kdriceman Posted June 19, 2014 Share #61 Posted June 19, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) So I'm sure this has been hashed around, but why is there not a good DSLR out there that is similar to a Leica in quality and simplicity? . Actually, this is the first line of the thread. Although myriad topics, emotions, ideas, statements, issues and comments have been tossed about, I think two things related to the original post have come out - A DSLR can, without much effort, be configured to be as simple as a Leica and the digital Leica - especially the M240 - isn't really simple after all. It has a shutter speed dial that you can see looking down at the camera top plate; a DSLR has a shutter speed thumb wheel and by looking at the top plate LCD or through the viewfinder you get the same information. What about auto focus and aperture control you may say? Well, just get a manual focus lens with an aperture ring for your DSLR. As for quality, at the Leica M price point, it would stretch the bounds of reason to claim a DSLR doesn't have "Leica" quality. Of course each of us has our preferences and I understand if you don't need DSLR functionality and don't want to learn how to use one. But as has been pointed out buy several in this thread, a good DSLR can be pretty simple to use and has damn good build quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Hi kdriceman, Take a look here why no DSLR that is simple? (No, not a Nikon DF). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wildlightphoto Posted June 19, 2014 Share #62 Posted June 19, 2014 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. +1 Since modern cameras are image-making computers it makes sense to adopt the flexibile configuration model of computers. DSLR cameras to date have been the equivalent of a hypothetical personal computer having an operating system with embedded apps. I have no use for tax calculation software, for Adobe Illustrator, Angry Birds or other game software; I'd rather use Photoshop than the Silkypix or Photo Deluxe embedded in the hypothetical operating system; I'd also rather use Open Office than the MS Office hard-wired into the computer. In varying degrees, personal computers used to be made like this. DSLR cameras still are. I'd rather have more buffer space than AF or AE or movie apps. I'd rather the people who want those apps pay for their development. I'd rather these apps not get triggered when my fingers accidentally strike the wrong key. (OTOH those who know their computer keyboards intimately would never do this... or perhaps they should try pulling a DLSR with 560mm lens attached out of a cramped kayak cockpit while the otter is playing next to the kayak without bumping any switch or button before telling me to learn how to use my camera.) There's no reason this flexible configuration model used by personal computers can't be adopted by camera makers. Sell the basic box cheap, the money is in the apps. Firmware updates would be history, replaced by operating system updates and updated individual apps. I'd get just the apps I wanted, other can load their camera with as many features as they want. No waiting for the camera maker to update the firmware, buy an app from an independant software developer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted June 19, 2014 Share #63 Posted June 19, 2014 +1, fully agree. Some Canon products have been hacked since long time. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chito Posted June 19, 2014 Share #64 Posted June 19, 2014 +1 Since modern cameras are image-making computers it makes sense to adopt the flexibile configuration model of computers. DSLR cameras to date have been the equivalent of a hypothetical personal computer having an operating system with embedded apps. I have no use for tax calculation software, for Adobe Illustrator, Angry Birds or other game software; I'd rather use Photoshop than the Silkypix or Photo Deluxe embedded in the hypothetical operating system; I'd also rather use Open Office than the MS Office hard-wired into the computer. In varying degrees, personal computers used to be made like this. DSLR cameras still are. I'd rather have more buffer space than AF or AE or movie apps. I'd rather the people who want those apps pay for their development. I'd rather these apps not get triggered when my fingers accidentally strike the wrong key. (OTOH those who know their computer keyboards intimately would never do this... or perhaps they should try pulling a DLSR with 560mm lens attached out of a cramped kayak cockpit while the otter is playing next to the kayak without bumping any switch or button before telling me to learn how to use my camera.) There's no reason this flexible configuration model used by personal computers can't be adopted by camera makers. Sell the basic box cheap, the money is in the apps. Firmware updates would be history, replaced by operating system updates and updated individual apps. I'd get just the apps I wanted, other can load their camera with as many features as they want. No waiting for the camera maker to update the firmware, buy an app from an independant software developer. I think this button bumping thing is overblown, first off, you have to press a button and also turn a dial to make a change. You can spin the dials all you want while the camera is asleep and you won't change a thing (I wouldn't recommend the same with the M240 or any fully manual camera). To actually get to the weird features you have to hold the camera like a point and shoot (with both hands), depress a recessed button on the left side (bump all you like) aaand spin the dial with your right thumb, then press set on the center of the dial. You literally have to use both hands... I've never ever accidentally activated a feature, and I'd pay good money to see somebody get to multiple exposure mode by bumping their camera to their butt (one handed would be extremely difficult). As for the buttons on the right side, as I said before, if you press the ISO button or something (or any button on the left side).. just tap the shutter and you're back in business.. It even has a "My Menu" where you can put your most used features (mirror lockup?, format card?, etc, etc). It's customisable! And operating system updates are firmware updates.. Once you update the firmware and if you break compatibility with an app you'd need an app update. If you had multiple apps you'd have to wait for multiple developers.. There would be a lot more waiting.. We really can't compare cameras with iOS devices or PC's that number in the billions of units, supply and demand. I just don't want people thinking that DSLRs are intractable computers. What's funny to me is that every single poster on this thread is knowledgable enough that they could pick up any DSLR and learn to use it really really well in less amount of time that it would take to read half of these posts. If you don't like them it's fine, if you don't want to learn to use them it's fine as well. It just seems like people have this idea that the way they operated is inherently wrong and that's what I don't agree with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 19, 2014 Share #65 Posted June 19, 2014 I think this button bumping thing is overblown For you maybe. Others clearly don't feel the same. What right do you have to tell me what to feel? Are you the thought police? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chito Posted June 19, 2014 Share #66 Posted June 19, 2014 For you maybe. Others clearly don't feel the same. What right do you have to tell me what to feel? Are you the thought police? That's why my post starts with "I think", it implies that it is my personal opinion. I definitely don't pretend to change your mind, or anybody's that is already set. The whole forum system is for other people to read, we should all just make our points, counter other peoples points and let anybody who reads these make up their own minds without resorting to attacks. The more open minded and tolerant we are to other peoples opinions the better it is for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 19, 2014 Share #67 Posted June 19, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The more open minded and tolerant we are to other peoples opinions the better it is for everyone. Can I suggest that you read the title of this thread? You are trying to suggest that existing dSLRs are 'simple' which neither the OP nor many of the respondents (myself included) believe. Compare a current dSLR with say an R6 or OM1. They didn't have multiple features and whilst some users undoubtedly do need the plethora of features found on dSLRs, the question is why no manufacturer has built a 'simple' dSLR which doesn't have innumerable irrelevant features on it so which is 'simple' and based on the essentials as opposed to the potentials. FWIW I'm using my 5D2s to do a shoot tomorrow and its taken me a good ten minutes to check that the two bodies were 'synchronised' so that they will both do the same thing without some setting being adrift. These really are not 'simple' cameras and I've used them a great deal - it is still a relief to pick up the M9 which is totally intuitive to me - the essentials (and a few irrelevancies I have to say, but few enough to ignore or check quickly fortunately). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chito Posted June 19, 2014 Share #68 Posted June 19, 2014 Can I suggest that you read the title of this thread? So we should all insult each other? There are readers on both sides, like I said, the arguments are for those in the fence, not for you, or me. Everybody here has a different definition of what simple is, and everyone has different tolerances for complexity (as in comfort, not capacity). I love my M240 but it is not simple, it's minimalist. Have you considered using the mentioned custom modes on the 5DII? It would be.. simpler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 19, 2014 Share #69 Posted June 19, 2014 I love my M240 but it is not simple, it's minimalist. Scratches head:confused:. Errrr..... Isn't minimalist simple by definition? What could be simpler than having minimal controls? We'll have to agree to disagree, but I would have thought that from the title it is clear that the OP suggests that current dSLRs are anything but simple and the question is why a simpler ('minimalist') dSLR has not been marketed. Trying to change an opinion is IMO not the same as trying to answer a question. And no, we shouldn't insult each other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted June 20, 2014 Share #70 Posted June 20, 2014 Scratches head:confused:. Errrr..... Isn't minimalist simple by definition? Not at all, you need a degree of technical knowledge to use a film Leica, and theyre minimalist. By contrast, even the most 'complicated' modern DSLRs - stick em on auto and the most inexperienced person can fire away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 29, 2014 Share #71 Posted June 29, 2014 @ pgk and MattMaber - that's an old debate. Which is "simpler", a Ph.D camera ("push here, dummy!") or a camera with minimalist controls. Even back on the 70's, Leica's advertising slogan was "The THINK camera." As in - you had to think to use it.... Leica M4 - The "Think" Camera | La Vida Leica! Anyway - I haven't had a lot of trouble using my Canon 5/6D bodies. My complaint is less about complexity than about size (which may follow from complexity). How is it Leica has been able to ALMOST replicate the size of their 1960's film cameras - even when adding a built-in motor in full-frame digital format. Within 10% or so of the same volume. Whereas Nikon and Canon cannot make a digital FF camera within 10% of the volume of a Nikon F3 or Canon F-1? The mirrorless guys have - but only by eliminating the "R" part of "SLR" - the "R"eflex mirror and finder. The Japanese used to be the experts at miniaturization - think the OM-1, as mentioned, or Sony's Walkman and earlier transistor radios. When did they lose the picture? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 29, 2014 Share #72 Posted June 29, 2014 The Japanese used to be the experts at miniaturization - think the OM-1, as mentioned, or Sony's Walkman and earlier transistor radios. When did they lose the picture? Olympus E-400 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted June 29, 2014 Share #73 Posted June 29, 2014 Because these days to consumers "pro" = bigger!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2014 Share #74 Posted June 29, 2014 Because a small Sony E 6000 for example (or allmost any modern diigicam) outperforms all film cameras ever made. I don't see the point of these endless discussions about film versus digital. To me film is like a sail-boat and digital like a motorboat. There are no professional sail-boats anymore, transporting goods and passengers but this doesn't stop maybe half a million sailors world-wide to practice their hobby with great joy, including professional sailors, who race for a living. The challenge is (and imo it will become more evident over the next years) what can be done with film within its limitations. Digital being an absolutely different ball game. There are many adjustments, that can be made in a modern digital camera, not only ISO. So how could such a "computer with a lens" be compared to a film camera? Soon digicams (chased by phones and those by glasses) will shoot video in near darkness, each one of the still images forming the video of better IQ than analog 24X36 film. How could there be technical ground for a comparison between these two different media and the tools? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted June 29, 2014 Share #75 Posted June 29, 2014 Americas cup is pretty professional. Might not be passengers ships but meh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 29, 2014 Share #76 Posted June 29, 2014 Because a small Sony E 6000 for example (or allmost any modern diigicam) outperforms all film cameras ever made. ... Now that is just plain silly. Let us do some photography together. I will bring a 6x12cm, 5x4" and 10x8". No, not for sports photography. ]There are no professional sail-boats anymore, transporting goods and passengers... There was a promising sail technology that used a huge Jalbert Parafoil or two a couple hundred feet above to tow a shipping vessel. Guess it never made it beyond an issue of Sailing magazine and Popular Mechanics. [emoji316] The challenge is (and imo it will become more evident over the next years) what can be done with film within its limitations. Good point. One possibility is (unlikely due to market demand) that large, super high resolution monitors will come about and today's high pixel-count cameras will fail to fulfill. OTOH, I do not know many large format photographers who make pictures the public even remotely care to see on a screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 29, 2014 Share #77 Posted June 29, 2014 Because a small Sony E 6000 for example (or allmost any modern diigicam) outperforms all 24X36film cameras ever made.I don't see the point of these endless discussions about film versus digital. To me film is like a sail-boat and digital like a motorboat. There are no professional sail-boats anymore, transporting goods and passengers but this doesn't stop maybe half a million sailors world-wide to practice their hobby with great joy, including professional sailors, who race for a living. The challenge is (and imo it will become more evident over the next years) what can be done with film within its limitations. Digital being an absolutely different ball game. ...How could there be technical ground for a comparison between these two different media and the tools? Can't think of a better example than sailing versus motor-boats to demonstrate how technical progress has NOT made the previous technology superfluous. (Horses versus engines in cars and motocycles being the second best.) Sailing and horseback riding are the realm of amateurs and imo a similar renaissance of film photography in the hands of very capable hobbyists can't be excluded for the years to come. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted W Posted July 7, 2014 Share #78 Posted July 7, 2014 Forget the M; it's a rangefinder, different requirements. I would love to see Canon or Nikon rip off the UI of the Leica S, which has the uncluttered, simply-used thing that everybody wants yet all the capability of a dSLR. That said, both Canon and Nikon can be used quite easily (as long as you don't dive into autofocus too deeply -- advanced-level stuff, that). The great revelation of the Df is that when it arrived, with all of its supposedly ergonomic knobs, it actually made the contemporary Nikon control layout seem even more intuitive, not less. Like, 'Oh, they already improved this -- in the 90s.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2014 Share #79 Posted July 7, 2014 Sailing [.......]the realm of amateursUmmm... 35th America's Cup Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattMaber Posted July 7, 2014 Share #80 Posted July 7, 2014 Ummm... 35th America's Cup Yeah sailing is pretty damned technical Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.