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.