The costs of unneeded features

[jschrader]

I am going to retire my D700 and in the last 3 years, I never used (besides maybe test shots):

Autofocus (no lenses)
Life view
Build-in flash (neither other flash, I think)
High frame sequence
Other exposure modes than aperture priority or manual (no lenses)

Maybe I have forgotten something, doesn't matter. My point is this:

What are the costs of these features? I mean, if I would ask Nikon to make me a D350 it would be more expensive, so the appear to be for free.
But are they?

I think the costs are defocusing. I have things I do not use; I am not focused on what I want. If HCB is my hero, why Do I have anything other than a 50 mm on a 35mm camera?

It must be great to go around and know "I only have a 35mm lens and a b&w camera". Ignore all possible pictures that you might take with a super-wideangle or tele or whatever.

This is why I love the Leica MM, not because of the resolution.

Can anybody follow me?

 

[fstops]

the cost of unneeded features

This is why I love the Leica MM

Can anybody follow me?

Not really.

 

[I Love Film]

You're not HCB. No matter what equipment you use, you're not going to be HCB. Anyway, do you want to ape something that was original 60 years ago?

The costs of putting all that stuff into a mass produced camera are minimal.

Nobody is stopping you from just using your Nikon FE and a 35mm lens, so what's the big problem?

Or get a cheap digital camera and use that.

 

[I Love Film]

Nothing on my D700 is confusing. All pretty straightforward. Very easy to figure out with a couple of moments thought.

There are functions and menu settings I seldom, if ever, use.

In that case, they don't bother me. Sometimes I try something new and then I'm glad I have that function.

If you hated the "mess" on the D700 so much, why did you buy one?

 

[icebear]

...

This is why I love the Leica MM, not because of the resolution.

Can anybody follow me?

I can completely follow you. But the usually feature comparison charts in reviews would completely dunk a camera that has not at least 90% of all the features no one ever uses but all other latest and greatest models have got. User friendliness is vastly underrated and then people wonder why they get a new camera very 2 years.

I agree here.

I have a NIKON DSLR that is a confusing mess of "all things to all people" and I shoot more than 50% of my stuff in full manual mode. Just turn off whatever features you don't want.

Just turning them off doesn't usually make the camera less confusing. You will have to consult a 400 page manual (or go online, if it doesn't come with a hard copy) and search how to switch something off that you accidentally turned on again.

 

[thegman]

I am going to retire my D700 and in the last 3 years, I never used (besides maybe test shots):

Autofocus (no lenses)
Life view
Build-in flash (neither other flash, I think)
High frame sequence
Other exposure modes than aperture priority or manual (no lenses)

Maybe I have forgotten something, doesn't matter. My point is this:

What are the costs of these features? I mean, if I would ask Nikon to make me a D350 it would be more expensive, so the appear to be for free.
But are they?

I think the costs are defocusing. I have things I do not use; I am not focused on what I want. If HCB is my hero, why Do I have anything other than a 50 mm on a 35mm camera?

It must be great to go around and know "I only have a 35mm lens and a b&w camera". Ignore all possible pictures that you might take with a super-wideangle or tele or whatever.

This is why I love the Leica MM, not because of the resolution.

Can anybody follow me?

I like simple cameras too, but so long as the unnecessary features don't get in my way, I don't mind. The problem is, you are in a minority, most people like toys to play with and new features. In fact, you (and I) like toys to play with too, they're just different toys.

If you truly want utter simplicity, there are a zillion film cameras to choose from, but I suspect a new, glitzy digital might be more attractive. I am the same, I like the simply M3, GF670 etc. but the new Sigma DP2M is very attractive too.

I think we do want fancy features, just not the ones Nikon etc. are wanting to sell us.

 

[fstops]

How's a simple film camera simple? You have to meter, change rolls, then develop with all sorts of timing and stuff, and then scan with all sorts of annoyances - lets not even go to printing.

If people cannot use a camera that is made as user friendly as possible (today's digital cameras), then they have no business doing photography.

 

[Seraj]

I purchased a Nikon D800 for its sensor and ergonomics, feels great in my hands, other than sometimes switching into mirror up mode or adjusting the ISO it pretty much always stays in Aperture Priority or Manual. I don't care about the other stuff, but its there if I ever want to use it so why complain?

Well I will admit I have used live mode in low light when making long exposures of water, its fun to be able to somewhat see what it will look like ahead of time.

 

[Pentudlian]

I love the simplicity of non-digital cameras, which is why I use them 99% of the time. But I, too, have much sympathy with the OP.

I've been struck by posters on this and other forums who are seriously thinking of upgrading - or say they are - digital gear which is only a year or two old. I noticed yesterday that Canon have announced an upgrade to the S100. You've guessed it: the S105. The only difference of substance between the S100 and its predecessor, the S95, was, I believe, GPS.

WHy on earth would you want to upgrade in this way? Perhaps I'm just middle-aged and out of step. I still view a mobile phone as something to make calls and text with.

 

[sevo]

How's a simple film camera simple? You have to meter, change rolls, then develop with all sorts of timing and stuff, and then scan with all sorts of annoyances - lets not even go to printing.

If people cannot use a camera that is made as user friendly as possible (today's digital cameras), then they have no business doing photography.

Well, postproduction is not really a camera component, so you cannot blame that extra effort on film cameras. As far as loading is concerned, later year film cameras generally are less of a hassle than the battery compartments and card slots on many a digital (where even pro cameras often want to be taken off the tripod to pull the card or swap the battery :bang🙂.

And while there are aspects where digital makes cameras inherently more user friendly, there are others which are not - in particular, marketing driven mode frenzy and economizing away hardware controls into some menu system counteract the positive ergonomic aspects digital might ideally have.

 

[jschrader]

Nothing on my D700 is confusing. All pretty straightforward. Very easy to figure out with a couple of moments thought.

There are functions and menu settings I seldom, if ever, use.

In that case, they don't bother me. Sometimes I try something new and then I'm glad I have that function.

If you hated the "mess" on the D700 so much, why did you buy one?

I didn't say I hate it. I just said I never used it.
I bought the D700 because one can focus manually, esp. with KatzEye screens; and because it takes old lenses.

 

[thegman]

How's a simple film camera simple? You have to meter, change rolls, then develop with all sorts of timing and stuff, and then scan with all sorts of annoyances - lets not even go to printing.

If people cannot use a camera that is made as user friendly as possible (today's digital cameras), then they have no business doing photography.

I suppose I meant to say I find it simple, simpler than my D7000 anyway. I don't print, not with an enlarger anyway. I don't develop myself yet either.

I found the Panasonic G1 nightmarish to use, stupidly complex with obtuse symbols and letters which I was suppose to know what they meant. I could use it, but only just, I think to say I have no business doing photography because of that is a little extreme. I have no trouble using the cameras I own, should I not be in the business of photography if I find some digital cameras complicated to use?

 

[fstops]

I suppose I meant to say I find it simple, simpler than my D7000 anyway. I don't print, not with an enlarger anyway. I don't develop myself yet either.

I found the Panasonic G1 nightmarish to use, stupidly complex with obtuse symbols and letters which I was suppose to know what they meant. I could use it, but only just, I think to say I have no business doing photography because of that is a little extreme. I have no trouble using the cameras I own, should I not be in the business of photography if I find some digital cameras complicated to use?

Before buying the camera you could have checked the menu to see if it was to your liking or not.

The entry level Nikon DSLRs literally teach photography with their simplified menus, while a D3 menu is far more complex...

When it comes to digital cameras people have many choices and there is no excuse for blanket comments like digital is complex and film is simple (in fact its the opposite).

The only extreme thinking here is seeing the world in digital and film divide.

 

[TXForester]

If people cannot use a camera that is made as user friendly as possible (today's digital cameras), then they have no business doing photography.

I disagree. First, who are you to decide who should participate in photography? Second, the extra features on digital cameras can be confusing. Not because people can't understand them, but the awkwardness of menus is not "user friendly" as you put it. For instance, some function controls are in sub-menus. It isn't simply a matter of hitting the menu button and scrolling to the function you wish to change. You have to memorize (not always easy) or hunt through the sub-menus for the function you wish to change.

 

[TXForester]

Before buying the camera you could have checked the menu to see if it was to your liking or not.

That is an over simplification. People don't pick cameras solely on menus. There are differences in sensors and ergonomics. Maybe somebody has another camera and a set of lenses that the new camera can use. Maybe the choices of body are limited by lenses you wish to buy in the future.

 

[fstops]

I disagree. First, who are you to decide who should participate in photography? Second, the extra features on digital cameras can be confusing. Not because people can't understand them, but the awkwardness of menus is not "user friendly" as you put it. For instance, some function controls are in sub-menus. It isn't simply a matter of hitting the menu button and scrolling to the function you wish to change. You have to memorize (not always easy) or hunt through the sub-menus for the function you wish to change.

If people cannot navigate a camera menu, how they're going to work with photoshop and other extremely complex processing software? That are essential for today's photography.

And then why people did not check the camera menu before buying the camera?

This is a straightforward argument. People must buy the camera for their needs, according to their skill level and abilities.

 

[charjohncarter]

You only need to know three basics in exposure photography: f stop, shutter speed, ISO (of course, you have to know how to integrate them). Way before digital: camera companies started to make these integration decisions for you, and in the process have maybe taken our eyes off the three basic variables of photography.

 

[mac_wt]

It seems to me that this forum has become a bit of a hostile environment, lately. 🙁

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I wonder if people would accept that when they order a pepperoni pizza, they get onions, peppers, mushrooms, anchovies, tomatoes, beef, chicken, pineapple, tuna, chorizo, salami, extra cheese, black olives, green olives, canadian bacon, broccoli, capers, all on a bed of pepperoni and zucchini.

Sure, you can pick all of the toppings off, what's the big problem??


Intertoobes disclaimer: I am not serious.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

It seems to me that this forum has become a bit of a hostile environment, lately. 🙁

A bit, yes. Everything has to be pre-explained and disclaimed in order not to get misinterpretations tugged tight.