Base Plate: Opportunity Missed?

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For fast-paced photojournalism, the baseplate is a hindrance. There is no way to open and close it as quickly as the door on an SLR. The removable baseplate had a functional justification in the film era when a rigid film plane was thought essential to high image quality. But in the digital era, the removable baseplate is a "nod to the past" -- it is there simply for nostalgic appeal.

 

Nostalgia can be a valid design goal, but in this case it hinders function: first, by slowing access to the memory card and battery, second, by giving you an extra thing to hold while changing a card or battery, and third, by placing the tripod mount on a removable part rather than on a rigid part of the camera. This is hardly an attractive feature on a camera that will require relatively frequent battery changes.

 

The removable baseplate does make the camera body superficially more attractive, but I don't believe that people like Cartier-Bresson said, I want that camera because it has a removable baseplate so it will take me longer to load film. Rather, it was something you put up with in order to have the benefits of Leica M photography. Scratches and dust on negatives make me nostalgic too, but it's not something I would ask for from a modern camera.

 

I think that a good designer can make new tools look attractive and traditional without introducing design features that have lost their purpose. If someone is soooo traditional that they will only buy a digital M if it has a removable baseplate, then they are putting appearances above function, IMO. And if they are THAT tradition-oriented, why aren't they using film anyway?

 

Classic cars had hand cranks to start the motor. But with the advent of the electric starter, the inconvenient hand crank was dropped. Does anyone insist that Mercedes still include a hand-crank as a nod to the past?

[Advertisement]

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

[rob_x2004]

For fast-paced photojournalism, the baseplate is a hindrance. There is no way to open and close it as quickly as the door on an SLR. The removable baseplate had a functional justification in the film era when a rigid film plane was thought essential to high image quality. But in the digital era, the removable baseplate is a "nod to the past" -- it is there simply for nostalgic appeal.

 

Nostalgia can be a valid design goal, but in this case it hinders function: first, by slowing access to the memory card and battery, second, by giving you an extra thing to hold while changing a card or battery, and third, by placing the tripod mount on a removable part rather than on a rigid part of the camera. This is hardly an attractive feature on a camera that will require relatively frequent battery changes.

 

The removable baseplate does make the camera body superficially more attractive, but I don't believe that people like Cartier-Bresson said, I want that camera because it has a removable baseplate so it will take me longer to load film. Rather, it was something you put up with in order to have the benefits of Leica M photography. Scratches and dust on negatives make me nostalgic too, but it's not something I would ask for from a modern camera.

 

I think that a good designer can make new tools look attractive and traditional without introducing design features that have lost their purpose. If someone is soooo traditional that they will only buy a digital M if it has a removable baseplate, then they are putting appearances above function, IMO. And if they are THAT tradition-oriented, why aren't they using film anyway?

 

Classic cars had hand cranks to start the motor. But with the advent of the electric starter, the inconvenient hand crank was dropped. Does anyone insist that Mercedes still include a hand-crank as a nod to the past?

 

I can load film faster into an MP than you can an R9, specially if the film is cranky.

And the M isnt exposed to the elements during film changes like a flappy back.

The opportunity missed with the base plate is that it isnt o ring sealed. An M should be able to swim up to the lens.

What on earth has a car got to do with a camera?

[Michael-IIIf]

...... where the police often ask to see your memory card, being able to change it fast is a premium feature.P

 

Pandering to our over-zealous, human rights infringing, police forces must be the daftest argument I've heard advanced on this topic.

[rob_x2004]

Dont worry. Rolex will get a run next.

[zlatkob]

I can load film faster into an MP than you can an R9, specially if the film is cranky.

And the M isnt exposed to the elements during film changes like a flappy back.

The opportunity missed with the base plate is that it isnt o ring sealed. An M should be able to swim up to the lens.

What on earth has a car got to do with a camera?

 

You're talking about film cameras. My point is that this is not a film camera, so it's not bound by the same design constraints. How fast you can load film in one camera or another has no bearing on how to design a digital camera.

 

Digital cameras don't have flappy backs. So that's another justification from the film era, no longer applicable. If you're point is that the bottom of the camera is the most protected from rain, well any access door can be pointed downwards. Moreover, the baseplate that you remove still has to be protected from the rain, so there is no getting around the need to avoid moisture.

 

Would an O ring on the baseplate accomplish very much when you have to open it for every card or battery change, and when the lens and other parts are not weather-sealed? I'm not sure.

 

Finally, the point about classic cars is an analogy. While they are different, many products of industrial design have analogous aspects that can be compared, so that lessons from one may be instructive for another. A technological change that makes a design feature obsolete may occur in any number of products. For example, your computer keyboard has a superficial resemblance to a typewriter (both have keys), but it's not made to actually work like a typewriter (with carriage, platen, ribbon, etc.) just for the sake of nostalgia; doing so would hinder its function as a keyboard.

 

So, likewise, even if a removable baseplate was a great idea for a film camera (to keep the film flat against the back and at a fixed distance from the lens), it has lost its purpose and is a hindrance for a digital camera.

[giordano]

Pandering to our over-zealous, human rights infringing, police forces must be the daftest argument I've heard advanced on this topic.

 

Far from it. Specialised, but not daft. The idea is to get one card out of the camera and another one into it without the nasties noticing. That way the card that gets deleted or destroyed is the one without the important images.

 

I guess in such circumstances it's an advantage to use a camera with dual card slots.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Far from it. Specialised, but not daft. The idea is to get one card out of the camera and another one into it without the nasties noticing. That way the card that gets deleted or destroyed is the one without the important images.

 

I guess in such circumstances it's an advantage to use a camera with dual card slots.

 

By law they can't delete or destroy anything. You need to know your rights.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

So, likewise, even if a removable baseplate was a great idea for a film camera (to keep the film flat against the back and at a fixed distance from the lens), it has lost its purpose and is a hindrance for a digital camera.

 

Hey Zlatko--

 

Normally I'd agree with you. In theory you're correct. And when I first got my M8 I thought it was dumb. Now it doesn't bother me in the slightest--except when I go to work my film M's, because the baseplate is "backwards" from the film orientation

 

The other thing about the M9 is internal space. They would have had to keep the card going into the bottom of the camera, I think: there's no room in the body for the typical slr bulge in slots.

 

So given it's at the bottom, it could easily get bashed around a lot and a "door" seems likely to get broken.

 

From there it's only a logical step to use the traditional plate (which will, btw, make the body microscopically more rigid, which is also a good thing probably ).

 

I mean, the base plate actually is more protective than a little door and if your card has to be inserted there I like the idea of some armour I've bashed enough cameras to know that

[ulrikft]

By law they can't delete or destroy anything. You need to know your rights.

 

I'll make a note of that next time I'm in Egypt photographing violent police officers... or in Palestine photographing demonstrations against something and Fatah or Israeli military asks me to delete stuff... As a soon-to-be-finished law-student, I'm quite aware of the rights I have home and safe, but the world is no playground, and if you are pretending to be a PJ far from home, as I try to do from time to time, it would be ok to have the ability to change SD cards fast.. if you find me ignorant or stupid beacause of this, so be it.