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

[kjervin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

it might be that the reason the major camera manufacturers never will make it is because they share the opinion that people who want a simplified camera design don't really know "what they really want" once they understand how great what we currently make is. It is easier to blame your users for not wanting what you make than to make what they are actually asking for.

 

the sad thing is that once one manufacturer makes something and it is popular (assuming it is) there would be a flood of "me too!" copies. Maybe they don't because it would be a matter of designing something new instead of repackaging existing technology in a slightly different form factor and painting it two tone.

 

DSLR design these days feels like they innovate for their flagship body and then use the technology in a slightly less capable form for the rest of their SKU's. designing a camera like the original poster described (and others as well) would likely mean a separate development track in addition to point and shoots, EVIL, and regular DSLR's. I think they don't want to do that until they know they will sell a boatload of such cameras. The Nikon Df was a nod in that direction, but in my opinion, they totally missed the point. Or maybe they didn't. they peeled off a few people who objected to their current designs without a lot of risk (seemingly). if it is successful, maybe someone else will go a step further.

 

if you think, on the other hand, that today's DSLR's are "just fine" the way they are, then maybe you are not the ones such a camera is meant for, but there are plenty of people who do not have to be persuaded why a simplified user interface design might be a better choice for them.

[Advertisement]

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

[NZDavid]

Why can't a lot of tech products be simpler? Because software designers can add more and more features. They assume more is better and give little thought to usability.

[zlatkob]

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?

 

I don't have any trouble with the complexity of current Canon 5/6D bodies either. The complexity just goes with all that they can do, which is a lot. Considering how complex they are internally, they are fairly simple to use. I too would like to see the size (and weight) reduced. Hence, I love the little SL1(100D), the smallest DSLR Canon has ever made. It is super small for an APS-C DSLR. It does lack some controls of the bigger cameras, but that simplicity is part of its charm.

 

The 6D isn't too far off from the size of some film cameras — part of the added size is the integrated handgrip:

 

Canon 6D = 144.5 x 110.5 x 71.2 mm

Nikon F3HP = 148.5 x 101.5 x 69 mm

Nikon F3 = 148.5 x 96.5 x 65.5 mm

Nikon F2A = 152.5 x 102 x 65 mm

Canon F1 = 146.7 x 96.6 x 48.3 mm

 

I'd like to see full-frame DSLRs shrink to the size of the original OM-1:

 

Olympus OM-1 = 136 × 83 × 50 mm

 

... which was pretty close to today's:

 

Leica M240 = 139 × 80 × 42 mm

[Nick_S]

...

I'd like to see full-frame DSLRs shrink to the size of the original OM-1:

 

Olympus OM-1 = 136 × 83 × 50 mm

 

... which was pretty close to today's:

 

Leica M240 = 139 × 80 × 42 mm

 

I'm not sure how Leica measured the M240, but their ME and Monochrom figures seem to be more in keeping with the traditional film M camera dimensions:

 

Leica MP = 138 x 77 mm x 38 mm

 

Leica M7 = 138 x 79.5 mm x 38 mm

 

Leica ME & Monochrom = 139 x 80 x 37mm

 

Nick

[Echo63]

I'm not sure how Leica measured the M240, but their ME and Monochrom figures seem to be more in keeping with the traditional film M camera dimensions:

 

Leica MP = 138 x 77 mm x 38 mm

 

Leica M7 = 138 x 79.5 mm x 38 mm

 

Leica ME & Monochrom = 139 x 80 x 37mm

 

Nick

 

Pretty sure the 42mm quoted above includes the little thumb ledge next to the rear dial.

Its about 5mm high, which makes the rest of the camera about 37mm thick !

[jaques]

what I would like to see is a manual focus DSLR like the old classic Minolta XD-7. The body was smaller than the M body (in most respects), and the lenses are pretty small too. Aperture and shutter priority modes, and manual settings is all I need.... exposure comp dial on top around shutter...if it could take old Rokkor lenses... whoa- too good. For me such a camera would be the DSLR equivalent of the M: absolute simplicity.

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

what I would like to see is a manual focus DSLR like the old classic Minolta XD-7. The body was smaller than the M body (in most respects), and the lenses are pretty small too. Aperture and shutter priority modes, and manual settings is all I need.... exposure comp dial on top around shutter...if it could take old Rokkor lenses... whoa- too good. For me such a camera would be the DSLR equivalent of the M: absolute simplicity.

 

Full frame or APS-C sized sensor?

 

Sony A7 and Fuji XT-1 come close to reincarnation of XD-7.

[TomB_tx]

I agree with the Sony A7 suggestion. I use mine with my collection of manual SLR lenses, and it's the best solution I've found.

[dant]

I really don't understand these comments. A DSLR can be as simple or as complicated as you want. You want a simple DSLR? Get a Canon - any Canon DSLR - put a Zeiss ZE manual focus lens on it, switch it to manual mode and shoot RAW. The top dial adjusts shutter speed, the rear dial adjusts aperture. Looking through the viewfinder shows all the information you need to know. Changing ISO is easier than on the M and it has auto-ISO in M if you want. If you want to change metering mode or any other parameter you pull up the quick menu and make the change... Honestly it is much easier than going into the M menu structure to change metering mode, bracketing, etc...

 

If you've never used one it takes about 10 minutes with the manual to get this far.

 

Sure, they're big, but they are what they are. And, of course if you want to use AI Servo auto focus at 8 fps on a zoom lens with image stabilization to catch a running gazelle it does get a little more complicated, but then why shouldn't it?

 

 

No, these cams you mention are hard to adjust on the fly. I can adjust my Leica and Fuji without even looking at it.

 

These photos were taken with a Leica M240 and a Fuji X-E1.

 

(nsfw)

 

Whoop Whoop! The Gathering of the Juggalos.

 

I generally couldn't get the same results with a complex dslr. I could also not get the same results with a FF Sony mirrorless that didn't have manual controls that can be adjusted instantly. The circular fisheye photos have to be all manual exp shots. The metering is all over the place. Turn left and turn right and the exposure is vastly different. I need instant adjustments.

 

If you not shooing fast street work it does not matter and you can take your time to fiddle with the dslr or Sony controls. But if you want the fastest manual controls it is a Leica or Fuji. Sure, you can use a complex dslr for the job. But they make it harder since manual controls are not that user friendly compared to a Fuji or Leica.

 

Now, if I was like the average photog out there shooting a zoom, then I'd be all over the dslr. but I'm not. For the fast safari shooting you mention nothing better than the dslr.

 

With the style of work I do a dslr is no good if I want to have maximum stealth. All these subjects didn't know I even shot them. Whether it is 1 foot, 2 foot, 4 foot from the subject, it does not matter with a Leica or a Fuji. A monstrous dslr is another matter. Yes, you can get pix with the wrong gear...but why make it harder on yourself?

 

 

1 foot away

http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/87671152746

 

2 feet away

http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/90113821726

 

http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/56422193364

 

http://whoopwhoopartistsbook.tumblr.com/image/93154306926

 

4 feet away

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Peephole_Bikers_Mardi_Gras_Copyright_2013_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_MR3.jpg

 

8 feet away

http://danielteolijrcurrent.tumblr.com/image/41324185281

[gyoung]

I find changing the shutter speed with the wheel used on Nikons much easier at eye level with a viewfinder display than with a dial on the top like my M cameras.

I object to unnecessary bulk and weight but have always managed to set the electronic cameras up simply to suit me (single point focussing, centre weighted metering) and use on manual usually, and just ignore the rest of the electronic nonsense, they can leave off that lot, and especially video.

 

 

Gerry

[zlatkob]

No, these cams you mention are hard to adjust on the fly. I can adjust my Leica and Fuji without even looking at it.

 

It's just as easy to adjust a DSLR on the fly. One dial for shutter speed. One dial for aperture. Three clicks on either dial equal one stop, so it's easy to adjust without looking. Instant and easy.

[kdriceman]

No, these cams you mention are hard to adjust on the fly. I can adjust my Leica and Fuji without even looking at it.

 

 

 

No, they're not hard to adjust on the fly.

[Torgian]

Ok, I know it's been a long time since I've logged on, but I have read all the responses to this thread and wow... I didn't expect such a range of replies.

 

First, let me talk about what I've been doing so far.

 

I've been taking mostly street photography and natural model photos. I haven't done any sports photography since I left Colorado back in March (I live in Japan now).

 

I checked out a few digital DSLRs recently. Most recently, I enjoyed playing around with the Nikon D750. I've also looked at a couple mirrorless options again, but still am not very impressed.

 

Part of the reason I have been considering going to a DSLR was for autofocus capability, as well as how it is easier for me to manually focus a lens through the prism when I am working with a fast lens (1.4, 1.2 for example, it is a little harder for me to nail a good focus on the Leica)

 

Unfortunatly, I have to say again that the DSLR camp is not doing it for me, for a couple of reasons.

 

First, it comes to the size. now, I know that the size of FX DSLRs (inclduing the 750) are not THAT much bigger than their older film versions, but there is still a visual difference between the Leica and a modern DSLR. This is too important for me to just drop the Leica. I love the Leica for its shape and its unobtrusiveness

 

Older film Nikons (FE, F3 for example, comes to mind) are not as intrusive because of its slightly smaller size, although the lenses are certainly a bit larger. I can walk into a concert with a film Nikon and not be checked. Same with my Leica, and in fact, it is even easier to walk into a concert (in fact, I'm going to a concert next Wednesday to take some photos).

 

Design and looks aside, the other thing turning me off from DSLRs are simply simplicity. Now, I know I have read all the replies on this thread, and how everyone's interpretation of simplicity varies, so let me go a little deeper.

 

Intuitiveness.

 

Simply put, modern DSLRs are not intuitive.

 

Looking at the top of my Leica, I see the knob for Shutter speed. The lens as Aperture. My only wish is that they included an ISO dial on top as well, but even this flub is intuitive and easy to figure out.

 

Right next to the screen is the ISO button. The first time I saw this, I pressed it, then spun the dial. Nothing happened. Then I decided to try holding down the ISO button, while spinning the dial. Boom. ISO can be changed. Not as intuitive as I would like, but it is enough. I hardly make ISO changes anyway, it's simply set and forget for me depending on the lighting. I just change aperture and shutter speed at that point.

 

And I did this without having to break open the manual. I had quite literally opened the box, charged the battery, put it in, and went out and took photos. Only after I returned home did I delve into the manual to figure out certain things, like how to delete photos in-camera, format the SD card, and such.

 

And, in my opinion, that is how a modern DSLR should be like.

 

Every time I go and check out a DSLR, I fling around dials, and press buttons. With the D750, I was able to figure out how to change shutter and aperture, after a few minutes working with the physical dials, but I had a very hard time just trying to figure out how to take it out of auto-iso even in manual mode.

 

And to me, this means the camera failed the intuitive department. Oh, I have no doubt that I can make a DSLR be as simple as possible to work with, setting custom settings and reading the manual to know how everything works, but it shouldn't be like that. It should be the opposite. I should be able to look at a camera, and say, "There's ISO, there's shutter, there's aperture. Oh, and there's the dial that has Auto mode, and Manual mode." Boom. Done. That's all I need to know to go out and take photos right now.

 

After that, then I should still be able to go into the manual to figure out how to properly make custom programmable settings, and to see how every single feature works.

 

And that's part of the reason why I bought the Leica as my first serious camera. Intuitive. Easy to grasp. Simple. That's one of there reasons why I think those new-fangled Fujifilm mirrorless cameras are doing well. I saw a new one here in Japan that had all those dials I just mentioned, and it was so easy to just pick up and shoot.

 

Granted, however, I know that none of the big name manufacturers are going to make something intuitive, cheaper, and simple. There's not enough "hard data". But there never will be unless somebody comes out and actually puts out a camera like that.

 

Build a DSLR that has an optical viewfinder, all the needed controls (ISO, Aperture, Shutter) physically on the body (without a distracting LCD on top, I can get into that more another time) make it full frame, and in a weather-sealed body that is the size of a Nikon F3 or smaller, with WIFI (because instant JPEG transfer to a phone for social media is important, especially wedding photographers), an articulating rear screen, 1/8000 shutter speed, and around 5-6 fps, and I guarantee you that every pro and semi-pro-photographer is going to take a very hard look at that camera and buy it.

 

And if you keep all the bloat out of it, I bet you that the cost can be kept under 1500 dollars. The smart company would add the capability of purchasing "apps" or simply upgrading the firmware. Maybe make a higher version with better movie or sport photo capabilities.

 

**throws hands in air**

 

Shit, someone just give me 10 million dollars and I'll design the damn thing myself and market it. I think I feel like Steve Jobs might have felt like when looking at computers and software and saying "You can do better".

 

You hear that Canon? Nikon? Leica?

 

You can do better.

 

 

**Edit**

 

And to add more fuel to the fire, I'll even buy an aquarium and drop the new camera in it to see it still works afterwards. XD

 

Sorry, I kind of got a little fired up, but I just feel like the manufacturers can do better for the photographer and the consumer in mind. But, the market is ruled by money and graphs.

[bocaburger]

 

Sorry, I kind of got a little fired up, but I just feel like the manufacturers can do better for the photographer

 

The manufacturers do ok for photographers. It's gear fanatics they can't ever satisfy all of with any mass-produced model. Witness the serious "discussions" on this forum about the size of the screw in the front of the M240-P.

[jdlaing]

The manufacturers do ok for photographers. It's gear fanatics they can't ever satisfy all of with any mass-produced model. Witness the serious "discussions" on this forum about the size of the screw in the front of the M240-P.

 

But the size of that screw is paramount in the ability to capture an image.

[MarkP]

Yes, it's all about the screw and the color of the dot!

[pgk]

Simply put, modern DSLRs are not intuitive.

I recently needed to get a Canon 1DS3 (long story - but its to go into an underwater housing which is model specific). It took me the best part of 1.5 hours to wade through all the menus and settings to set the camera up as I wanted rather than the manufacturer's default. And I've used and still use 1D series and 5D series cameras for years! Once set up its not bad but intuitive these cameras are not. And the point about a digital M Leica is that they are quicker to set up (selecting RAW deals with a lot of settings;)) and once set can be used by anyone familiar with a film M. Simplicity is often the most elegant solution and whilst I understand the belief that options create versatility, all too often they do not. Try using the mirror up function on a Canon to appreciate how its possible to complicate a simple function.

[flyalf]

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?

...

 

I have actually read through all pages in this thread, and found (allmost none) trying to answer question.

 

Here is my answers;

 

- Because the majority of consumers finds it easier to program a camera to take a photo instead of creating a photo by simple controls.

 

- Because the majority prefer to fidle around with menues, GUIs and functions that are not needed instead of creating a photo by composition and controlling the basic photographic parameters.

 

- Because the "progress" in camera design and so-called usability are now driven by software development instead of HW design. The idea being that its better to to make some lines of codes forcing the user to manipulate some arbitrary numbers of cheap buttons rather than to use well proven dedicated expensive mechanical tactile controls. Well, its certanly cheaper for manufactuerer.

 

- Because the film cameraes design (Nikkormat FTL, Nikon FM & FA, OL-1 & 2) were so good that there was little to improve, so instead of building upon proven design the vendors decided to build new product lines with poorer design folloving the likes of Apple (millions of flies cannot be wrong; dung is good).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tobey bilek]

No dslr is a backup camera unless it uses the same lenses as the M. Some Sony A models qualify.

 

The Nikon ones can easily use AI and newer lenses , manual focus, manual exposure, just like the the Canon suggestion on Page 1 . The expensive Zeiss can be fitted also. D3200 and D3300 are small light cameras that offer excellent imagery.

 

The Nikon D750 is the low light king.

 

But to me the only real back up is another M camera.

[leicaphilia]

Ricoh GXR with A12 Leica Mount.

 

Beautiful, simple, built for serious photographers who want a minimum of fuss.