wolves3012
Veteran
I don't want to pick an argument here but Photoshop etc are not essential to many people. Speaking for myself, I've never fiddled with photos beyond re-sizing or mild gamma correction. I appreciate people use these things for removing intrusive telegraph poles and so on and they certainly have their place but (purely as a personal opinion) I consider that cheating. If I failed to get the shot as intended, I failed, end of.
One of the biggest advantages of a digital is the ability to review and re-take on the spot. Getting the intended result on the spot beats spending hours fiddling with yards of menus and mysterious, technical features on processors.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
No, they are not. Indeed their use is frowned upon in press photography
Murchu
Well-known
I like simple cameras. For me, overly complex or feature bloated cameras, draw my focus and energy (conscious and unconscious), away from the most important aspects of photography; the visual ones.
icebear
Veteran
jtm6
Well-known
I think there are strong opinions and reasonable disagreements among many people here, and that is to be expected. However, I've noticed there are a few cranky trolls. I can usually tell who it is by the words used in the post without having to look at the username.
froyd
Veteran
Absolutely. I like the variety of viewpoints offered on RFF, but some of the nastiness that we've seen of late affects the tone of the whole conversation, making everyone defensive and detractiong from the dialogue.
froyd
Veteran
Well, the more new cameras are released, the more I like the old ones!
Though I would sell a kidney for an R-d1 with .72 VF.
thegman
Veteran
Forgive me, but I'm not sure what point you're making. If you're suggesting I'm making blanket statement, I assure you I'm not, merely stating I find my film cameras simpler than any digital camera I've had. With my Leica M3 or Fotoman 69, if you understand aperture, focus, shutter speed, and film speeds, then you're good to go, fairly simple in my opinion.
I'm not sure if you're joking about the opposite of film/simple - digital/complex being the case, because that is quite the blanket statement, and whilst might be true for you, is not for me.
I think we're talking about simplicity from two different points of view, I see it from the point of view that learning a few basic *concepts* like aperture, shutter etc. is easier than learning *methods* which is what most modern digital cameras do. Many will disagree of course, and that's fine, it's just that we have different ideas about what makes something "simple".
-doomed-
film is exciting
I've never had an issue or had to read the manual on any of the DSLRs I've owned and used. Nikon's are pretty straightforward, too.
Especially cameras like the d200, 300 and 700. Everything is tied to a button with the exception of functions you might not use all that often.
bugmenot
Well-known
Camera manufacturers spend time and effort writing up a nice, long book about the camera. It is called the manual. Of course, many younger people (myself included) only refer to the manual for the most extreme of misunderstandings of camera functions, and can usually figure out most of what is needed in a digital camera to shoot a photo or record a video. I suggest those struggling with such "complex" machines spend time and read the manual, or stop complaining. Even the "simple" Leica digital cameras have a menu.
People that struggle with camera menu systems either have not put the time in to learn it, have no interest in the extra functions (if not, then why are they fiddling around the menus in the first place?), or are simply meant to shoot film and quit photography as soon as film is dead in 10 years.
Also, simply because you do not need a feature does not mean somebody else won't either. So choose your cameras wisely, or perhaps manufacture one to your hypothetical specifications.
People that struggle with camera menu systems either have not put the time in to learn it, have no interest in the extra functions (if not, then why are they fiddling around the menus in the first place?), or are simply meant to shoot film and quit photography as soon as film is dead in 10 years.
Also, simply because you do not need a feature does not mean somebody else won't either. So choose your cameras wisely, or perhaps manufacture one to your hypothetical specifications.
froyd
Veteran
bugmenot, the very nature of digital photography requires menu interaction even for the most basic functions (compression setting, file format, white balance, etc). Of course one could just turn on the camera and start snapping, but results may vary...
As you point out, even digital Ms have menus, and I'd go further: even the Epson R-D1 has them.
One solution, of course, is stick to film --though it's a misconception to presume all film cameras to be simple-- but there is an argument for simplicity: the R-D1 nailed it, for those of us who prefer cameras that don't get in the way.
Don't discount the zen-like importance of simplicity. There's a reason why thousands of photographers still prefer M2 and M3 to "newfangled abominations" like the M4 and its introduction of coupled frame lines
Spanik
Well-known
Same opinion here. If I look around me at friend and family, apart from 3 nobody ever changes anything on their camera apart from the zoom. And it doesn't matter if they use a compact or slr.
teleparallel
Established
Just a little of my point of view.
Digital Cameras, specially entry level ones, are easy to operate, in the sense that you just click, and it's fine. But it doesn't make it simple, because, you can't take control of things without choosing a correct shooting mode and stuff like that. Also, you can't easily read camera settings prior to the shooting. It's got to be turned, showing it in the screen. Even manual focusing sucks, most of the time. Sure, many cameras offer automated "creative" modes, but IM(very)HO, it's way easier to learn how to do it.
If you get a film RF or SLR, everything is there, to be easily changed, and the camera doesn't need to be turned on, even.
Also, in digital we don't have idea what's happening in the image processing before you get your photo in the screen. I mean, we know the basics, but not the pieces of software and hardware necessary to create the photo. In fact, you can't know, because it's all closed technology, with patents and stuff...
In this sense you get more connected to film, since you can develop yourself, print yourself. This puts you closer to the processes of making a photo.
Digital just gives you it done. Thus, no fun!
To sum up, in my point of view, to get all done by someone(or something) else doesn't make it simple. Specially if you want to take control of things. And also, a photographer should be able to take photos in adverse situations, such, the lack of meter, and auto exposure. Even to build a pinhole out of cardboard if no options are available. It's not just about seeing something interesting and make the picture.
Digital Cameras, specially entry level ones, are easy to operate, in the sense that you just click, and it's fine. But it doesn't make it simple, because, you can't take control of things without choosing a correct shooting mode and stuff like that. Also, you can't easily read camera settings prior to the shooting. It's got to be turned, showing it in the screen. Even manual focusing sucks, most of the time. Sure, many cameras offer automated "creative" modes, but IM(very)HO, it's way easier to learn how to do it.
If you get a film RF or SLR, everything is there, to be easily changed, and the camera doesn't need to be turned on, even.
Also, in digital we don't have idea what's happening in the image processing before you get your photo in the screen. I mean, we know the basics, but not the pieces of software and hardware necessary to create the photo. In fact, you can't know, because it's all closed technology, with patents and stuff...
In this sense you get more connected to film, since you can develop yourself, print yourself. This puts you closer to the processes of making a photo.
Digital just gives you it done. Thus, no fun!
To sum up, in my point of view, to get all done by someone(or something) else doesn't make it simple. Specially if you want to take control of things. And also, a photographer should be able to take photos in adverse situations, such, the lack of meter, and auto exposure. Even to build a pinhole out of cardboard if no options are available. It's not just about seeing something interesting and make the picture.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Basic functions of a camera should be basic, without any playing around with the menus.
UI design is an art and a science very much neglected in engineering circles (also because nonengineers tend to dictate its goals)
UI design is an art and a science very much neglected in engineering circles (also because nonengineers tend to dictate its goals)
bugmenot
Well-known
So you won't need to play in the menus to set image type (RAW/JPEG), set custom buttons to your liking, contrast/sharpness/etc? How about the type of focus? Multiple other functions?
As I said, it requires a BIT of playing around with during the first day of usage to make the camera customized to your liking. Afterwards, shoot without playing with menus.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I thought about you were talking about basic functions exclusively. Yes, one needs to play around with the menus in order to get acquainted with all functions of a camera.
In my digital Canon SLRs, btw, I have customized to have the image type changed with the SET button + back wheel. No need to navigate the menu; and no need to look at the LCD screen for this in earlier models (i.e. 5D "original", 20D, etc.)
All other basic functions I can access readily with the buttons/wheels available on the body. This is not the case of the Lumix GF1, for example, where not all basic functions can be set or accessed without navigating the menu or fiddling around with the so-called "quick" menu.
bugmenot
Well-known
Then you and I are in agreement. I just may not have worded it properly.
As you say, long ago, you have set your custom functions through the camera, and now use it comfortably without having to play with the menus.
That's exactly what I was trying to get to.
TXForester
Well-known
Reading comprehension problem? I didn't say they can't navigate a menu. I said that by poor design or the fact that most features are buried in a menu (a necessity unless you like lots of buttons/dials), menus become awkward to use.
You need a good memory, or don't mind searching the menu when you could be shooting, or carry your users manual. This is less of a problem for frequently used features without dedicated buttons/dials, because it is easy to remember a few often used functions. The more functions the harder it is to remember where they are in the menu. That is why phone numbers in the U.S. use seven numbers grouped into a set of 3 digits and 4 digits, and not an eight digit phone number. The average person's ability to remember strings of numbers begins to fail after seven digits. So, it is a matter of awkwardness, not inability.
sig
Well-known
I guess it is good that the unneeded features are hidden in complex menues, you will never find it anyway
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I think the correct answer was the first one: the wider the market the lower the price. Also, being a camera designer what would you leave out? Autofocus? Tethering capability? Waterproofing? Fast frame rate? there are so many needs that the best strategy is to cover as many of them to try to cover the widest market. Specialty cameras are usually very very expensive even when they are two piece of otherwise common technology put together, e.g a middle format lens on a stretched rangefinder body to make a panoramic camera.
GLF
GLF