; it's just a matter of picking up a film body now.
In answer to your question, I suspect that whether a camera can "get out of the way" is a very personal evaluation. It took me ten years to get to the point I am... which is exactly where I was twelve years ago: shooting Leica M bodies again.
My advice to you, based on my experience and what you've told us in your posts, would be to pick up an M8 body and keep your M6 and you have the best of both worlds at your fingertips. There's no learning curve (well a very small one anyway) and you need not adjust your shooting style at all. It makes for a VERY easy transition to digital. And M8 bodies can be competitive now, price-wise, with M6 and M7 bodies.
Good luck with whatever your decision.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
For me cameras that "get out of the way" best are ones where 1) I simply don't have to worry about metering -- I trust the camera to get it right or the metering is intuitive and reliable (this would be F5, F100, FM/FE, Hexar RF, Elan 7) and 2) it's an accurate AF SLR (F5, F100, Elan 7) or one with really quick and accurate manual focusing (any M, Hexar RF, FM/FE, OM-1/OM-2). Cameras with spot or semi-spot metering like the F3, Leicaflex SL, M5 require increased attention so they can't "get out of the way." Likewise, non-SLR AF cameras always give me some agita since I can't be sure whether the AF has worked right until I get the pictures back -- Contax G1, Fuji GA645zi, Hexar RF are three I use where I've always got my fingers crossed.
Cameras with unusual controls get in my way -- even if I just use them in the most "dummy" mode, the idea that if I needed to use the more obscure settings I wouldn't remember how to get at them bothers me. Think Hexar RF. For me, the simpler the better -- Nikon FM/FE series is a prime example.
Cameras with unusual controls get in my way -- even if I just use them in the most "dummy" mode, the idea that if I needed to use the more obscure settings I wouldn't remember how to get at them bothers me. Think Hexar RF. For me, the simpler the better -- Nikon FM/FE series is a prime example.
dave lackey
Veteran
+1...although just getting out of the way is reason enough to own these wonderful cameras, it sure doesn't hurt to add the handling and feel of cameras like the M3 in the mix for consideration!
I have always loved the FM cameras. The two FE2s in my Nikon bag are wonderful but don't get used enough. Come to think of it, nothing is getting used the past few months. Maybe Spring will be my muse.
N.delaRua
Well-known
I know its crazy, but my digital dream camera would be incredible simple.
SLR or rangefinder which ever. Manual shutter advance, no LCD, ISO dial, RAW only, meter, shutter speed dial. Autofocus or manual focus depending on the brand.
That should lead to a small, affordable system. You get the "negative," adjust WB, contrast, exposure etc in post just like you would with a film neg. Print. Done.
An FM2 with a FF sensor would be heaven. I omit Leica in the conversation because of price. I just don't think 5-8K is reasonable for most people.
SLR or rangefinder which ever. Manual shutter advance, no LCD, ISO dial, RAW only, meter, shutter speed dial. Autofocus or manual focus depending on the brand.
That should lead to a small, affordable system. You get the "negative," adjust WB, contrast, exposure etc in post just like you would with a film neg. Print. Done.
An FM2 with a FF sensor would be heaven. I omit Leica in the conversation because of price. I just don't think 5-8K is reasonable for most people.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
This is an interesting perspective, and one I'm sure is shared by a majority of "camera consumers" today. And it's exactly what is so frustrating about almost all of the techno wonder cameras on the market today. "P" mode almost never works for me. It just can't get it "right." Oh, they do fine for snapshots... in evenly lit areas with obvious focusing targets. And they'll power up your peanut flash at the worst possible time. That's what they're supposed to do. But that's merely taking a snapshot. The Instamatics of the late 60s did nearly as well with fixed focus and fixed aperture. All of those cameras lack the ability to be driven... quickly and easily to make the exposure I want to make.
Unfortunately, I find myself shooting in conditions that the meter's programming (in many modern techo-marvel cameras) just can't seem to handle... or I'm shooting wide open, depth of field is critical, and the autofocus locks on something other than what I want... and then you have to go through the array of buttons and dials and menus to move the focus point, or change the metering pattern... or go to manual focus except that many of the current cameras don't manual focus well or easily (ESPECIALLY the X-Pro1 which requires a switch to EVF... bleh! and then a dial press to get either 3x or 10x magnifcation...)
It's much easier to focus with a rangefinder and press the shutter release, having pre-set the aperture and shutter speed to what you want.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I think we're on almost exactly the same page.
I went through this in the 1990s when I briefly tried the Contax G system, after working with Leica and manual Nikons for many years. No matter what I did, the G2 simply didn't 'think' the way I did and always felt awkward to me. I sold it, bought another Leica, and regained that camera transparency.
The paradigm shift to digital capture pushed me through another cycle of this. All my Nikon gear was film and old, the only really good sensors were DSLRs. Through several systems and lots of experiments ... and many thousands of good photographs along the way that I'm very happy about ... I find myself right back where I started with a Leica M, a brace of lenses, and a relatively simple DSLR (Olympus E-1) that I use occasionally as well. Took a lot of work to get here, learned a lot in the process, but this is very comfortable now.
I've not abandoned film. I rediscovered my love of 6x6 recently and am enjoying that, and I do enjoy working with the CL and M4-2 enough that I do a little 35mm film work too. I like the look and feel of B&W film, like most folks on this forum. But both together is a photo making commitment on a different scale from my digital capture work, and I'm every bit as enthusiastic about the look and feel of high quality digital photos.
The point where I differ in my advice to the OP is to suggest that the M9 is worth the extra money over the M8. It's a lot of money, I know. But ... particularly if you want to continue to work with your M6, it means you use the same lenses with the same field of view and other characteristics. That's fewer things to keep in mind and learn to deal with, less distraction. Switching back and forth between the capture mediums is more fluid since so much of the visual feel lent by particular lens, particular rendering behavior remains the same.
Good luck on your journey!
Godfrey
SausalitoDog
Well-known
What a nice set of pix - I've got to look out for the red dress run !!!
Michael Markey
Veteran
The camera that gets out of the way for me is the GRD.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I think we're on almost exactly the same page.
The point where I differ in my advice to the OP is to suggest that the M9 is worth the extra money over the M8. It's a lot of money, I know. But ... particularly if you want to continue to work with your M6, it means you use the same lenses with the same field of view and other characteristics. That's fewer things to keep in mind and learn to deal with, less distraction. Switching back and forth between the capture mediums is more fluid since so much of the visual feel lent by particular lens, particular rendering behavior remains the same.
Good luck on your journey!
Godfrey
And I agree with your advice on the M9... mostly. What I've found most interesting about the M8 though, is that while you lose a little on the "wide" end with standard lenses, you gain a little reach on the longer end, making that 50mm into a pretty nice portrait lens... and the 28 about like a 35. I've found it not to be as big a deal for me as I thought it would be, and it's not a problem at all switching between bodies.
In either case, the biggest advantages are that you don't have to change your working style, and you only need one set of lenses and accessories.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
A good digital camera can be set up to be as complicated or as simple as you want it to be. When shooting the X-Pro1 or X-E1, I usually shoot in aperture priority. The controls are:
1. Manual focus (if using the 35 Summilux ASPH) or AF focus-recompose (with the XF 18/2), or scale focus (with either lens). With the X-E1 I sometimes shoot scale focus with a Zeiss clip-on optical finder.
2. Aperture, set on the lens.
3. Shutter speed if shooting manually, or exposure compensation, set from the dedicated dial.
4. "Film." The camera has six presets. I've set them as follows: four to mimic B&W film/filter combinations (ISO 6400; ISO 1600; ISO 800; ISO 200; the latter two with emulation of a yellow filter), and two for color (ISO 200 and 1600).
I shoot JPEG + RAW.
Unless there's strobe in the mix, that's the whole deal.
No more difficult than an M6 — and it's much, much faster to change "film" when the light changes. Brilliant cameras.
32. Basketball at Roberto Clemente Park, Miami by Semilog, on Flickr
jky
Well-known
This may sound silly but the camera that completely gets out of the way for me is my iPhone. Proficiency with rangefinders and other cameras aside, my phone is the ultimate fuss-free digital camera I shoot with... point, compose, tap (shutter). Simplicity in the truest sense for me.
...not that far behind is my rx100 (but it doesn't allow me to text)
...not that far behind is my rx100 (but it doesn't allow me to text
)