why no DSLR that is simple? (No, not a Nikon DF)

[CaptZoom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's thing Steve, it's not a case of "off chance" which implies a rare occurrence at all. Each of those scenarios (and many many more) happen regularly. I write off missing one of the shots as the cost of using a M9. Yet I think a valid argument can be made for custom modes being a really necessary control.

 

By the way, where can I purchase a camera that produces pizza and beer? I'd buy one immediately just for that added functionality.

 

And maybe use the pizza and beer buttons? This is exactly what I'm talking about, I see a picture, I compose and press the shutter. I don't wander about with the intention of doing macro but pack a telephoto just in case I see a woodpecker. Your way suits you and vice versa but there are a thousand cameras with all the gizmos when some of us just want an uncluttered unit with just the controls that really are necessary.

I don't need a camera on the off chance that those two scenarios you mention may possibly present themselves, I just snap away, I'm in no rush.

[Chito]

I personally think DSLRs are pretty simple. I have a Canon 5DIII and I find it to be very intuitive. I think the key is to understand how the camera functions, and all the options start making "sense".

 

The thing is, many options are necessary because of the DSLR form factor..

 

A mirror causes noise, it also causes vibration, so.. we get a silent mode (lower fps, but a lot quieter), and a mirror lockup mode (eliminate mirror slap vibration).

 

With a 61 point autofocus system you want fine grain control as well. I personally think that the more control the better (for DSLRs).

 

Also, if you want to format an SD card on the M you can go one menu page up, instead of going 3-4 pages down.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pgk]

We've reached the usual impasse.

 

There are those who believe that preconceived automation, which inevitably both accepts and removes decision, making is the way to go.

 

And there are those who think that total manual control yields the images they want, too.

 

I'm unapologetically in the latter category. Light doesn't change as often as many think it does. I more often than not preset my M9 and leave exposure well alone. That's two controls down. I can't remember the last time I used an ISO different to base (perhaps once this year) and dealing with some degree of underexposure after is not the big deal many believe it to be - try it, M9 files are surprisingly flexible. So all I have to usually do is focus on my chosen point, compose (my favourite bit) and ease the shutter release 'til it fires. What could be simpler or more time effective than that?

[Chito]

We've reached the usual impasse.

 

There are those who believe that preconceived automation, which inevitably both accepts and removes decision, making is the way to go.

 

And there are those who think that total manual control yields the images they want, too.

 

I'm unapologetically in the latter category. Light doesn't change as often as many think it does. I more often than not preset my M9 and leave exposure well alone. That's two controls down. I can't remember the last time I used an ISO different to base (perhaps once this year) and dealing with some degree of underexposure after is not the big deal many believe it to be - try it, M9 files are surprisingly flexible. So all I have to usually do is focus on my chosen point, compose (my favourite bit) and ease the shutter release 'til it fires. What could be simpler or more time effective than that?

I just think they aren't mutually exclusive. There is a purpose for both. Just like you wouldn't use a truck for racing, I don't see photogs using Ms in the world cup.

 

The reason why I got the M is precisely because it is better suited for the kind of photos that I prefer. I love the analog feel and control, the weight and size. I don't mind the imprecise framing.. It's probably slower, but it feels faster.

[pgk]

I just think they aren't mutually exclusive.

Absolutely, except for he fact that here is no simple dSLR, which was the title of the post. All existing ones are feature laden with all that comes with this. No problem other than it would be nice to have a (dSLR) choice.....

[Chito]

Absolutely, except for he fact that here is no simple dSLR, which was the title of the post. All existing ones are feature laden with all that comes with this. No problem other than it would be nice to have a (dSLR) choice.....

As was mentioned in a previous post, DSLRs can be as simple as you want them to be, just set to M, one dial for each, aperture, shutter and ISO. Use the center focus point (it's the most precise anyway) and you're all set. That's why they say that if you're interested in photography any camera with manual controls will do.. just move away from the little green square.

 

It was also mentioned that the M is not as simple as we think it is. Leica is just restricted by what a rangefinder is and legacy M lenses. It has a surprising amount of features. I know many are offended just because they're there. But really, I don't understand why people don't just ignore them. (sort of what the theme of DSLRs and simplicity).

 

I think many are confusing simplicity with intuitiveness. I can handle any Canon camera easily.. I was handed a Nikon once, and I didn't even know how to change the AF mode, all the terminology was different, the focus ring turned the other way.. I still look at a Nikon and don't know what most of the buttons do.. I was lost, and it wasn't the Nikon's fault, I'm just used to Canon.

[CalArts 99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As was mentioned in a previous post, DSLRs can be as simple as you want them to be, just set to M, one dial for each, aperture, shutter and ISO. Use the center focus point (it's the most precise anyway) and you're all set. That's why they say that if you're interested in photography any camera with manual controls will do.. just move away from the little green square.

 

Some people do seem to miss this fact. I very often use my Nikon DSLRs just like I use my film F3. I can either set the exposure mode in A (like I do sometimes with the F3, and how many Leica users do with the M9 and M240), or set it on M. ISO can be set to base or whatever, or auto-ISO (also something digital Leica users often do.) Metering can be set at spot or evaluative, etc.. I mount legacy AIS Nikkor lenses and focus manually (just like a Leica which also uses MF lenses with a legacy mount.)

 

Set up this way, the camera basically becomes my "digital F3." The advantage is that everything (setting aperture with the lens aperture ring, setting the shutter speed with the fingertip speed dial) can be done very quickly and simply. It's as simple as any "less complex" manual dial film camera from decades ago. In fact, it is a lot more ergonomic then using the F3 and there's no reaching to the top plate to turn dials. Everything I need to do is with my fingertips (including ISO changes) and can be read in the viewfinder.

 

The rest of the "complexity" that some people seem to dislike can be simply ignored. The camera can indeed become a manual camera with no "complexity" whatsoever. But when specific functions are needed for specific purposes, then they're there waiting in the background to be implemented.

 

It was also mentioned that the M is not as simple as we think it is. Leica is just restricted by what a rangefinder is and legacy M lenses. It has a surprising amount of features. I know many are offended just because they're there. But really, I don't understand why people don't just ignore them. (sort of what the theme of DSLRs and simplicity).

 

I think perhaps part of it is both nostalgia and a sense of camera aesthetics. I'm the first to readily admit that Nikon/Canon DSLRS are not pretty cameras. They're downright ugly, imho. But I'll also admit that the design paradigm is much more ergonomic in the end. My D800E and D3s fit my hands a lot better than my F3 (and my Leica M film cameras.) And again, everything is at my fingertips. However, I do like the mechanical build quality and the aesthetics of my film cameras. They do give me a warm and fuzzy nostalgic feeling when I use them (and I use a lot of film these days.)

 

I'm also afraid that there's sometimes a kind of status thing going on, too. Certain Leica users denigrate DSLR users with terms like "Canikon" and talk about the "masses" and their "big DSLRs " around their necks, etc., etc..

 

But a DSLR is very functional and really does make a lot of sense in respect to quick and easy use. They have been purposefully designed to be used quickly and efficiently (think photojournalists and sports photographers.) I believe that some people are perhaps just too turned off by the appearance of them, and what they assume is too much "complexity" based on that appearance, and so they often refuse to give it a try. But we should all agree that a modern DSLR is not going to be needed by everyone, and nor is a manual rangefinder the best tool to use in many circumstances.

 

 

I think many are confusing simplicity with intuitiveness. I can handle any Canon camera easily.. I was handed a Nikon once, and I didn't even know how to change the AF mode, all the terminology was different, the focus ring turned the other way.. I still look at a Nikon and don't know what most of the buttons do.. I was lost, and it wasn't the Nikon's fault, I'm just used to Canon.

 

I think you're correct about confusing simplicity with intuitiveness. And each individual will connect with what they are comfortable using (it's kind of similar with automobiles, etc..) I prefer Nikon's layout and have just become used to it (I also have been a long time user of Nikon since the F cameras and own lots of very good and useable manual focus lenses.) But both brands do allow the user a lot of latitude for personal configuration. It may take a bit of patience and attentiveness to understand the layout and set the cameras up, but in the end their design and menus really do make a lot of sense. Nonetheless, they are cameras designed to be able to do many things and under many different circumstances. And if one doesn't need any of those functions and prefers only the very rudimentary basics, that's fine by me. I also appreciate simplicity and minimalist design (and I still use a 4x5 view camera a lot.)

 

If a shoe doesn't fit you, then just don't wear it.

[steveclem]

I write off missing one of the shots as the cost of using a M9.

.

 

Which is also exactly what I'm talking about.

[wildlightphoto]

The rest of the "complexity" that some people seem to dislike can be simply ignored.

 

The complexity I prefer to ignore can't be when a button is accidentally pushed or bumped or a menu item is fat-fingered into life, and can't be ignored when the features I don't want compromise the utility of a critical feature (i.e., the viewfinder).I do want.

 

When a function or feature is fat-fingered into life the time it takes to figure out which function was activated, how it was activated and how to disable it interrupts my thought process and workflow, and it is time I'd rather spend on making photos. The viewfinder issues reduce my keeper rate, which IMHO is a very bad compromise for the sake of features I don't want and will never use.

[MattMaber]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wildlightphoto]

If a shoe doesn't fit you, then just don't wear it.

 

I've been barefoot for a very long time.

[wattsy]

As was mentioned in a previous post, DSLRs can be as simple as you want them to be, just set to M, one dial for each, aperture, shutter and ISO. Use the center focus point (it's the most precise anyway) and you're all set. That's why they say that if you're interested in photography any camera with manual controls will do.. just move away from the little green square.

 

Yes, that's how I've always used a DSLR and it is fine but I'd prefer it even more if I could change the shutter speed and aperture directly via numbered dials rather than twiddling wheels that change values on an LCD.

[Chito]

The complexity I prefer to ignore can't be when a button is accidentally pushed or bumped or a menu item is fat-fingered into life, and can't be ignored when the features I don't want compromise the utility of a critical feature (i.e., the viewfinder).I do want.

 

When a function or feature is fat-fingered into life the time it takes to figure out which function was activated, how it was activated and how to disable it interrupts my thought process and workflow, and it is time I'd rather spend on making photos. The viewfinder issues reduce my keeper rate, which IMHO is a very bad compromise for the sake of features I don't want and will never use.

 

I do the same thing on a 5D as I do on the M240 when I want to get out of a menu or "feature", just tap the shutter button.

 

I know that everyone is pretty set in their ways, so there is no way I can convince somebody that a 5D isn't overly complicated. A Canon camera is designed so that every setting that is important to taking a picture is accesible with just the right hand, one wheel falls where your thumb falls, the other, where your index finger falls, behind the shutter. Then dedicated buttons for WB, ISO, metering, AF mode and a little button to light up the top LCD. You don't even have to look away from the viewfinder, all the information is right there. (I kinda wish the M240 had a little display visible on the viewfinder that showed shutter speed, calculated aperture, ISO and metering). Easy peasey.

 

Like a keyboard or piano keys, I don't even have to think to type, even though there are way more "dedicated buttons".

[Chito]

Yes, that's how I've always used a DSLR and it is fine but I'd prefer it even more if I could change the shutter speed and aperture directly via numbered dials rather than twiddling wheels that change values on an LCD.

 

It's a nice idea in theory.. The Nikon DF has that, it has 5 dials.

 

I mean it seems like actual dedicated dials means either more dials... or more menu diving. It would seem that the top LCD while not to everybody's preference, is a good compromise that makes sense.

[zlatkob]

Yes, that's how I've always used a DSLR and it is fine but I'd prefer it even more if I could change the shutter speed and aperture directly via numbered dials rather than twiddling wheels that change values on an LCD.

 

This was a big worry for me when I bought the Canon Elan 7 (EOS 30) back in 2001. I was worried that it would seem strange and unintuitive to use wheels that change values on the LCD and in the viewfinder (I had been used to traditional Nikon film cameras). But after using the camera, the new system became perfectly intuitive and quick. The wheels fall perfectly under the thumb and index finger.

Edited June 18, 2014 by zlatkob

[CalArts 99]

The complexity I prefer to ignore can't be when a button is accidentally pushed or bumped or a menu item is fat-fingered into life, and can't be ignored when the features I don't want compromise the utility of a critical feature (i.e., the viewfinder).I do want.

 

When a function or feature is fat-fingered into life the time it takes to figure out which function was activated, how it was activated and how to disable it interrupts my thought process and workflow, and it is time I'd rather spend on making photos. The viewfinder issues reduce my keeper rate, which IMHO is a very bad compromise for the sake of features I don't want and will never use.

 

But what you describe is really just user error and not knowing the camera intimately. "Fat fingering" is user error. Or having fat fingers.

 

And there is really nothing one can "fat finger" without also turning one of the speed dials to make the actual adjustment. Learn to use the camera and those errors won't ever happen. There's no reason for mistakes except by not knowing the camera well enough and/or "over-thinking" the functions (I feel part of the issue is that people assume it's 'complex' only because it 'looks' complex.) But if one doesn't have the desire to really want to use a modern DSLR in the first place, then that is a different issue altogether.

 

I'll admit that I once had apprehensions about DSLRs. But I spent time learning the new paradigm and became familiar with the camera to where it eventually became second nature to me. It took a while but it was almost like an epiphany of sorts when I finally realized how quick, easy, ergonomic, and functional the design is with the Nikons. But the desire had to be there in the first place (for me, I needed to use a fully functional and fast DSLR for a specific job.)

 

I think what really is happening here with this "complexity" dialogue, is that some people already have a bias against using modern DSLRs and aren't taking any time or effort to actually learn how to use them. Nor do they really want to do so. But my own desire was from necessity and after ridding myself of my preconceived notions about DSLRs, I ended up fully appreciating their ease of use and utility. These cameras were not designed by Nikon blindly. They have had the input from professional users from the very beginning.

 

The DSLR makes complete sense for the type of uses they were built for in the first place. And of course, they aren't needed if one needs or desires a more 'contemplative' approach to making images, or prefers analog dial settings, etc. (which I appreciate, too.) But a DSLR can also be used that way. And they are not 'complex.' They are only 'complex' and 'troublesome' when the user doesn't take the effort or time to understand them, or desires not to. Which again, is perfectly fine; I have already said that if the shoe just doesn't fit then no reason to force it.

 

"Complexity" is relative. A mechanical film camera that we all now call 'basic' is still going to be complex to someone who has never used a camera before. I thought a bicycle was pretty complex when I was a child. However, I learned how to use one. But I won't be in the Tour de France and my bicycle isn't nearly as complex as Mark Cavendish's bike. But he needs that sort of "complexity." The steering wheel of a Formula One car might baffle me, but it's second nature to Nico Rosberg. He's learned to use it and become intimately familiar with it, and it's now simple and "basic" to him. That's because both need and desire were there in the first place.

[wildlightphoto]

But what you describe is really just user error and not knowing the camera intimately. "Fat fingering" is user error. Or having fat fingers.

 

I have no desire to intimately know the many features I have no interest in using. I don't want them on my camera because I don't want to waste any time learning how to avoid them or work around them.

[wildlightphoto]

So maybe y'all have an inkling what I don't want. Here's what would interest me:

 

A basic no-frills camera with a user interface like the T.

 

It would have

 

• a responsive, accurate TTL viewfinder suitable for manual focus.

• a shutter speed dial.

• ISO adjustment

• a spot meter

• an aperture control.

 

THAT'S ALL

 

The beauty of the T user interface is that the user can add functions to the menu. You want autofocus? Buy the AF app. You want face detection? Buy the FACE DETECTION app. You want multiple automatic metering modes? Buy the AE app. You want a jpg engine and film simulation modes? Buy the JPG app. Movies? Buy the MOVIE app. Load yours up with as much as you want, I'll keep mine uncluttered.

[zlatkob]

The next best thing to having a camera custom-built to one's no-frills specifications is having a camera that one can customize to one's no-frills specifications. Once the customization is done, the camera is uniquely user-customized for the rest of its working life. And should the photographer's needs ever change (such as with a new project or assignment), the photographer has the option to enable additional features that may be needed rather than having to buy another camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[steveclem]

This thread is supposed to be about uncluttered no frills cameras so why do posters come on extolling the virtues of the bells and whistle variety when that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject? Be happy in what you like but please stop telling those of us of a different mien that it's our fault we don't get on with or the relative virtues of over egged puddings? If I ask for an apple it means I don't want a parrot.