Jump to content

What's wrong with a good old shutter speed dial?


NZDavid

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree, though presumably it would be simple on the outside but quite complex on the inside to accomplish everything we want from it. In other words, an EVF (if that is what you have in mind) that shows a viewable image even if the camera always operates at base iso/RAW.

 

But yes, I think a lot of people are hoping for some truly innovative thinking along these lines, rather than the technological two-step that passes for innovation.

 Ditto ....... I have 4 presets on my M and apart from choosing one of them I hardly ever venture into the menus.... it's all manual fiddling  

 

Would be nice to have an ISO dial rather than set via a menu though .... which makes 2 dials on the camera, and two things on the lens (I'd prefer 'manual' aperture setting on the lens like the Q).

 

You don't have to be an old-timer to appreciate elegance and simplicity ....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ditto ....... I have 4 presets on my M and apart from choosing one of them I hardly ever venture into the menus.... it's all manual fiddling  

 

Would be nice to have an ISO dial rather than set via a menu though .... which makes 2 dials on the camera, and two things on the lens (I'd prefer 'manual' aperture setting on the lens like the Q).

 

You don't have to be an old-timer to appreciate elegance and simplicity ....

 

Oh, I don't know. I'm feeling old. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be a little backwards.

I like the wheel rather than a marked dial (although i get along with both equally well)

I started my photographic career with a Canon EOS

It is designed to be used with the camera up to your eye

Dial at the front controls shutter speed, dial at the back controls aperture, both numbers are displayed while looking through the VF, along with the meter and knowing exactly what you are selecting is easy.

 

The numbered dial has its advantages too a you can preset everything before turning the camera on, but changing settings requires looking at the dials, back to the meter in the VF (or handheld meter in the case of the old meterless film M bodies)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is designed to be used with the camera up to your eye.

I suppose that's the point. I started with a Zenith B (3.5 industar lens), then an OM1, then a Nikon FM. I graduated to an Leica M4 whilst studying and my preference is to have my cameras 'pre-set' in manual ever since. It is probably mostly about what system suits you best and how you operate. I use EOS cameras and considerably underuse the multitude of data arrays (viewfinder, top and rear displays) which is probably to my detriment although as I'm in manual the vast majority of the time, the data's a lot less relevant to me than it might otherwise be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had many cameras with and many cameras without shutter speed dials. Which is best? 

None. It depends on the specific camera and how its control settings and read outs are implemented. 

 

The Olympus E-1, E-M1, Leica M-P, X, Nikon F, F6, and Panasonic L1 are all wonderful, and all different in how they manage the control design.

 

Many many others are a complete PITA, including some currently very popular cameras. 

 

Pick your poison and enjoy it. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

An advantage of an analog-style control is that it gives a frame of reference. A digital display just shows a certain value and you have to remember how it relates to the other values. You just see the number in isolation. A different mindset and a different approach to design.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some cars had a digital tachometer and rev counter but not long. For most driver it was easier to look and read analog instruments. For me too - I like my M's with their analog style shutter speed dial. (And I hope nobody has the idea to implement a round anlog display on the electronic display in cameras while some had this).

Link to post
Share on other sites

An advantage of an analog-style control is that it gives a frame of reference. A digital display just shows a certain value and you have to remember how it relates to the other values. You just see the number in isolation. A different mindset and a different approach to design.

 

I'm sorry, David - I must be more stupid than usual this morning.  I don't understand that at all.

 

On "analogue-style" controls like on the M9 & M(240) (?), you either have the shutter dial set on A, or you set the speed yourself for a given aperture (or vice versa).  With these cameras, there is no information in the viewfinder about either aperture or shutter speed (unless you're in A mode, in which case the camera will tell you which shutter speed it has selected for you), and the shutter dial just goes round and round - there is no stop at the A mark, so if you go past A you will end up with an 8 second exposure.

 

How does that give you a frame of reference?  Are you saying that you look at the dial and know what shutter speed you've selected?  You will presumably then have the camera to your eye and you'll be adjusting the aperture blind.  That means you either set the shutter speed and adjust the aperture (by counting stops?) or set the aperture, and adjust the shutter speed (also by counting stops).  I'm afraid, I almost always check if I do that, unless it's just one click or two - I suppose you're saying you know where you start?

 

With the SL, you set the mode using the rear dial, so it really doesn't matter where the shutter dial is - if you select M, I don't know where the shutter defaults to (which may be your point).  However, the shutter speed information is given to you both in the viewfinder and on the LCD on the top deck.  So, if you're counting clicks on the shutter dial, don't you just continue to do the same (while being given the information through the view finder)?  Whereas if you like to look by habit, rather than looking at the dial, you look at the LCD right next to it.

 

I set the aperture at the fastest setting, shutter dial on A (or 1/1,000 with the M3 and M-A) and infinity by habit - that way, I know where I start.  With the SL, I have no idea where aperture, focus or shutter speed will start, but I assume (hope) it won't be where you left it last.  I imagine I will need to get into the habit of checking on the LCD when I turn the camera on, but the information will be in the viewfinder anyway ...

Edited by IkarusJohn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot of this "analog frame of reference" in display design and agree that it's an issue in a racing car or bike because there I just need to see a position to quickly assess, "Am I in the power band? And how fast am I climbing before I either shift or blow the motor?"

 

Using a camera is not like racing a car. I just need to know the number .. My mind is very good at remembering the numbers and what they mean, thank you. I want f5.6; I don't need to be shown that it's between f/4 and f/8 because I already know that. Same for 1/250 second and 1/125, 1/500. A numeric readout gives me exactly the information I'm after with no fuss. 

 

How a a camera lets me make the selection and presents the settings are what matter, not whether it's analog or digital implementation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I usually adjust the controls before I put the camera to my eye. It's much faster than turning it on, looking at the display, pressing a button and turning a dial. I have never particularly cared for PASM and "mode" icons very much either.

 

As I use manual exposure most of the time, I might adjust the aperture slightly so the red diode lights up in the finder. But I don't rely on finder or LCD displays. I like to concentrate on the subject. Sometimes I use a handheld meter.

 

Yes, an LCD display is easy once you know what the numbers mean and how they relate. It's still a two or three step process as opposed to a one-step process. 

 

If you are learning photography, an analog display makes it all so much easier. Those numbers suddenly make sense because they have some meaning. (Yeah, I know, Leica photographers know it all already, but I still prefer simplicity. Hand an M or X or R or original Barnack Leica  to anyone who knows a bit about photography and they will be able to use it without looking at the manual. )

 

Having controls with no markings makes a product look cleaner and less cluttered -- but in practice, it's not necessarily any easier to use than a product where all settings are clearly marked on the controls. You have to navigate through a system of menus instead.

 

The only answer to what is actually wrong with a good old shutter speed dial so far appears to be that a single control dial can be multi-fuctional while the analog dial is mono-functional. Whether that is better or not is debatable. Another possible advantage that has been raised is that a big clear number on an LCD may be easier to read if you have eyesight problems and find the numbers on an aperture ring or shutter speed dial too small. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there was anything wrong with the "good old shutter dial" per se, but if the mode (P A S M) is set pressing the rear dial, what purpose markings on the shutter dial?

 

I agree, there are many good reasons for not liking Program, Aperture or Shutter priority in preference for straight manual (I do have M3, M-A, Monochrom and M60 cameras, so I do understand how manual works), but then the case for an SL is very poor.  The fact is this camera is intended to optimise, by Leica thinking, what the electronics have to offer.  If the options are the full monty, they the logic of fixing markings on the shutter dial, as opposed to using it for other purposes, seems weak.

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion

Clearly the reason for leaving out the shutter speeds is so that the dial can be used for something different (for instance in shutter priority mode). I think there are advantages in both methods, but at least the SL makes it pretty clear what's selected (both on the LCD at the top and on the EVF).

 

To be honest the thing that exercises my brain most is that . . . having decided not to put any clues on the buttons and dials (fair enough) they've bothered to put On/Off on the on/off switch . . I mean, it seems to me that if you can manage to use a camera without markings on buttons and dials . . you can probably manage the on/off switch too :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We want innovation ...

 

We want customisable and programmable features ...

 

We want more electronics ...

 

I did not want a computer. Where are the labels?

 

Can we have some more innovation, please ...

Sympathy

But I found that when I'd programmed the buttons to do what I personally wanted with them . . . then using them quickly became second nature - Labels would have meant that I was stuck with what Leica thought was a good ides .. .. . . . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you look at  the SL body + SL 24-90 from the top, you can see that there is no aperture ring, no distance or depth of field indicator, no speed dial.

 

All those information are only to be find (very clearly) on the top screen. Even the hyperfocal is easier to find than on any other system.

 

This is a very clever and consistant design in my opinion.

 

It you use a R or L lens with adapter(s), obviously the distance, depth of field and aperture information will be missing on the top screen.

 

No problem, they are on the lenses themselves.

 

(The depth of field scale is missing on the R Vario's and the very first Tri-Elmar)

 

And again the speed in use will be clearly visible on the top screen.

 

Which is great because with R and L lenses, you can only work in Aperture or Manual mode.

 

And an analogue speed dial cannot help you to see the speed in use in A mode looking from the top.

 

Only a top screen can do that.

 

Again a very smart design of the SL.

 

The best of many world.

 

;-)

 

Lucien

Edited by imported_leicaiste
Link to post
Share on other sites

The best of many world.

I'm not so sure about this. Its simply a different interface which suits a different user philosophy. When I pick up one of my Canons I have to switch it on and check all settings, on an M they are immediately obvious. I prefer the M interface and although I'm happy to use the computer driven type it does not work as easily for me. For others I'm sure the opposite is the case. The best of many worlds would somehow have both.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

In P mode on a R8/R9, looking at it from the top, you couldn't know which aperture or speed was in use. Same for the speed on A mode, or the aperture in T mode. On an SL with native lenses you can always see those information.

 

On A mode on an M from the top you have to guess the speed, again on an SL you can see it.

 

I see this as a progress and more so on a tripod.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A new design direction for Leica. I know some like to have a choice but I still hope other models – especially the M – keep with the original. I'd also be keen on a compact X-style body with traditional controls that accepted T lenses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...