n5jrn
Well-known
Not really. All those features and modes remain there, ready to be inadvertently activated (or, in the case of custom settings, forgotten when a firmware glitch necessitates a system reset). Greater complexity and the learning curve that necessarily entails is one of the drawbacks of digital. Even "simple" digital cameras like the RD1 and M9 have far more settings and modes than analog mechanical cameras.
Which is not to say that digital is intrinsically worse, just different, with its own set of tradeoffs.
Murchu
Well-known
It wouldn't for me. That isn't a challenge to film vs digital, just that the dynamic range of digital is not yet there, compared to the negative film I use.
thegman
Veteran
I suppose it depends what films you use, and what criteria you're judging on I suppose. You can certainly get more detail out of film at low ISO, and of course better dynamic range. There is certainly a sharpness from digital though that is difficult to get in 35mm film.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. There are two mind-sets.
Consider first an Alpa. "This camera is very simple, with manual controls for for everything you need" versus "This camera is too complicated because you have to know too much before you can use it."
Now consider a DSLR. "This camera is very simple, because you just set it to automatic" versus "This camera is too complicated because it's covered in unnecessary buttons, switches, dials and LCD screens."
Like you, I get annoyed with the "If you don't want it, don't use it" school. As well as the points you make, there's also the argument that what ain't there can't go wrong (or be inadvertently selected, as you say), together with with the philosophical/aesthetic consideration of Occam's Razor: don't make things more complicated than they need to be.
Cheers,
R.
kanzlr
Hexaneur
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
....using simple film cameras.....
The problem most folks have is that they'll own this camera (or one like it) and their friends will ask what all that does and do they know how to use it...then they have to admit they have no clue what it does or how to use it or maybe why it's even there...then they feel or appear silly for buying such an advanced camera when they only use it in Auto mode...
My most advance body if the Nikon F5...I haven't used it yet to it's fullest but do use many of it's features and that includes the MF-28 mounted on the back and even an SB-25 mounted on top...
At times it seems harder to explain to a noobie how to use a totally manual camera...the kind without batteries...:bang:
sig
Well-known
Murchu
Well-known
Well said.
TXForester
Well-known
I'm not sure why that would be true. On an all mechanical camera, you have limited number of controls and each is dedicated to a single setting. Knob A changes the shutter speed and that is all it does.
On my Olympus E-510 when in manual mode, I forget that turning just the control dial changes shutter speed and holding the EC button while turning the control dial changes the aperture. Sometimes I'll get them backwards. That means I have to reset one control before making the intended change. If the controls were separate, it would be easier to remember.
sparrow6224
Well-known
TXF -- if you handed a Nikon F2 plain prism to someone who's used only digital he wouldn't have the foggiest clue what to do with it. Wouldn't know how to read whatever light meter you gave him. Wouldn't know how to translate that to one of several exposure options he has (f4 @ 1/250th? f8 @ 1/60th?) Same with an M3. That crazy-assed box of data allegedly from the allegedly forthcoming D600 would never look like that in real use: that's a display of everything lit all at once. It takes about an hour to learn the display at most. What's tough on DSLR's is navigating the underlying menus. I've had a D700 for 18 months and I'm still discovering settings I didn't know existed. Been taking good pictures with it nevertheless. In the end, all cameras are pretty much the same: you're presented with a contraption and some technology that makes it possible for the arrangements of lights and darks in front of the camera to be focused onto a photo-receptive surface. Further technology turns that recording into a photograph. Fork vs chopsticks. It's still a meal. And it still tastes good.
---f
-
I like the look from my M8. This has a VSCO preset for Portra 160 applied in LR4. (shot at F1.7 @ 1/1000 sec, iso 160, 3 stop ND, 50mm lux)
tstermitz
Well-known
My pet peeve is multi-mode knobs and complex menu systems. The three key things you need on separate knobs are focus, aperture and ISO. I guess if you use aperture priority with auto exposure, you either need Exposure lock or +/- EV adjustment. Film cameras selected ISO by choosing the film, therefor one less knob. White balance? I usually shoot raw and set white balance in Lightroom.
M cameras are pretty simple, with single-mode knobs and a minimal menu system. I appreciate Pentax User Interface design from the P645N to the K-5.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
There are plenty of cameras with discrete knobs for focus, aperture and sensitivity setting. Chording controls is done to reduce cost and simplify the controls (like the Pentax *ist DS with one dial and a chord button to allow it to do both aperture and exposure time as appropriate).
Complex menus aren't really a problem either, as long as they are logically laid out and sequester the little used bits in the nooks and crannies while putting the important, always used stuff up top. The problem is that most are only logical if you channel the engineering-marketing folks who designed them ...
Of my current cameras
- I love the simplicity of the E-1, the M9 and the X2. I only rarely need to use the menus on any of them, and when I do it's usually a top level menu pick required to do what I need.
- The Nikon F, M4-2 and Rollei 35S go without saying ... there's not much to their control settings (although you'd be amazed how many questions I've answered about all three of them over the years from other users!).
- The Ricoh GXR is more complex than the other digital cameras but then it almost has to be because it is a system of multiple camera units controlled by a single body. There have to be enough options to handle the features of six camera units with diverse feature sets. That said, they did an excellent job of designing both the ergonomics/switch gear and the menus so that with a little bit of study it is very easy to remember. Fitted with just one camera unit most of the time, I find it very easy to use with little need to go menu diving.
- The Nikon F, M4-2 and Rollei 35S go without saying ... there's not much to their control settings (although you'd be amazed how many questions I've answered about all three of them over the years from other users!).
- The Ricoh GXR is more complex than the other digital cameras but then it almost has to be because it is a system of multiple camera units controlled by a single body. There have to be enough options to handle the features of six camera units with diverse feature sets. That said, they did an excellent job of designing both the ergonomics/switch gear and the menus so that with a little bit of study it is very easy to remember. Fitted with just one camera unit most of the time, I find it very easy to use with little need to go menu diving.
I like the Occam's Razor quote too. ;-)
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
....using simple film cameras.....
Haha, this is the EXACT reason why I moved from DSLR's into rangefinders. I went overseas with one and had no idea what I was doing. Way too confusing. I love the simplicity of the rangefinder.