Would you buy a simple digital camera?

[jsrockit]

There are digital point-and-shoots that meet most of those criteria.

Really, like what?

But even on a fancy, fully-featured digital, you could probably achieve the same end by putting it on "P" mode.

I think you missed his point.

 

[css9450]

I think you missed his point.

That's because I don't agree with his point. I shoot my D750 just like the camera he wants to have, but since it has about 900 various other features, it becomes the camera he doesn't want. The camera is as simple or as complicated as we need it to be.

 

[Godfrey]

Actually, thinking about this a second time, the Pixii sounds like it might be that ideal "simple digital" camera. ISO, rangefinder focus, exposure time, aperture ... and little else, not even an LCD, while you're shooting to distract you. All the complexity, if you choose to use it, is in the app that runs on your smartphone ... and you don't really have to use it other than to move your photos to your smartphone.

And it does that for you when you set it up. 🙂

Too bad it's going to cost a bit of money. Some will prize the simplicity and pay more for a camera like this, however. (My Leica M-D was like that... 🙂)

G

 

[jsrockit]

That's because I don't agree with his point. I shoot my D750 just like the camera he wants to have, but since it has about 900 various other features, it becomes the camera he doesn't want. The camera is as simple or as complicated as we need it to be.

We all know this already since WE ALL have to use our cameras this way. Did you really think we didn't know? However, many of us would love to have a digital camera that is as simple as a 1970's style fully manual mechanical camera was (see the Leica above). There is nothing wrong with that. This is RFF after all and not dpreview.com

 

[robert blu]

Of course I would... but the fact that it would sell in small quantities and would have to be developed from scratch so that means there's no way it could be in an accessible price range I'm afraid.

I agree. This i s a point. It seems most of photographers are ok with the actual offer from the market 🙂

 

[robert blu]

Think back. Back to the first time you ever held an adjustable camera. Not the old Brownie box but an adjustable camera. Remember? All those numbers, levers, dials and things. It was complex, confusing and totally NOT simple to you. It was only after you learned what those numbers meant and what the dials and levers did that it became simple.

People start out dumb as a box of rocks but learn as they go. Today the whole technology culture seems to be hellbent on keeping us dumb by making machines do things for us. The smart phone camera is the Kodak box camera of yesterday. All you gotta do is push the button and a picture is made. So simple and easy a box of rocks could do it.

There you go. A simple digital camera--your iPhone. Is it any wonder it's so popular?

My first "serious" camera was a Minolta SRT 101 and I had nothing to learn I did not already know : iso, aperture and speed, and focus 🙂

Of course you have a good point about iPhone popularity, +1 !

 

[Godfrey]

A third thought ... although this one will cost you even a bit more than the Pixii, or Leica M-D 262.

If you have a Hasselblad 500, buy a Hasselblad 907x. Take the CFVII 50c back and the battery out of the box and leave the rest alone. Take the film back off your Hasselblad 500 and replace it with the CFVII 50c. You'll need to set the time and date on start up, after which the only thing you occasionally might want to do is set your preferred ISO sensitivity (tap the screen, tap the speed, done). You now have a Hasselblad 500CM with a virtually infinite number of exposures on a roll of film, just go shooting as you normally would—all settings and exposures work exactly the same as when you have an A12 back on the camera. When you're done with a session, pull out the SD card and bring the files over to your computer for whatever else you want to do with them.

The price is steep, but you essentially have a lovely, all manual, digital camera with an outstanding sensor and your favorite Hasselblad lenses. 🙂

Simplicity comes in many forms.

G

 

[JeffS7444]

For me, features like through-the-lens viewing and seeing the effect of different apertures in real time are their own form of simplicity. And in the days of film, then original Pentax Spotmatic was beautifully executed: Stopped-down metering made for an effective illustration of the relationship between a lens's aperture, it's effect on exposure, as well as depth of field.

The first-generation Sony RX100 is simple in it's own way, and IMO, the best way to use it is in "P" mode, with AF/AE lock, and to dial in exposure compensation as needed. Why "P" mode? Because in most situations, RX100 delivers fairly deep depth of field anyhow. As froyd has pointed out, features like manual focus might not be something I'd want to use routinely, because implementation is awkward, and I have other cameras which offer manual control with more aplomb (but this generally comes at the expense of a larger, heavier camera which brings it's own sort of not-so-simple).

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, I'd be happy with the old Leica Digilux-2 with a few more pixels or else the same but new. I can buy them on ebay but you never know where you are with an elderly digital camera.


BTW, please, please could our simple camera not be designed with yet another battery that fits nothing else and which will be withdrawn by the makers after a year or so?


Four of those long lasting AAA's would be fine. Cheap and good and would save me looking at all the battery states the night before.



Regards, David

 

[Alberti]

My wife has a fuiji, 100, specifically because it mimmics my leica.
But what a problematic camera, she might incidentaly touch a button and all at once the WB changes, impossible to find out how thatcame. Or it goes in another mode. And other problems exist (set auto focus and auto exp at the same time is crazy).
Quality is OK at 7/10, but ergonomics gets a 2/10.
Keep it simple!

 

[Greg Maslak]

My short answer to Robert's question is always a resounding yes and the camera I want most to fulfil that desire is the gorgeous Leica MD in Vince's post. That is until I think about why I haven't even purchased something older, used and affordable that is simpler simply because of the tech of its time and I realize the honest answer is no.
I just finished developing a roll of B&W film at the kitchen sink. I'll scan it, digitally process it and share the images over the next few days. I shot the roll with a Nikkormat, but it could have been any one of those old beauties. With colour I need a lab for developing, but the rest is the same. The thing is, when I want simplicity, I have it with old film cameras. I just can't see paying a lot of money to mimic that experience with digital. I'm all talk; no money. I think the big companies know that. Leica and Hasselblad are an exception. They are true luxury brands and have been for a long time. They can bring almost anything to market and find demand.
As much as I might like to pretend I'm waiting breathlessly on the dream of a simple, affordable digital camera, I just don't see the Nikkormat 1DX anytime soon.

 

[Pál_K]

Think back. Back to the first time you ever held an adjustable camera. Not the old Brownie box but an adjustable camera. Remember? All those numbers, levers, dials and things. It was complex, confusing and totally NOT simple to you.

I respectfully disagree, because I think there used to be a time when people actually enjoyed learning how to use something, be it a camera or a car where owners were expected to be able to clean the points in the distributor as a matter of routine maintenance.

For me, at the age of 11 in the early 1960's, my first adjustable camera was a ciné camera. From the instruction manual I learned about aperture, shutter speed, frame rate, remaining footage, focus, parallax, depth of field, lens angle of view, types of lighting, filters, and film format. I also learned how to make a reasonably contiguous story with ciné film rather than snapshots. If an 11 year old kid can learn that and make decent photos, most any other enthusiast can.

... Today the whole technology culture seems to be hellbent on keeping us dumb by making machines do things for us. ...

Especially true of cars! Most cars today are not made for drivers, but for "appliance owners".

 

[robert blu]

My wife has a fuiji, 100, specifically because it mimmics my leica.
But what a problematic camera, she might incidentaly touch a button and all at once the WB changes, impossible to find out how thatcame. ...
Keep it simple!

I know this story, it is what happens with my wife's D-109 !

In the more or less 10cm wide back of the camera in the space left free from the LCD there are 8 buttons + the four direction pad with a circular crown and of course a button in the middle !

 

[Pál_K]

My wife has a fuiji, 100, specifically because it mimmics my leica.
But what a problematic camera, she might incidentaly touch a button and all at once the WB changes, impossible to find out how thatcame. Or it goes in another mode. And other problems exist (set auto focus and auto exp at the same time is crazy).
Quality is OK at 7/10, but ergonomics gets a 2/10.
Keep it simple!

You've just described the most exasperating aspect of my X-Pro1, which I otherwise love.

I just had this idea right now: I should put it in a half-case which covers all the rear buttons and the screen, then use it in the manner of a film camera! There is nothing on the back that I truly need to look at or touch while making photos.

 

[David Hughes]

I respectfully disagree, because I think there used to be a time when people actually enjoyed learning how to use something, be it a camera or a car where owners were expected to be able to clean the points in the distributor as a matter of routine maintenance.

For me, at the age of 11 in the early 1960's, my first adjustable camera was a ciné camera. From the instruction manual I learned about aperture, shutter speed, frame rate, remaining footage, focus, parallax, depth of field, lens angle of view, types of lighting, and filters. I also learned how to make a reasonably contiguous story with ciné film rather than snapshots. If an 11 year old kid can learn that and make decent photos, most any other enthusiast can.

Especially true of cars! Most cars today are not made for drivers, but for "appliance owners".

I couldn't agree more; I started young too and found the mechanics easy and then learnt when to use them to do what you wanted.

As for cars, about 35 years ago we got tired of our wonder car because it was brilliant when OK but had just too much to go wrong. So I sold it and bought the cheapest and most basic car in the paper that evening. When I sold that one the technicians told me I was the last customer they had with a car they could stand and listen to and understand the problem.


Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

I've owned one for about thirteen years now: My Olympus E-1. It has a few menus, sure, but you could never look at them other than to set the time and date and just use it on any exposure mode at the default settings provided by the factory and get beautiful JPEGs straight out of it. It has the nicest ergonomics of any DSLR I've had, produces some of the nicest JPEG photographs of anything even cameras made today that are far far more sophisticated.



I paid about $400 for it in 2007, with a lens. I think you could get one now for less than half that. 😀

Gquote]


They and the E-3 and E-5 are very cheap for what you get and exactly as you say. They have some brilliant lenses to go with them; I love the f/2 Macro and the 12-60mm zoom. You have to have very deep pockets to get better.


Regards, David

 

[Archlich]

I like simplicity. But I have a problem with equaling simplicity to exclusivity.

A simple camera is good. But if it's gonna cost $8000 for such simplicity, then I'd rather use a cheaper, more complicated one, and be simple myself.

You don't buy zen with money.

 

[Anthony Harvey]

I think the easiest and perhaps best way to get a simple digital camera is to buy a complicated one and set it up to be simple - and then never touch the menus again. It’s what I do with all my current digital cameras - D700 and X100T - and I’ve never looked back. I’ve been particularly pleased to have been able to inactivate nearly all the buttons on the back of the Fuji, for example. Both cameras have become so simple that my two eight-year old grandchildren can use them properly and effectively without me standing next to them - and take very good photos.

(I find it astonishing how children that age can have a sense of composition, once balance and structure have been mentioned - and I mean just pointed out, not taught. They even seem to have a sense of the importance of background too, that it shouldn’t be a distraction or make the picture not fit together or be ugly. It never ceases to amaze me that if children are given the time and the opportunity, and if they have a real interest, they can learn so quickly and intuitively.)

 

[robert blu]

I like simplicity. But I have a problem with equaling simplicity to exclusivity.

A simple camera is good. But if it's gonna cost $8000 for such simplicity, then I'd rather use a cheaper, more complicated one, and be simple myself.

You don't buy zen with money.

I agree, this is why I mentioned an "affordable price range" 🙂

"...in a more accessible price range."

 

[john_s]

My DSLR has about a million settings. I use about 4 of them. It's a bit like a modern wordprocessing software: it does countless complex jobs but I only use a few of the settings. But other users need a different set of them for their tasks that are different to mine.