Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: paulbk on October 21, 2013, 06:49:18 pm

Title: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: paulbk on October 21, 2013, 06:49:18 pm
fwiw.. I agree with Mark 100%. I shoot stills. Only. I'm a competent 'still' photographer. I shoot sports car racing and landscape. Probably never win a gallery prize. But I have a lot of fun roaming New England looking for my next shot. Video is a whole different game. And a huge time sponge. I enjoy great video as much as the next guy. But it's not for me. No need to clutter my camera with video anything.

gear: Canon 1D M4, and great series of "L" lenses, works for me
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on October 21, 2013, 11:47:35 pm
fwiw.. I agree with Mark 100%. I shoot stills. Only. I'm a competent 'still' photographer. I shoot sports car racing and landscape. Probably never win a gallery prize. But I have a lot of fun roaming New England looking for my next shot. Video is a whole different game. And a huge time sponge. I enjoy great video as much as the next guy. But it's not for me. No need to clutter my camera with video anything.

gear: Canon 1D M4, and great series of "L" lenses, works for me
My sentiments exactly.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2013, 01:23:18 am
Great article, and I agree 100%.
I would much rather have a camera with a dedicated ISO button than a Video button.
At least the manufacturers could implement a lock-up feature for the video function so it wouldn't engage accidentally or provide a reprogramming option of that button for another use.
 
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: SunnyUK on October 22, 2013, 01:47:48 am
I agree fully with the sentiment of the article, but it annoys me to no end when people start to re-define well understood words. Mark states that "Simplicity [......] the whole device must feel aesthetically pleasing while at the same time providing state of the art performance and a sense of purpose. It is only when all these things come together that one can claim that simplicity has been achieved.

No. Not correct. Wrong. Simplicity does not mean aesthetically pleasing. There is a separate word for that already which works very well. It's called "aesthetic". Or "beautiful".

Also, simplicity does not mean "state of the art performance". There are several good words which already conveys that requirement, but "simplicity" is not one of them.

Sorry for getting on the hobby horse, but I feel it devalues an otherwise excellent article when the author over-reaches like this.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: wolfnowl on October 22, 2013, 02:17:58 am
My son works in the movie industry - rigging, gaffing, lighting, camera work ... also some DOP stuff.  I'm a stills photographer.  Sometimes I don't understand everything he tells me about his work - different lexicon - but I think we'd both agree with Mark.  I certainly do!

Mike.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: dreed on October 22, 2013, 03:40:18 am
I wonder how much age has to do with the perspective a person has on this.

What do I mean by that?

Well all of the writers have grown up with film cameras, used them professionally and are accustomed to them. As to many of those that have thus far responded to this thread if the pictures are anything to go by :*)

But if you were to ask someone that is half of Mark's age (or less) what they thought on this topic, would you get the same answer?

And in 20 years time, will cameras that came before the age of convergence be "curios" that strange people collect in the same way that a Rollei might be today?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on October 22, 2013, 04:32:00 am
I am all in favour of "simplicity", but to be honest, all of the "extras" that get in the way can easily be turned off in menus. I have shot Canon EOS for more than 20 years, 99% of the time in aperture priority mode: set the ISO (auto or fixed), change the aperture, watch out for the speed, all set. Sure, it can take some time to set up the cameras initially, but once done, it is not that often that I had to revert to the menus.

I am currently shooting with Fuji X, and I like the simplicity of the system: set the aperture on the lens, change the ISO on the top button, that is it, really.

P.S - if Mark thinks that the iPhone is a good example, he should look into Windows phones, even simpler:)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: David Watson on October 22, 2013, 06:41:49 am
The new Nikon retro (FM2 digital?) soon to be announced might just be what we are all looking for.  Here is some content courtesy of Nikon rumours:

A quick update: the upcoming retro-designed full frame Nikon camera will not have any video recording capabilities. Here are the updated rumored specifications:
•Nikon FM2 like design
•16.2MP 36x23,9 full frame sensor (same as in the D4?)
•SD memory card
•2016-pixel RGB image sensor
•9-cell framing grid display
•3D color matrix metering II
•Native ISO range: 100-12,800 (incl. ISO 50 and ISO 108,200)
•5.5 fps for up to 100 shots
•3.2" LCD screen
•Battery:EN-EL14
•Dimensions: 143.5 x 110 x 66.5mm
•Weight: 765g
•It will come with a new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens (again, not clear what mount the new lens will have)
•Standard F-mount
•No video recording capabilities
•Pentaprism viewfinder (meaning the camera will not be mirrorless)
•The camera will meter even with non-AI lenses down to full aperture
•The camera will ship with a new special edition Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens to match the look/design of the body
•The camera will have physical controls and excellent build quality (which explains the 765g weight)
•Expeed 3 processor
•Same sensor as in the Nikon D4
•Nikon calls it a "hybrid" camera - not sure what exactly they mean with that
•The announcement will be in the next few months, maybe even in the next 1-3 weeks:
Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com#ixzz2iRlDStDw
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: mcbroomf on October 22, 2013, 06:44:23 am
I'm thinking that the new Sony A7/r is going to resolve a lot of these issues for me.  4 dials, including 1 that is ISO and another exposure comp.  Several buttons that can be customized and the video button can be disabled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfSrsqn3ESc&feature=share
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on October 22, 2013, 07:03:10 am
A simple and dedicated camera is something to fall in love with easily. For me after splitting up with my Mamiya Press the Mamiya 7 II has become a great romance. Changing lenses requires closing the auxiliary shutter and taking a picture requires releasing it again. The camera feels great to hold and is simply a natural  beauty like certain rural women. What I don't understand is why with women we tend to love complication and complexity ...
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: E.J. Peiker on October 22, 2013, 08:07:58 am
I don't think I have ever agreed more with an article by Mark, or for that matter, LL than this article!
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on October 22, 2013, 09:48:09 am
I don't think I have ever agreed more with an article by Mark, or for that matter, LL than this article!
+1.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2013, 11:25:44 am
I have an Olympus E-PL1 M43 with both still and video modes.  The damn video button is in the wrong place. You can't imagine how many short clips of my feet I've taken.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Jim Metzger on October 22, 2013, 11:26:25 am
Love the article, agree completely. I don't need the "unnecessary" functions of my D700 (until I do, of course).

I would like to point out that Porsche (Porsche Automobil Holding) and Porsche Design Studio (a subsidiary) are different companies. I bought my father a pipe from Porsche Design many years ago. The bowl is in the shape of a car engine cylinder and is formed from aluminum. Looked great, smoked horribly, it cooled off too quickly. Simple, but it didn't work.

"Form follows Function" is the common recitation of the phrase "form ever follows function" coined by Architect Louis Sullivan. This was drummed into my head during Architecture School in the 1970's. It no longer necessarily holds true (hard for me to comprehend) in the current state of urban planning, see "Form Based Planning". Create the "container" and then figure out what it can be filled with.

Jim
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Vladimirovich on October 22, 2013, 12:04:35 pm
I have an Olympus E-PL1 M43 with both still and video modes.  The damn video button is in the wrong place. You can't imagine how many short clips of my feet I've taken.
recent/current models like E-M1 allow that button to be reprogrammed for still functions, so it is a non issue anymore (w/ Olympus).
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Jonathan Cross on October 22, 2013, 01:17:19 pm
Re the comments on stills and video.  I like video, but have yet to get enthused about creating it myself. 

Why?

For me to get the full benefit from a video it is obvious that I have to watch it all.  I was amazed by Vincent LaForet's Reverie when the Canon 5D MkII first came out.  I like the activity, however, of producing a still to the best of my ability (still not good enough), and of looking at a really good still.  The main difference for me is that looking at a still is parallel input, whereas looking at a video is serial input and I prefer the former.  Kevin Raber's image (on the LULA homepage on 22 Oct) of the Glenfinnan viaduct, over which I have been several times, immediately spoke to me, and I prefer that to watching a video before being able to appreciate it.  I really like the activity of producing a good still from start to view, and do not feel that I can become skilled at both stills and video. 

I hope that others do take up the video batten and make the most of it.  For me, shooting a video will remain just a tool for an event record. I would hate the still capabilities of a camera to be compromised by video needs, but that's just me!

Jonathan
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: peterpix on October 22, 2013, 01:24:06 pm
"To make matters worse, often times the video functions spell disaster in terms of accidental activation and battery consumption, as well as  compromises that result in bad ergonomics for still photography. It also can make the cameras and lenses more expensive because of additional design work, additional buttons dials and electronics, additional software, more expensive focusing or zoom motors for video, etc."

NOt sure I get this as Mark seems to use the most expensive cameras available. A couple of extra batteries should not be too much of a problem. Not all of us can afford top of the line Leicas and five digit expense medium format backs for expensive mf bodies. If not for the video capability of my Canon 5D MKII, I would not have my first film and now I'm making another with my GH3. It allows me to  shoot stills and video with a minimum of extra stuff. My lenses are no more expensive for video than they are for stills. I've been getting paid for photography since 1963 and video has opened a new door  for me  and many others. These so-called hybrid cameras allow us to have options without having to have multiple systems.  From what I've read Canon added video to the 5D because it was not an expensive thing to do. Seems to me the expense for these cameras is in the sensor, not in some additional software or firmware, motors in zoom lenses, or a few buttons and dials. Simplicity was in those first Nikons and Leicas, shooting film with no metering, autofocus, or film advance. Not many of us want to go back there. Simplicity today is a Cambo, Phase One or an Alpa with a back that costs more than some luxury autos. Some people on this site have those cameras,  and monochrome Leicas but most of us don't. These  wonderful tools today give us image quality that  could not have been imagined in film days. And if I had a Nex that turned itself on in my bag, I'd get rid of it!  Rant over!
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: telyt on October 22, 2013, 01:32:10 pm
Divergence?  Yes please!  I want my camera to be a master of one trade not a jack of all.

The flexibility of convergent tools cannot be denied but as with any mechanical, electronic or biological system the cost of flexibility is additional energy and attention to the functions I want to keep out of the way.  I'd rather focus on what I want to do not on what I don't want to.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 22, 2013, 01:52:58 pm
Hi,

My take is that convergence is a good thing. I often use stills and motion in combination, like this one (not very good, just an example): http://vimeo.com/50739392

Adding video capability does in no way reduce camera capability/usability.

Regarding user interface, I feel there is much to do. That said, I am very happy with my Sony's and I can figure out how to use them without resorting to the manual, especially as the manual being pretty useless. I can configure the Sonys much to my liking, but I would much prefer to do it on a computer than on a tiny display.

Personally, I find live view most important and if you have live view you essentially also have video.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 22, 2013, 03:08:14 pm
Quote
I am afraid that much of what I say in this short essay (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml) may fall on deaf ears because of commercial considerations (based on superficial and often flawed analysis) but...

Saying that the commercial considerations are "based on superficial and often flawed analysis" is a long way from showing that is the case.

What if "people are not willing to pay for a system that looks simpler because it looks less capable"? Simplicity Is Highly Overrated (http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_highly.html), 2007.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rand47 on October 22, 2013, 04:06:41 pm
Not only do I agree, I resent whatever money went into R&D and manufacturing costs for a feature on a camera that I don't want, won't use, and is too often in the way.

How about spend that same money giving me better image quality in one form or another, or a more robust camera design?

Adding video to a fine stills camera is like strapping some banjo strings on a Stradivarius because "someone" might like both violin and banjo music.  Hell, while we're at it, we might as well put a can opener on the thing too.  One might get thirsty during a concert.

Rand
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 22, 2013, 04:11:43 pm
How much are we willing to pay for a bespoke camera?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Telecaster on October 22, 2013, 04:37:33 pm
I have to say I just can't get exercised about this stuff. Too much fun to be had with cameras & ancillary products. I do prefer a more modular approach to things in many areas, which is why I chose the Blackmagic Pocket Cinecam as my main tool for exploring video. But video capability in still cameras...doesn't bother me a bit.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: RobbieV on October 22, 2013, 05:33:19 pm
I'm 28 and I agree wholeheartedly with the article. I don't care how many FPS my camera can record in, or how much "value" I'm getting by purchasing a camera that can do 10 things very good. I just want a camera that does one thing and is excellent at it in all aspects.



I wonder how much age has to do with the perspective a person has on this.

What do I mean by that?

Well all of the writers have grown up with film cameras, used them professionally and are accustomed to them. As to many of those that have thus far responded to this thread if the pictures are anything to go by :*)

But if you were to ask someone that is half of Mark's age (or less) what they thought on this topic, would you get the same answer?

And in 20 years time, will cameras that came before the age of convergence be "curios" that strange people collect in the same way that a Rollei might be today?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Vladimirovich on October 22, 2013, 05:45:45 pm
Not only do I agree, I resent whatever money went into R&D and manufacturing costs for a feature on a camera that I don't want, won't use, and is too often in the way.
I am not using in camera JPG, I resent whatever money went into it... oh wait, I need to see the image in EVF, that means I need a converter, damn... so do not be absurd, you really never know what use stills applications are getting from the money poured allegedly into video side of things.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: slackercruster on October 22, 2013, 05:59:37 pm
fwiw.. I agree with Mark 100%. I shoot stills. Only. I'm a competent 'still' photographer. I shoot sports car racing and landscape. Probably never win a gallery prize. But I have a lot of fun roaming New England looking for my next shot. Video is a whole different game. And a huge time sponge. I enjoy great video as much as the next guy. But it's not for me. No need to clutter my camera with video anything.

gear: Canon 1D M4, and great series of "L" lenses, works for me


YES++
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rand47 on October 22, 2013, 06:02:55 pm
I am not using in camera JPG, I resent whatever money went into it... oh wait, I need to see the image in EVF, that means I need a converter, damn... so do not be absurd, you really never know what use stills applications are getting from the money poured allegedly into video side of things.

No absurd at all, IMO.  Even the cost of design, circuitry, etc. for the stupid physical "movie button" is wasted as far as I'm concerned.  And technology spin off is hardly anything new and has little to do with convergence.  

Rand
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rand47 on October 22, 2013, 06:08:44 pm
How much are we willing to pay for a bespoke camera?

You jump from single purpose to bespoke?  Even Carl Lewis couldn't get that far in one jump.   ;D

Rand
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 22, 2013, 06:12:58 pm
What you don't realise is that the money is already spent.

There is zero development cost for video, although there may be some license fees involved. The ASIC definitively supports video and so does the sensor. Would you think that anyone would develop an ASIC and a sensor without video support and sell at a lower price? Develop two sets of electronic components instead one? Not for commercial reasons.

It would possible to not enable video and not add the video button. That would make the camera more expensive, because they needed two variants.

So video is essentially a zero cost option. Disabling video in camera menus should take care of all problems.

Best regards
Erik

No absurd at all.  Even the cost of design, circuitry, etc. for the stupid physical "movie button" is wasted as far as I'm concerned.  And technology spin off is hardly anything new and has little to do with convergence. 

Rand
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 22, 2013, 06:20:13 pm
You jump from single purpose to bespoke?

Which new cameras have zero support for video?

When you ask for a camera without video, you're asking for a bespoke camera.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Vladimirovich on October 22, 2013, 06:21:17 pm
No absurd at all, IMO.  Even the cost of design, circuitry, etc. for the stupid physical "movie button" is wasted as far as I'm concerned.

it is just a button, you can complain that you can't reassign it for any useful function (in some cameras like Panasonic GH3, albeit you can completely disable it there - but in many cameras that button can be used for still functions like in E-M1)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rand47 on October 22, 2013, 06:24:41 pm
What you don't realise is that the money is already spent.

There is zero development cost for video, although there may be some license fees involved. The ASIC definitively supports video and so does the sensor. Would you think that anyone would develop an ASIC and a sensor without video support and sell at a lower price? Develop two sets of electronic components instead one? Not for commercial reasons.

It would possible to not enable video and not add the video button. That would make the camera more expensive, because they needed two variants.

So video is essentially a zero cost option. Disabling video in camera menus should take care of all problems.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

In product manufacture, every 100th penny impacts product margin/cost. Just the physical parts are a waste of money as far as I'm concerned.  One button, the ribbon connector, the portions of the circuit board, etc. all drive up cost for something that is a negative in my view.  That's my point.  Nothing is free.

Best,
Rand
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 22, 2013, 07:28:32 pm
Just the physical parts are a waste of money as far as I'm concerned.  ...  Nothing is free.

True, variant designs are not free, physical parts for variants are not free, production setup and QA for variants is not free etc

As Erik noted --

It would possible to not enable video and not add the video button. That would make the camera more expensive, because they needed two variants.


Incidentally, I still haven't made use of my camera's video functionality and I have mistakenly hit the video button a couple of times -- but that doesn't blind me to the general expectation that digital cameras will provide video.

Addendum: Note, I still haven't tried to disable the video button on my camera :-)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: daws on October 22, 2013, 07:59:39 pm
I don't think I have ever agreed more with an article by Mark, or for that matter, LL than this article!
+1.


+2. Having come to digital still photography from 38 years in motion picture film and video, I couldn't agree more.


Not only do I agree, I resent whatever money went into R&D and manufacturing costs for a feature on a camera that I don't want, won't use, and is too often in the way.

How about spend that same money giving me better image quality in one form or another, or a more robust camera design?

Exactly.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rand47 on October 22, 2013, 08:58:00 pm
True, variant designs are not free, physical parts for variants are not free, production setup and QA for variants is not free etc

As Erik noted --


Incidentally, I still haven't made use of my camera's video functionality and I have mistakenly hit the video button a couple of times -- but that doesn't blind me to the general expectation that digital cameras will provide video.

Isaac,

You and 99% of us.  That's darn funny.  Thanks for the chuckle.  You've quite eloquently made Mark's point in his essay.  

Best,
Rand
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: dreed on October 23, 2013, 01:52:25 am
Having come to digital still photography from 38 years in motion picture film and video, I couldn't agree more.

This is the problem.

People are expecting 21st century cameras to work like 20th century cameras.

By way of comparison is your 21st centory phone anything like your 20th century phone?

No.

What do they say about "You can't teach an old dog new tricks"?

Maybe the problem is this: there are lots of people who have cameras and have grown up using cameras that have developed a mindset around how and when to use a camera to create still photographs. A large percentage of these people thus have very little grasp of when or how to use a video camera to capture a moment however there is now a growing customer base of people that are not only creating photographs with the digital camera in their phones but also videos. That growing, younger customer base effectively now expects video to be there and if the rumors of the new Nikon DSLR are true then who does and doesn't buy it may simply be a function of age more than anything else.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that the video feature in digital cameras is being undervalued because a large percentage of digital camera owners don't recognise when to use it, never mind not understanding how to use it but that in the future, this problem will be less prevalent.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: daws on October 23, 2013, 03:57:38 am
^ I wondered how long it would take before "The Problem is the Customer is Behind the Times Out of Touch with Today Stupid" was launched floated dropped in the bowl.  ;D



Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: dreed on October 23, 2013, 04:53:51 am
^ I wondered how long it would take before "The Problem is the Customer is Stupid" was dropped in the bowl.  ;D

No, you've got it wrong.

The people who don't care about video aren't seen to be important by manufacturers. Why? Because over time that number of people will diminish, if not in terms of percentage then in absolute numbers.

Why would you engineer and manufacture something for a shrinking market share?

It's not that the customer is stupid but that the customer of 30 years ago is different to the customer of today and the customer of tomorrow.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: daws on October 23, 2013, 06:49:52 am
No, you've got it wrong.

The people who don't care about video aren't seen to be important by manufacturers. Why? Because over time that number of people will diminish, if not in terms of percentage then in absolute numbers.

Why would you engineer and manufacture something for a shrinking market share?

It's not that the customer is stupid but that the customer of 30 years ago is different to the customer of today and the customer of tomorrow.

Understood. And thank you for proving the point of Mark's essay.  :)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rand47 on October 23, 2013, 07:52:15 am
Quote
By way of comparison is your 21st centory phone anything like your 20th century phone?

No, it isn't.  It does many more things I want it to do.  But if it had a cigarette lighter function, I'd resent paying for it.  It isn't' a matter of not knowing when to light-up (presumably because I'm too old), it is because I DON'T SMOKE.
What an insulting premise.

Best,
Rand
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: dreed on October 23, 2013, 09:02:38 am
Understood. And thank you for proving the point of Mark's essay.  :)

Eh? Mark's essay in parts makes him sound like a luddite (to me) and in others is contradictory. iPhones (and all smartphones) are a maze of menus under tiles that cover your screen yet he decries convoluted menu systems. When you've used an Android phone, some of the convenience menu options that are missing on iPhones are annoying but would they just be "clutter" to others. Personally, if a camera does what I want, menu navigation is always quicker than trying to guess what's under tiles. Consider that to get to any setting on my iPhone requires at least three touches (swipe to "settings screen", open "settings" then remember which thing inside there I need to touch to get to the real menu) whereas on my camera, I hit the menu button, appear where I was last and potentially just have to press one button if I'm changing the same thing as I did previously.

If you were to give a Rollei to a (say) 20-something that has only known digital photography, are they going to have the same reaction as Mark ("OMG, why are modern cameras so complex?!") or are they going to say "Ok, where's the button I push to make it happen?" (where "it" = autofocus and set the correct exposure and take the picture.)

The one part I do agree with is those that revolve around basic ergonomics (nose, eyes, fingers.) The rest of it which is rejecting convergence and technology might as well be someone writing in 1901 that there is no future for cars ... and that's energy wasted. Although I will add that Canon dispensed with dials for shutter speed and aperture back in the 1990s, if not before, with their SLRs (and Canon is the market leader so everyone is going to follow their designs), so complaining about the disappearance of direct access to them now is a bit late...

If Canon came out with two variants of the 5D4, one with video and all of the related "convergence" features and one without, which is going to sell better? The one with video and all of the related bits if only because many will look at video like the English do at convertible cars and want to have it there "so that if they want to, they can", not because they will every day.

But anyway, if Nikon do launch a DSLR without video next month, it will be interesting to see how well it sells vs existing cameras such as the D800[e] and D610. Undoubtedly there will be a number of people that will say "Yay! A camera that is how I remember they used to be!" but that's kind of like getting up to dance to music you know from your teenage years and thinking "Why isn't there more new music like this?". I'm quite intrigued by this rumor but then Nikon is trying to be aggressive and find ways in which to attract customers to their system and away from Canon, as is Sony ...
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 23, 2013, 12:04:22 pm
Hi,

Interesting to note that our friend BC (also known as James Russel) sees that video is now days a significant part of a professionals work. He praises the Panasonic GH3 and feels time to time that MFD makers should also move into video.

With 4K around the door we can soon present both stills and video on screens, that is a new media.

It is well possible that there is a market for cameras with reduced functionality, but I guess the majority of buyers appreciates flexibility. The need for simplified and functional user interfaces is another thing.

Best regards
Erik

Eh? Mark's essay in parts makes him sound like a luddite (to me) and in others is contradictory. iPhones (and all smartphones) are a maze of menus under tiles that cover your screen yet he decries convoluted menu systems. When you've used an Android phone, some of the convenience menu options that are missing on iPhones are annoying but would they just be "clutter" to others. Personally, if a camera does what I want, menu navigation is always quicker than trying to guess what's under tiles. Consider that to get to any setting on my iPhone requires at least three touches (swipe to "settings screen", open "settings" then remember which thing inside there I need to touch to get to the real menu) whereas on my camera, I hit the menu button, appear where I was last and potentially just have to press one button if I'm changing the same thing as I did previously.

If you were to give a Rollei to a (say) 20-something that has only known digital photography, are they going to have the same reaction as Mark ("OMG, why are modern cameras so complex?!") or are they going to say "Ok, where's the button I push to make it happen?" (where "it" = autofocus and set the correct exposure and take the picture.)

The one part I do agree with is those that revolve around basic ergonomics (nose, eyes, fingers.) The rest of it which is rejecting convergence and technology might as well be someone writing in 1901 that there is no future for cars ... and that's energy wasted. Although I will add that Canon dispensed with dials for shutter speed and aperture back in the 1990s, if not before, with their SLRs (and Canon is the market leader so everyone is going to follow their designs), so complaining about the disappearance of direct access to them now is a bit late...

If Canon came out with two variants of the 5D4, one with video and all of the related "convergence" features and one without, which is going to sell better? The one with video and all of the related bits if only because many will look at video like the English do at convertible cars and want to have it there "so that if they want to, they can", not because they will every day.

But anyway, if Nikon do launch a DSLR without video next month, it will be interesting to see how well it sells vs existing cameras such as the D800[e] and D610. Undoubtedly there will be a number of people that will say "Yay! A camera that is how I remember they used to be!" but that's kind of like getting up to dance to music you know from your teenage years and thinking "Why isn't there more new music like this?". I'm quite intrigued by this rumor but then Nikon is trying to be aggressive and find ways in which to attract customers to their system and away from Canon, as is Sony ...
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: DeanChriss on October 23, 2013, 01:01:19 pm
The only thing I've got to say about Mark's essay is "BRAVO!" I have zero interest in video and a lot of interest in a great camera with a simple and efficient design.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 23, 2013, 01:31:39 pm
Incidentally, I still haven't made use of my camera's video functionality and I have mistakenly hit the video button a couple of times -- but that doesn't blind me to the general expectation that digital cameras will provide video.

Isaac, You and 99% of us.  That's darn funny.  Thanks for the chuckle.

If by "You  and 99% of us" you mean golden-agers venting on LuLa then I dare say you're correct, but I see enough 20 somethings making video and sharing video to understand that expectations have changed ;-)

Note, I still haven't tried to disable the video button on my camera :-)


You've quite eloquently made Mark's point in his essay.

When Mark Dubovoy writes -- "While I welcome the possibility of shooting video and stills from a smart phone or other small devices ...  there are huge numbers of serious videographers and serious still photographers who would much prefer equipment designed to shoot either still or video, but not both." -- we should first ask How many? How do you know?

"The argument is not between adding features and simplicity (http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/simplicity_is_not_th.html), between adding capability and usability. The real issue is about design: designing things that have the power required for the job while maintaining understandability, the feeling of control, and the pleasure of accomplishment." Simplicity Is Not the Answer
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on October 23, 2013, 03:01:28 pm
There is a single button on my 5D3 for video. One. Oh and unless you switch it to video mode, the button is actually live view. The rest of the buttons are pretty much exactly the same as they've been on any Canon DSLR for a decade. Oh apart from a couple of programmable buttons which are extremely useful. I wouldn't even know how to activate video on the studio's D800e, don't think I've ever noticed.

My first camera was an AE-1 and I still remember my A1 very fondly, shot landscapes with a Mamiya 645 Super. However. Enough already. Complaining about having to press a button on a DSLR to access ISO but it's more than a single button press on the oh so perfect IQ backs or the S2 (which only has a single dial nevermind 3 which of course was not mentioned).

I wrote a blog post (http://thedustylenscap.com/2013/08/01/cut-the-bs-honestly/) about this trend of blaming modern cameras for being too complicated and just how tiring it is.

Sorry but, as always with this writer, I call BS. Long rants with very little basis in facts and as always, the most expensive is the best, even if they have less functionality than the cheaper cameras being complained about.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Colorado David on October 23, 2013, 05:28:26 pm
My business is about equally divided between video production and still photography.  I am happy to have the option to use the larger sensor of the still camera if I have the need for greater selective focus than can be reasonably achieved with the smaller sensors of a dedicated video camera.  Everything we work with is complicated compared to cameras of a few years ago.  It's part of the discipline of the career.

By the way, if you're a voting ASMP member, I would encourage you to vote in favor of the change to the membership categories.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: SangRaal on October 23, 2013, 05:41:14 pm
Simplicity was a Brownie Hawkeye camera with a simple go no go selenium cell exposure meter optical viewfinder and 127 TriX or panatomic X film! "Make" my 12 pictures, run down to the basement lock myself in the darkroom find my stainless steel 127 developing tank marked with a blue stripe, lights out red safelight on camera and tank into the changing bag and film out of the camera by feel onto the tank spool tank closed, out of the bag, lights on, find the bulk developer, set the gralab timer, add the developer, time set wash, hang the negative strip to dry and voila pictures appeared as if by MAGIC!!! Printing had to wait for my uncle's supervision. I can still smell that house in Brooklyn, but I can't go back to 1955 or my grandmother's heart burn cooking, or 1st grade in PS 199. It seemed simple and magical in retrospect however, now going out and filling 2 32 gig cards in a day and sliding them into a UDMA 7 reader and importing them into a great raw developing program is a lot simpler.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 23, 2013, 08:50:11 pm
I think the problem with this article is the same as when people complain about feature creep in software. The translation being the somewhat selfish 'I don't need that feature, so don't waste time developing it'.
As for the extra cost, well cutting a feature that many now expect as standard may mean less sales and higher prices. And if video was removed from my camera, there would actually be zero difference in number of buttons or design. And if a camera like a Leica has a badly positioned video button, then that is simply bad design and not the fault of video being a feature. Never understood the fuss over Leicas myself, ergonomics always seemed dreadful.


Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 23, 2013, 09:17:25 pm
This quote from Mark's article shows a complete lack of understanding of the author when talking about film making. It's a daft a comment as someone moaning about a photographer using studio flashes and a tripod rather than a pop-up flash on a pocket camera. And not something I expect to read on LuLa.
 
Quote
For instance, lots of people shoot videos with Canon or Nikon DSLR's, but have you seen the contraptions that they use in terms of brackets, gears for focusing, rear screen viewers, external microphone holders, external audio recorders (because the audio in DSLR's sucks big time) and all that? These things look worse than Rube Goldberg contraptions.
Those are normal/essential tools for filmmaking Mark, even with cameras that are designed specifically for the moving image.


Then Mark talks about simplicity in design.

Quote
Just look at the latest iPhone or iPad.  The construction quality is exquisite, the design is a work of art.  These are extremely complicated products, yet there is no clutter of buttons and dials or unnecessary functions.  There isn't even a users manual!  
Let's pause and think about that again: These products are massively more complicated than any camera (they include a still and video camera and even editing functions as part of the product), yet they are easy enough to use that the general public learns to use them without even needing a manual. I think this is a remarkable achievement.
Two big issues here. My iPad and iPhone are festooned with buttons/controls. They are in the software interface, not the hardware, but they are still there. Secondly there are loads of little hidden features and tricks that will probably only be found by accident or through reading an article or book and I've often shown long time users how to do quite basic things.
Also Apple's idea of simple is often simplistic instead. Removing functionality to make something 'easier to use' is the cheats way of simplifying something and all too often actually makes things harder to do. Take adding a song currently being played on iPhone/iPad to a playlist, the simple way of doing it would be to have a 'add to playlist' button. But instead we have to jump through painful and fiddly hoops to do what should be an incredibly simple task. Then there's the lack of arrow keys and the fiddlyness of placing the cursor in iOS which means it's often faster to delete sections and then retype to correct a typo further back. Not having a delete key on my MacBook Pro means two hands rather than one are needed for one of the most basic functions and I could go on at length listing places where Apple's making things 'simpler' is actually making things faffier.

Quote
Porsche Design is another name that comes to mind.  They are famous for the phrase "form follows function" and some of the products they have designed over the years, from automobiles (like the legendary 911) to inexpensive ballpoint pens seem to achieve the simplicity goal.
Hmm, the 911 is more like a a triumph of engineering over a very flawed design.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Bill Caulfeild-Browne on October 23, 2013, 10:16:35 pm
Well said, Mark!
In the interest of simplicity I will simply (!) repeat - well said!
Bill
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: kencameron on October 23, 2013, 10:54:19 pm
....golden-agers venting on LuLa....
+1. "I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there". Give me a break.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: tom b on October 24, 2013, 12:30:27 am
I did some casual work near the CBD and commuted by train to get there. I was surprised by how many people were using smart phones in my carriage. Then I thought about it…

In one pocket you can fit a phone, internet connection, still camera, video camera, books, music, movies, credit card, newspapers, games, a watch and all sorts of apps. Gen X and Gen Y are all about convergence.

Three hundred million (http://gigaom.com/2012/10/17/facebook-has-220-billion-of-your-photos-to-put-on-ice/) photographs are uploaded to Facebook every day, LuLa about ten.

I just bought a Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 as my walkabout camera. I'll learn all the features that I need to know that suit my photography and ignore the rest. I think that is pretty simple.

Cheers,
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: massimo.gori on October 24, 2013, 04:28:16 am
Mark likes Porsche Design, and for some products I can agree with him, however I think that he goes a bit too far with this sentence:

"Porsche Design is another name that comes to mind.  They are famous for the phrase "form follows function" and some of the products they have designed over the years, from automobiles (like the legendary 911) to inexpensive ballpoint pens seem to achieve the simplicity goal."

Form follows function is something that dates back to the mid 1800 and it has been the hallmark of many, if not most industrial designers and architects in the last century. Furthermore, when the late Ferdinand Alexander Porsche designed the 911 (with the Porsche Car Maker design team), the firm Porsche design did not exist.

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: J. Paul on October 24, 2013, 07:12:47 am
Bravo!!!! 
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 24, 2013, 11:02:12 am
Bravo! to massimo.gori or Bravo! to Mark Dubovoy?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 24, 2013, 11:49:38 am
+1. "I don't use it, therefore it shouldn't be there". Give me a break.
Well, I suppose it makes a change from hearing this tedious refrain when a piece of software is updated.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: OldRoy on October 24, 2013, 11:51:30 am
Still cameras incorporate video because the majority of buyers want the option to shoot video (not me; I'd opt for a video camera) and it doesn't cost too much to include the function. As for the ergonomics of using a still camera to shoot video, the form hugely impedes this particular function. I own an OMD E-M5 whose form gets in the way of most functions. Of necessity I've learned to live with this.

Dyson vacuum cleaners were mentioned in the piece as exemplifying wonderful industrial design: my guess is that the writer doesn't own one (I do). As an over-rated appliance, these are hard to beat. Except by Apple's products, of course, or Leica's.

Roy
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 24, 2013, 12:05:57 pm
Dyson vacuum cleaners were mentioned in the piece as exemplifying wonderful industrial design: my guess is that the writer doesn't own one (I do). As an over-rated appliance, these are hard to beat. Except by Apple's products, of course, or Leica's.
Maybe he does own one as he's smitten with Apple and Leica. Whether he actually uses it.....
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 24, 2013, 12:13:51 pm
I think the strangest thing about Mark Dubovoy's latest essay is the crying over spilt milk -- 5 years ago an Appeal for Divergence may have had a purpose, but now?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: gerald.d on October 24, 2013, 01:40:01 pm
What a strange article. There is massive divergence in the market. Always has been.

Plenty of options out there for those who want to exclusively shot either stills or video.

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 24, 2013, 02:05:51 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but which new cameras are you thinking of that don't provide any support for video?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Ian Anderson on October 24, 2013, 02:19:44 pm
I don't generally agree with Mark's columns, but I think this one is absolutely right.  I was hoping Panasonic's APS-C and Canon's Cxxx line would step up the divergence, and I think they have in many ways, but when I compare my 5D Mark II to my 5D Mark III, it's much more complex (the menus in particular) and a lot of that is due to the addition of more advanced video.  I also agree on the Rube Goldberg comment.  I'm sure it's great for Red Rock & co., but it's just silly to make a DSLR work when you could have a proper video camera from the outset.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: gerald.d on October 24, 2013, 03:02:48 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but which new cameras are you thinking of that don't provide any support for video?

Every single camera that takes a medium format digital back.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: John Camp on October 24, 2013, 03:14:29 pm
I think the problem with this article is the same as when people complain about feature creep in software. The translation being the somewhat selfish 'I don't need that feature, so don't waste time developing it'.
As for the extra cost, well cutting a feature that many now expect as standard may mean less sales and higher prices. And if video was removed from my camera, there would actually be zero difference in number of buttons or design. And if a camera like a Leica has a badly positioned video button, then that is simply bad design and not the fault of video being a feature. Never understood the fuss over Leicas myself, ergonomics always seemed dreadful.

There's nothing selfish about complaining about feature creep, if it makes a product less useable for even one person. That person has a legitimate complaint -- but can be safely ignored when you're talking about products that sell thousands or millions of copies. But sometimes, with some products, feature creep becomes a serious problem for everybody. I'm a professional writer, and have need of several basic features in Microsoft Word. And I recognize the fact that other people need other basic features, that I don't. But a huge proportion of us could get along quite well without all the crap that now encrusts Word. In fact, a huge proportion of us *did* get along just fine, even back in the dark ages like 1999, with the previous versions of Word. Word's most important feature is that it's become a standard, and when I send my manuscripts around, everybody can read them, and when they send corrections back to me, I can read their's, because of the standard. But Microsoft has so encrusted Word with so many features that I am constantly getting updates involving things like computer security. Because I'm a writer, and not a computer expert, I have no idea of what "security" means. Does it mean that there's a flaw in the system that somebody could exploit to get into my computer and look at private financial information? Or does it just mean that there might be a blip and the last paragraph disappears? Microsoft never really explains. Every time Microsoft comes out with a new version of Word (or really, about every other time) I have to update, just to stay cross-compatible with everyone -- but that means more security issues, more software glitches, all in the service of making what should be a fairly simple program more complicated. The complications are not needed, IMHO -- they are basically done to sell more copies of Word. And, actually, to force people like me to buy copies of Word that I don't really need to buy for working purposes. You see the same thing in Photoshop. I suspect the vast majority of PS users really don't need more features -- they don't use most of the ones now in the program. But how can Adobe sell "upgrades" if there are no new features? Sure, you can dream up new features, but does obsoleting millions of programs so some guy can have his much-desired eyelash-sharper really a desirable service for the mass of users? But because they are "standards" and because new versions usually have "features" that obsolete previous versions ("we will no longer support CS6" "we will only provide the upgrade price if you have CS5 or later") Word and Photoshop users who wish to continue using these programs are forced to accept pointless feature creep, designed not to help the mass of users, but to conceal the fact that the basic motivation is sales.

How does that apply to cameras? Every additional "feature" makes the menus harder to use, adds buttons that are unnecessary for most people, adds bulk, requires larger batteries, etc. There just ain't no free lunch. And I don't think Mark was advocating that *all* cameras be built without the video option, just that there should be cameras that don't have it, and that attempt to be as simple and straight-forward as possible. Look at the rumored new Nikon "FE"-style digital. It seems that the concept has raised quite a bit of interest -- and basically, people are interested because it is simple. I will buy it, if it's actually produced as rumored.

My general feeling is that the push for more flexibility, and more features, after a certain point, does not come from photographers -- that is, people who actually take pictures -- as it does from techies, who are interested in the machine itself. It's like when I go to a writer's conference, and people want to know if I'm Word or iWork, or Apple or Microsoft, because they're really more interested in the trappings of writing than in the writing itself ("I couldn't possible write without Word's 'Borders and Shading' function.") And you read about these guys who couldn't possibly work with a D800 because of the massive files, or with a GX7 because the sensor isn't large enough, and blah blah blah. It's all bullshit, completely beside the point of actually writing or taking photos. IMHO.     
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 24, 2013, 03:16:19 pm
I also agree on the Rube Goldberg comment.  I'm sure it's great for Red Rock & co., but it's just silly to make a DSLR work when you could have a proper video camera from the outset.
Which would be built up in the same way as a DSLR with matt box, focus assist etc.  The small square box with RED written on it is the actual camera body
It's a criticism by Mark that only shows complete ignorance of professional film making where the new DSLRs are very useful tools.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 24, 2013, 03:48:57 pm
There's nothing selfish about complaining about feature creep, if it makes a product less useable for even one person. That person has a legitimate complaint -- but can be safely ignored when you're talking about products that sell thousands or millions of copies. But sometimes, with some products, feature creep becomes a serious problem for everybody. I'm a professional writer, and have need of several basic features in Microsoft Word. And I recognize the fact that other people need other basic features, that I don't.
But that's the point, everyone uses a quite different set of features and what may be pointless to you is essential to someone else. Do you knoew how I deal with the features I do not use in software, quite simple, I do not use them and they make zero difference to how I work.



Quote
But a huge proportion of us could get along quite well without all the crap that now encrusts Word. In fact, a huge proportion of us *did* get along just fine, even back in the dark ages like 1999, with the previous versions of Word. Word's most important feature is that it's become a standard, and when I send my manuscripts around, everybody can read them, and when they send corrections back to me, I can read their's, because of the standard. But Microsoft has so encrusted Word with so many features that I am constantly getting updates involving things like computer security. Because I'm a writer, and not a computer expert, I have no idea of what "security" means. Does it mean that there's a flaw in the system that somebody could exploit to get into my computer and look at private financial information? Or does it just mean that there might be a blip and the last paragraph disappears? Microsoft never really explains. Every time Microsoft comes out with a new version of Word (or really, about every other time) I have to update, just to stay cross-compatible with everyone -- but that means more security issues, more software glitches, all in the service of making what should be a fairly simple program more complicated. The complications are not needed, IMHO -- they are basically done to sell more copies of Word. And, actually, to force people like me to buy copies of Word that I don't really need to buy for working purposes.
Firstly if writing is your main task, then why not get a writing programme like Scrivener instead. Word started out as a basic word processor/fancy typewriter but evolved to become a much more powerful and useful programme for a wide range of people. Now the reason why it has security issues is because it's so very, very popular so worth attacking, not because  you can do fancy drop capitals. There's no need for you to update Word constantly either, new versions can always read old versions' files and can save back with backwards compatibility.

Quote
You see the same thing in Photoshop. I suspect the vast majority of PS users really don't need more features -- they don't use most of the ones now in the program. But how can Adobe sell "upgrades" if there are no new features? Sure, you can dream up new features, but does obsoleting millions of programs so some guy can have his much-desired eyelash-sharper really a desirable service for the mass of users? But because they are "standards" and because new versions usually have "features" that obsolete previous versions ("we will no longer support CS6" "we will only provide the upgrade price if you have CS5 or later") Word and Photoshop users who wish to continue using these programs are forced to accept pointless feature creep, designed not to help the mass of users, but to conceal the fact that the basic motivation is sales.
Several issues here. Firstly everyone uses a different subset of features and asking to get rid of the ones you don't want is the selfish attitude I mentioned before.  Secondly, if the companies do not sell products then they go out of business and then you'll be stuffed. Thirdly no-one is forcing you to upgrade, so I can still use older versions of PS if I fancy using a less capable programme. For me one of the main benefits of newer software is usability tends to improve as it's not just about fancy new features.

Quote
How does that apply to cameras? Every additional "feature" makes the menus harder to use, adds buttons that are unnecessary for most people, adds bulk, requires larger batteries, etc. There just ain't no free lunch.
Nonsense. Main difference between a 5D and 5DII is video and has none of the issues you mention.

Quote
And I don't think Mark was advocating that *all* cameras be built without the video option, just that there should be cameras that don't have it, and that attempt to be as simple and straight-forward as possible.
I know what he was asking for, but he did so very poorly.
If video was not on my 5DII for example, it would be exactly the same bar one very easy to use menu option. Good design is what is actually important not less features. I listed several examples above of how less is more faff at times.

Quote
Look at the rumored new Nikon "FE"-style digital. It seems that the concept has raised quite a bit of interest -- and basically, people are interested because it is simple. I will buy it, if it's actually produced as rumored.
A lot of interest has more to do with the fact it is small + FF. There are also some luddites asking for no video that is true.

Quote
My general feeling is that the push for more flexibility, and more features, after a certain point, does not come from photographers -- that is, people who actually take pictures -- as it does from techies, who are interested in the machine itself. It's like when I go to a writer's conference, and people want to know if I'm Word or iWork, or Apple or Microsoft, because they're really more interested in the trappings of writing than in the writing itself ("I couldn't possible write without Word's 'Borders and Shading' function.") And you read about these guys who couldn't possibly work with a D800 because of the massive files, or with a GX7 because the sensor isn't large enough, and blah blah blah. It's all bullshit, completely beside the point of actually writing or taking photos. IMHO.    
You always get nobs who are all talk in any field, ignore them and if they are the ones investing money in new cameras and gadgets all the time, be thankful as it makes your purchases cheaper. There would be no/very little market innovation if everyone was like you.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 24, 2013, 07:18:41 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but which new cameras are you thinking of that don't provide any support for video?

Every single camera that takes a medium format digital back.

Thanks, that is a world about which I am utterly ignorant.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: John Camp on October 24, 2013, 11:16:33 pm
But that's the point, everyone uses a quite different set of features and what may be pointless to you is essential to someone else. Do you knoew how I deal with the features I do not use in software, quite simple, I do not use them and they make zero difference to how I work.

That's simply not the case -- "everyone" doesn't use a different subset. I have no way to prove it, but I have talked a lot to people who use both Word and Photoshop, and I suspect that a subset of features could be laid down that would be all that would used by 95+% of the users. And it would be a relatively small subset. Same thing with cameras. I suspect both GX7 and Nikon D800 users (these are the two cameras I use) keep the camera on the automatic setting most of the time, especially if they're street shooters. If you think about that for a while, you'll realize why -- because they can get photos that they otherwise couldn't, because they'd need time to set up. In addition to "P" (or whatever the auto setting is on your camera) I suspect you could devise two or three more settings that would cover everything needed for 90+% of users. I think the proliferation of features serves one purposes: it provides cover for selling more of whatever it is (It's new!) But the proliferation increases complication and chances for failure -- which is fine with the people more interested in machines than in photos, that's their bowl of soup. IMHO.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: dreed on October 24, 2013, 11:55:47 pm
One of the reasons that Mark (and Michael?) feels like this is pertinent is the currently developing rumor of Nikon doing a camera without video:

Nikon rumors: Nikon retro full frame camera (http://nikonrumors.com/tag/nikon-retro-full-frame-camera/)
The upcoming Nikon retro full frame camera will nto have video (http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/21/the-upcoming-nikon-retro-full-frame-camera-will-not-have-video-possible-announcement-on-november-6th.aspx/)

And I can imagine that some would say "See, Mark is right - Nikon are doing exactly what he said."

If this rumors is accurate then to me it would seem that Nikon are making a calculated gamble - a DSLR with less features (no video) than the D610. If it also costs less than the D610 than maybe it will have legs but if it will also appeal to fewer people because video has become an "expected feature" for many folks.

Why would Nikon do this? Same as Sony are doing the A7 series: try and forge a new market segment with a different product and attract more sales in a stagnating market.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 25, 2013, 12:18:06 am
Hi,

I change a lot of settings on my Sony Alpha. I think that kind of flexibility is needed. It actually makes the system easier to use.

I configure the camera for three different kinds of shooting.

- Targets of opportunity: Auto ISO, program mode, Antishake, wide autofocus etc.
- Careful handheld: Minimum ID, f/8, Antishake, center spot AF
- Tripod work:  No AF, Antishake OFF, minimum ISO, f/8, 2s self timer

So I have three different personalities on my camer with a flick of the control dial. I seldom go into the menues. I would love to assign more choices to buttons tough. In that I dont think the camera is flexible enough.

The Alpha 99 is the first Sony I can configure both AF and antishake in presets, a feature I wanted badly.

Best regards
Erik

That's simply not the case -- "everyone" doesn't use a different subset. I have no way to prove it, but I have talked a lot to people who use both Word and Photoshop, and I suspect that a subset of features could be laid down that would be all that would used by 95+% of the users. And it would be a relatively small subset. Same thing with cameras. I suspect both GX7 and Nikon D800 users (these are the two cameras I use) keep the camera on the automatic setting most of the time, especially if they're street shooters. If you think about that for a while, you'll realize why -- because they can get photos that they otherwise couldn't, because they'd need time to set up. In addition to "P" (or whatever the auto setting is on your camera) I suspect you could devise two or three more settings that would cover everything needed for 90+% of users. I think the proliferation of features serves one purposes: it provides cover for selling more of whatever it is (It's new!) But the proliferation increases complication and chances for failure -- which is fine with the people more interested in machines than in photos, that's their bowl of soup. IMHO.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Misirlou on October 25, 2013, 01:26:51 am
I'm in agreement with Mark's main thrust. I don't shoot video, and anything about it that gets in my way on a stills camera annoys me. On the other hand, I don't doubt that there are videographers out there right now posting complaints about the same cameras I use, over features they hate, but that I consider essential.

So is it too much to ask that some major manufacturer come up with just one digital camera platform that is uncompromisingly biased towards shooting stills? Maybe the medium format builders are doing that, but cameras that cost more than good '80's Porsches are out of my price range, and I suspect out of the realm of affordability for most non-wealthy amateurs.

A lot of people have said here that it's easy enough to just ignore the features and controls you don't need. I suppose that's true, but that's not really the point. You can buy a Cadillac station wagon now that accelerates drastically better, and brakes shorter, than Porsches made in the '80's. Does that mean the Cadillac is a good "sports car?" No, it's still a high performance station wagon, and brings a lot of weight and bulk along that I don't particularly need in a performance car. But if that's what other people want, great. I hope Cadillac sells a lot of them. Happily, I can still go buy a Porsche, if that's what I prefer. (And those '80's 911s are dirt cheap by comparison.)

I spent a lot of time investigating myriad film cameras in the late 90s, when serious digital still seemed a long way off. I was in a position to try almost any camera platform at very minimal cost. When I started that adventure, I had already been using up-to-date Canon SLRs for decades. When I turned to medium format, I started with a nearly new RB-67, then went to ‘70s and ‘80s Hasselblads, and finally ended up shooting a couple of ‘50’s Rollei TLRs exclusively. In 35mm, I went through a stage where I concentrated on ‘70s Olympus rigs, but finished with a ‘50s screw mount Leica setup.

Why the backpedaling? I was looking for the “simplicity” Mark describes. Truth be told, the Leica was a serious pain to load with film, but it ended up getting more use than my autofocus Canons. I almost always had a Rollei every time I went outdoors. I got so much satisfaction out of the shooting process distilled down to its barest essence. Those were the years when I really learned to make photographs.

Everything is different now. I’ve sold images that I made with an iPhone, for real money. I have so many software manuals in my office that I’m afraid it has become something of a fire hazard. I’m learning to hack the firmware in Canon DSLRs. I bought a Sigma DP2 Merrill last week, which brings the same kinds of joys and frustrations as owning a ‘60’s Jaguar XKE did.

So, if there were a viable “simple” digital stills camera out there, I’d be very much interested. I want the same three physical controls Mark describes (shutter, aperture, ISO); the Olympus OM arrangement would do nicely. I consider just about anything else superfluous. Oh, also needs a dedicated mirror lock up lever, unless it doesn’t have a mirror that moves…

I will die before such a beast is ever made.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 25, 2013, 01:46:44 am
Hi,

What is wrong with Leica ME, or the M (240) if you can live with the video button?

Or do you need of center focusing in live view, or an electronic viewfinder? I would guess that what is considered necessary varies.

Personally, I shoot video. Not that I shoot a lot of video, but video and stills make a nice combination.

Best regards
Erik


I'm in agreement with Mark's main thrust. I don't shoot video, and anything about it that gets in my way on a stills camera annoys me. On the other hand, I don't doubt that there are videographers out there right now posting complaints about the same cameras I use, over features they hate, but that I consider essential.

So is it too much to ask that some major manufacturer come up with just one digital camera platform that is uncompromisingly biased towards shooting stills? Maybe the medium format builders are doing that, but cameras that cost more than good '80's Porsches are out of my price range, and I suspect out of the realm of affordability for most non-wealthy amateurs.

A lot of people have said here that it's easy enough to just ignore the features and controls you don't need. I suppose that's true, but that's not really the point. You can buy a Cadillac station wagon now that accelerates drastically better, and brakes shorter, than Porsches made in the '80's. Does that mean the Cadillac is a good "sports car?" No, it's still a high performance station wagon, and brings a lot of weight and bulk along that I don't particularly need in a performance car. But if that's what other people want, great. I hope Cadillac sells a lot of them. Happily, I can still go buy a Porsche, if that's what I prefer. (And those '80's 911s are dirt cheap by comparison.)

I spent a lot of time investigating myriad film cameras in the late 90s, when serious digital still seemed a long way off. I was in a position to try almost any camera platform at very minimal cost. When I started that adventure, I had already been using up-to-date Canon SLRs for decades. When I turned to medium format, I started with a nearly new RB-67, then went to ‘70s and ‘80s Hasselblads, and finally ended up shooting a couple of ‘50’s Rollei TLRs exclusively. In 35mm, I went through a stage where I concentrated on ‘70s Olympus rigs, but finished with a ‘50s screw mount Leica setup.

Why the backpedaling? I was looking for the “simplicity” Mark describes. Truth be told, the Leica was a serious pain to load with film, but it ended up getting more use than my autofocus Canons. I almost always had a Rollei every time I went outdoors. I got so much satisfaction out of the shooting process distilled down to its barest essence. Those were the years when I really learned to make photographs.

Everything is different now. I’ve sold images that I made with an iPhone, for real money. I have so many software manuals in my office that I’m afraid it has become something of a fire hazard. I’m learning to hack the firmware in Canon DSLRs. I bought a Sigma DP2 Merrill last week, which brings the same kinds of joys and frustrations as owning a ‘60’s Jaguar XKE did.

So, if there were a viable “simple” digital stills camera out there, I’d be very much interested. I want the same three physical controls Mark describes (shutter, aperture, ISO); the Olympus OM arrangement would do nicely. I consider just about anything else superfluous. Oh, also needs a dedicated mirror lock up lever, unless it doesn’t have a mirror that moves…

I will die before such a beast is ever made.

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: kencameron on October 25, 2013, 02:04:52 am
That's simply not the case -- "everyone" doesn't use a different subset. I have no way to prove it, but I have talked a lot to people who use both Word and Photoshop, and I suspect that a subset of features could be laid down that would be all that would used by 95+% of the users. And it would be a relatively small subset. Same thing with cameras.
With no better evidence than you, I don't agree, at least in relation to cameras and image processing software. Certainly I use a "standard" and small set of features most of the time, but I also occasionally use a personal subset of other more obscure features which changes over time as I lose interest in some things and become interested in others; and I see no reason to complain when a camera or a piece of software gives me this opportunity. This is where I suspect a significant number of people do use, or will in time use, a different subset of features. I see a kind of anxiety sitting behind the evidently heartfelt call for simplicity - but really, if I have put in the effort required to learn to do what I want to do, then I have achieved simplicity, and I can see opportunities rather than problems in the fact that there are other things I might also do, if and when I want to. And as a number of people have said, the degree of effort required has more to do with the quality of the user interface than with the number of features. The interface on every camera I have ever owned recognizes this, more or less successfully, by making the more commonly used features easiest to access ( eg, giving them their own buttons) and placing others at the bottom of menus.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on October 25, 2013, 02:41:53 am
A simple and clear mind can not be replaced with simple and clear technology, though simple and clear technology ~might support a simple and clear state of mind and even help the confused.
Apart from that never underestimate the power of the dark side .... :P

Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Josiah Davidson on October 25, 2013, 02:59:49 am
Bravo, Mark. Thanks for your essay.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: G* on October 25, 2013, 03:51:52 am
Actually all the discussion (I need this – I don’t need that – 90% need something else) is pretty pointless in terms of who’s right and who’s wrong. But it’s absolutely necessary in one aspect: It shows that there might be a potential market for a camera that is different from everything you can buy at this moment. And that is also the only argument a camera maker and especially its financial strategists will listen to.

I am on the side of those who are unsatisfied with what the market has to offer right now. And luckily I am willing and in the position to be able to spend a little premium for getting what I have in mind. I am a potential customer. For what? For a FF camera that is compact and light as for example a Nikon FM2. Why? Maybe because I am still knowing what it feels like to carry and work with such a thing. Maybe because I am looking for beauty in reduction. Maybe I find it insulting of a gigantic market of camera producers to not giving me the chance to do things the way I want. Naaaa, the last thing might be true if you ask a psychologist, but I would never admit it.

Anyway. I believe whining publicly about one’s longings has limited impact. What might be more useful would be presenting solutions, ready for the R&D departments to help them think "out of the box". For example put all the buttons and menus for the functions the camera is capable of in an app so I can program my camera with my phone/ipad device. And leave only three programable dials and four buttons on the body. Or be creative in overcoming the flange distance in putting an aperture ring around it which hepls to "hide" the body’s depth. Or get rid of the back monitor and put the sensor to the very back of the body.

And actually I don’t quite believe that video and other "additional" options don’t add to the bulk of a camera. so in order to produce a small FF camera one is probably forced to reduce the features a little. I can very well live with that. For others it will not be attractive. Be it. But I have money to spend, too.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 06:34:11 am
And actually I don’t quite believe that video and other "additional" options don’t add to the bulk of a camera. so in order to produce a small FF camera one is probably forced to reduce the features a little.
So why exactly would a bigger sensor reduce the no. of features one can add in a compact body? BTW small cameras were the first to add video and as we already have a two tiny FF cameras the Sony A7r + A7 that include video.....

Here's 3 rather dinky cameras and one fat lump (http://camerasize.com/compact/#183.397,482.91,488.85,328.16,ha,t), 2 are m4/3 and two are FF. The biggest camera does not have video and the replacement which did, had zero extra buttons due to video being added. The only extra button was to be able to autofocus in live view which also happens to be useful for video.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 07:00:36 am
That's simply not the case -- "everyone" doesn't use a different subset.
Except they do. :P particularly with software. And in fact your own example re street photography proves my point.

Quote
I have no way to prove it, but I have talked a lot to people who use both Word and Photoshop, and I suspect that a subset of features could be laid down that would be all that would used by 95+% of the users. And it would be a relatively small subset.
Completely wrong.
Photographers in fact only make up a small percentage of users of PS. Less than 10% in fact. Not only that when Scott Kelby and a thread on here tried to list just the tools would exist in a stripped down photoshop, they both ended up listing virtually all the tools that were there. So if you were to ask your photography mates about PS that would be a dreadful and very inaccurate population sample and the same would probably apply to Word. Features tend to get added as people request them and Word was completely redesigned a few years back after research was done by MS on how people actually used the product and this resulted in a much needed interface overhaul, but features were not removed because people used them.


Quote
Same thing with cameras. I suspect both GX7 and Nikon D800 users (these are the two cameras I use) keep the camera on the automatic setting most of the time, especially if they're street shooters. If you think about that for a while, you'll realize why -- because they can get photos that they otherwise couldn't, because they'd need time to set up.
Don't need to think about it as I do street photography and never use auto, too slow. Manual is far better I find. You set exposure for the scene and er.. that's it. Auto can give very varied exposures depending on the background even if light on subject does not change, so then you have to faff around compensating and by then you've missed your shot.


Quote
In addition to "P" (or whatever the auto setting is on your camera) I suspect you could devise two or three more settings that would cover everything needed for 90+% of users. I think the proliferation of features serves one purposes: it provides cover for selling more of whatever it is (It's new!) But the proliferation increases complication and chances for failure -- which is fine with the people more interested in machines than in photos, that's their bowl of soup. IMHO.
I've never used P so that can be binned, in fact everything bar manual and maybe Aperture priority which I very occasionally use can go. Oh wait! It would be foolish to assume because I work that way everyone else should too.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: G* on October 25, 2013, 07:52:42 am
So why exactly would a bigger sensor reduce the no. of features one can add in a compact body? BTW small cameras were the first to add video and as we already have a two tiny FF cameras the Sony A7r + A7 that include video.....

Here's 3 rather dinky cameras and one fat lump (http://camerasize.com/compact/#183.397,482.91,488.85,328.16,ha,t), 2 are m4/3 and two are FF. The biggest camera does not have video and the replacement which did, had zero extra buttons due to video being added. The only extra button was to be able to autofocus in live view which also happens to be useful for video.

In my thinking (and just for the record: I am in no way able to build a digital camera) you need some computing capacity to deal with high FPS rates or video data, convert raw to jpg, extract a histogram, do several tone-mapping stunts etc. And I think you need more of that when you deal with 36MP compared to 12MP. Furthermore you need a larger battery to do these things for the same lenght of time (a working day would be great) and at the same speed. Which adds in weight and dimension.

Now that we have a Sony A7r ante portas we may ask: why is the D800(E) so big? (please … I know about the difference in flange distance and the viewfinder) And would it have been possible to make a camera with 36MP FF at this size already two years ago? Anyway: The A7r is a living proof of what is possible right now. And maybe even much more is possible, but we don’t have a clue (yet).
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 25, 2013, 08:05:25 am
Hi,

The A7r has short battery life due to the EVF and a small battery. The reason it can do all that processing in real time is the ASIC called Bionz that Sony developed. All cameras a vendor built normally share this circuit (in different releases). The ASICs and the software is a major development effort.

Phase One uses FPGA (Field Programmable Grid Arrays), it means that they can in practice modify the hardware.

There are a few reasons the Sony Alpha 7 is so small, they have no mirrors, no prism, no AF module (it's on the sensor), no motors driving the mirrors. They probably also wanted to make the camera small. My guess it that it could have been as small two years ago.

The olympus OM1 was also a lot smaller than the Nikon F3...

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: G* on October 25, 2013, 08:31:59 am
The A7r has short battery life due to the EVF and a small battery. (…)

(…) There are a few reasons the Sony Alpha 7 is so small, they have no mirrors, no prism, no AF module (it's on the sensor), no motors driving the mirrors. They probably also wanted to make the camera small. My guess it that it could have been as small two years ago. (…)

So for my personal balance it would be great to have a prism finder  :)   

And in Nikon-terms I would also prefer to be restricted to the use of HSM an MF lenses in order to get rid of the AF-screw motor.

Uuh, and the concept of wanting to make a camera small is … well … rather revolutionary, I guess. But I will try hard to get comfortable with that idea in the future   :)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: dreed on October 25, 2013, 09:24:59 am
...
So is it too much to ask that some major manufacturer come up with just one digital camera platform that is uncompromisingly biased towards shooting stills? Maybe the medium format builders are doing that, but cameras that cost more than good '80's Porsches are out of my price range, and I suspect out of the realm of affordability for most non-wealthy amateurs.
...
So, if there were a viable “simple” digital stills camera out there, I’d be very much interested. I want the same three physical controls Mark describes (shutter, aperture, ISO); the Olympus OM arrangement would do nicely. I consider just about anything else superfluous. Oh, also needs a dedicated mirror lock up lever, unless it doesn’t have a mirror that moves…

I think the word "viable" is very important here because if smartphones and their cameras are killing digital camera sales then obviously people want a very simple thing that takes photographs; something that doesn't have all of the photographic controls that you want, meaning that the cost per unit to make your camera is going to be higher (and thus only affordable to wealthy amateurs)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 09:34:13 am
In my thinking (and just for the record: I am in no way able to build a digital camera) you need some computing capacity to deal with high FPS rates or video data, convert raw to jpg, extract a histogram, do several tone-mapping stunts etc. And I think you need more of that when you deal with 36MP compared to 12MP. Furthermore you need a larger battery to do these things for the same lenght of time (a working day would be great) and at the same speed. Which adds in weight and dimension.
Ever heard of spare batteries? I work with heavy cameras with big batteries and still carry around a bunch of spares. And if you do not use the video feature say, then it will have zero impact on your battery life and for those who do use video then they'll carry even more batteries.
I also have a pocket camera with a tiny battery and it lasts for ages. If you need to shoot a silly amount of pictures a day and not change your camera battery then you're out of luck. Even so, I can still go out for a day's casual shooting and not come close to having to change battery, actually I can often do a day's work and not change battery. But then I never use anything other than single shot, if however you are the sort of person who shoot's 5/10fps well you'd expect to munch batteries.

Quote
Now that we have a Sony A7r ante portas we may ask: why is the D800(E) so big? (please … I know about the difference in flange distance and the viewfinder) And would it have been possible to make a camera with 36MP FF at this size already two years ago? Anyway: The A7r is a living proof of what is possible right now. And maybe even much more is possible, but we don’t have a clue (yet).
Size is more a marketing thing. Once someone started making and selling small high quality cameras suddenly everyone else starts making them to grab market share. A few years back bigger was better [according to the manufacturers] despite people always wanting smaller, lighter cameras. My local camera shop have been telling Canon etc for years make a small camera with big sensor as that's what their customers keep asking for.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on October 25, 2013, 09:41:08 am
You want simplicity?

Take "sunny 16" + this:
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2013, 09:56:56 am
Isn't designing and selling a camera that only has a small subset of features just another camera manufacturer's method to sell to those who want to be different and have the "latest"? 
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 10:05:38 am
I'm in agreement with Mark's main thrust. I don't shoot video, and anything about it that gets in my way on a stills camera annoys me.
Please give an example of that.

Quote
So is it too much to ask that some major manufacturer come up with just one digital camera platform that is uncompromisingly biased towards shooting stills?
So which of the DSLRs, m4/3 etc isn't biased towards stills? The only cameras that are not biased towards stills are dedicated video cameras, which ironically can now also do stills.  ;D
This is what I do not understand about these complaints? The only real difference for video enabled stills cameras is an extra button to record video, sometimes not even that and if one extra button distresses people that much then nothing is likely to please them.

Quote
A lot of people have said here that it's easy enough to just ignore the features and controls you don't need. I suppose that's true, but that's not really the point.
It is the point. No camera will match everyone's needs and the fact that my cameras have numerous features I never use does not interfere with my use of them in the slightest.

 
Quote
You can buy a Cadillac station wagon now that accelerates drastically better, and brakes shorter, than Porsches made in the '80's. Does that mean the Cadillac is a good "sports car?" No, it's still a high performance station wagon, and brings a lot of weight and bulk along that I don't particularly need in a performance car. But if that's what other people want, great. I hope Cadillac sells a lot of them. Happily, I can still go buy a Porsche, if that's what I prefer.
Bad analogy. Performance tends to be the major selling point of a sports car and if you can get better performance from a car that is also more practical that may be a good thing. If however you want to be seen driving a Porsche because it's cooler then an estate [station wagon], that's fine, but then it's not performance you are actually after.
My friend has an Audi estate and one of the benefits of having such a car is low insurance premiums, despite the fact it is a stupidly fast car that outperforms/handles many Audi models marketed as sports cars. Also handy for packing a heap of film gear. And a stealth performance car is much cooler than a sporty looking car in my books. Always fancied a VW camper with a Porsche engine in it myself.  ;D


Quote
Why the backpedaling? I was looking for the “simplicity” Mark describes. Truth be told, the Leica was a serious pain to load with film, but it ended up getting more use than my autofocus Canons.
??? In my books something more difficult to use is not simpler. It's a pain in the posterior.

Quote
I almost always had a Rollei every time I went outdoors. I got so much satisfaction out of the shooting process distilled down to its barest essence. Those were the years when I really learned to make photographs.
Yet, you may have learned better/faster with a digital camera with instant feedback on the rear screen. And if that's what gave you the most satisfaction, why not go back to it?
Though you may find going back may not be so good having become used to modern gear. :)


Quote
So, if there were a viable “simple” digital stills camera out there, I’d be very much interested. I want the same three physical controls Mark describes (shutter, aperture, ISO); the Olympus OM arrangement would do nicely.
Why not buy the OM then?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 10:09:51 am
You want simplicity?

Take "sunny 16" + this:
It's f11/f16 here at the moment. Not bad for late October.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: HSway on October 25, 2013, 10:18:28 am
Interesting article and points. Multifunctional designs are tricky to get right for everyone but they are best for most and at the end of the day, the least expensive to make. And easy to replace with a new version (for the manufacturer and for the buyer). And that replacing drives what we can refer as to consumer culture. Also, the buyers that don’t need their functions at all are a significant number – which makes job easy for the salesman (who has something to talk about). After a while you don’t feel right unless a product you buy doesn’t have a half of extra functions.

So, for the sake of survivable environment for those with, say, somewhat sharper mind, I hope that the market evolution itself will eventually embed this peculiar aspect (should I say character?) into the products. Because the oversaturation applies to everything the points of this article can and should become also part of the business.
Otherwise I am quite adaptable creature when it comes to these things and always had a strong pull towards a means to an end, which helps me.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Misirlou on October 25, 2013, 10:51:07 am
I think the word "viable" is very important here because if smartphones and their cameras are killing digital camera sales then obviously people want a very simple thing that takes photographs; something that doesn't have all of the photographic controls that you want, meaning that the cost per unit to make your camera is going to be higher (and thus only affordable to wealthy amateurs)

It's an open question. Until there is such a thing, we'll never know how many people might want one.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Misirlou on October 25, 2013, 10:56:49 am
Hi,

What is wrong with Leica ME, or the M (240) if you can live with the video button?

With two or three lenses, that would reach at least $10k.

Then there's digital depreciation. In the film days, I could buy a high end used camera, and sell it a year later for as much or more than I paid originally. Not so with digital. What is an original EOS 1D worth these days? Not very much I'm guessing.

If I had that kind of money to spend on a camera right now though, I'd try one.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: telyt on October 25, 2013, 10:59:29 am

I spent a lot of time investigating myriad film cameras in the late 90s, when serious digital still seemed a long way off. I was in a position to try almost any camera platform at very minimal cost. When I started that adventure, I had already been using up-to-date Canon SLRs for decades. When I turned to medium format, I started with a nearly new RB-67, then went to ‘70s and ‘80s Hasselblads, and finally ended up shooting a couple of ‘50’s Rollei TLRs exclusively. In 35mm, I went through a stage where I concentrated on ‘70s Olympus rigs, but finished with a ‘50s screw mount Leica setup.

Why the backpedaling? I was looking for the “simplicity” Mark describes. Truth be told, the Leica was a serious pain to load with film, but it ended up getting more use than my autofocus Canons. I almost always had a Rollei every time I went outdoors. I got so much satisfaction out of the shooting process distilled down to its barest essence. Those were the years when I really learned to make photographs.

I made a similar backpedaling journey and found that all I want is good manual exposure controls with a TTL light meter, a TTL viewfinder optimized for manual focus anywhere in the picture area, and high-quality long lenses.  I settled on the Leicaflex SL.  I also doubt I'll see such a camera manufactured again.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on October 25, 2013, 11:01:26 am
Seems like buying such a simple camera greatly simplifies the content of your purse as well ...
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: telyt on October 25, 2013, 11:05:30 am

Then there's digital depreciation. In the film days, I could buy a high end used camera, and sell it a year later for as much or more than I paid originally. Not so with digital. What is an original EOS 1D worth these days? Not very much I'm guessing.

I bought a used Leica DMR 7 years ago.  I't still worth what I paid for it.  I use it like it's an oversized, over-featured Leicaflex SL.  It's only off manual exposure when one of the unwanted controls gets bumped accidentally, and I use a plain matte viewscreen for manual focus anywhere in the field of view.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Misirlou on October 25, 2013, 12:02:45 pm
Seems like buying such a simple camera greatly simplifies the content of your purse as well ...

My mother has an extremely expensive Movado watch. Same concept.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 01:03:36 pm
There's a category in the Lens Rentals competition (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/the-first-annual-photogeek-geek-photo-contest) designed specifically for the keeping it pure crowd. The category - Best Picture from a Camera without a Movie Mode  ;D
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 25, 2013, 01:56:36 pm
That's simply not the case -- "everyone" doesn't use a different subset. I have no way to prove it, but I have talked a lot to people who use both Word and Photoshop, and I suspect that a subset of features could be laid down that would be all that would used by 95+% of the users. And it would be a relatively small subset.

Microsoft collect data through their Customer Experience Improvement Program, so they do have a way to prove it --

Quote
Beyond the top 10 commands or so, however, the curve flattens out considerably. The percentage difference in usage between the #100 command ("Accept Change") and the #400 command ("Reset Picture") is about the same in difference between #1 and #11 ("Change Font Size") This is what makes creating the new UI challenging--people really do use a lot of the breadth of Office and beyond the top 10 commands there are a lot of different ways of using the product (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/04/07/570798.aspx).

Maybe you only talk about MS Word with people who do similar work to you.


I suspect both GX7 and Nikon D800 users (these are the two cameras I use) keep the camera on the automatic setting most of the time...

I suspect that we all commonly make the mistake of being parochial -- my APS-C camera's set to M; for 35mm f5.6 1/125, for 85mm f4 1/250; and I work from there using EVF histogram.

To me, one of the main attractions of the LuLa forums is the reminder of just how ignorant and wrong I can be about how other people use cameras and think about photography :-)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 25, 2013, 02:06:14 pm
For example put all the buttons and menus for the functions the camera is capable of in an app so I can program my camera...

I've thought about that too; but I wouldn't want to QA that camera and I wouldn't want to provide support for that camera ;-)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 02:45:16 pm
To me, one of the main attractions of the LuLa forums is the reminder of just how ignorant and wrong I can be about how other people use cameras and think about photography :-)
Indeed, there can be many ways to do something and at times more than one method can be usable. There are however even more incorrect ways!  ;D
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: telyt on October 25, 2013, 02:57:02 pm
Indeed, there can be many ways to do something and at times more than one method can be usable. There are however even more incorrect ways!  ;D

Murphy's Law is precisely why some of us want fewer features.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 25, 2013, 03:58:50 pm
Hi,

Well, a prism viewfinder goes with a mirror and a prism. Camera gets larger and mirror causes vibrations.

Best regards
Erik

So for my personal balance it would be great to have a prism finder  :)   

And in Nikon-terms I would also prefer to be restricted to the use of HSM an MF lenses in order to get rid of the AF-screw motor.

Uuh, and the concept of wanting to make a camera small is … well … rather revolutionary, I guess. But I will try hard to get comfortable with that idea in the future   :)

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: peterpix on October 25, 2013, 04:12:54 pm
Every single camera that takes a medium format digital back.

Yeah and probably that's less than one percent of photographers.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 25, 2013, 04:16:20 pm
Hi,

What I don't understand is what the discussion is about. There are no thrill simple cameras. Mark Dubovoy mentioned the Alpa FPS. A Leica ME doesn't have video. There are basic cameras doing an excellent job. They are a bit expensive, of course.

Is there some agreement what specifications such a camera should have, except not having a physical video button?

So, would the camera be:

- a rangefinder?
- an DSLR?
- an EVF camera?
- 12MP or higher res?
- Live view needed or not?
- High ISO needed?
- Should it be affordable, or does cost not matter?

Firms do marketing research, if there is a reasonable market for camera it may be built, but the firm making it needs to earn money or at least benefit otherwise.

Best regards
Erik

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 04:33:55 pm
Murphy's Law is precisely why some of us want fewer features.
So how exactly can a feature you do not use go wrong then?
And my comment had nothing to do with Murphy's Law as it happens or extra camera features for that matter. It was about people.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 25, 2013, 04:43:01 pm
Hi,

I was on travel in Yellowstone last year for a week, and I did not see a single MFD camera. The only MF camera I have seen in Yellowstone was a Noblex panoramic camera. I guess that the one percent figure is excessive. The reason folks shoot MFD is mostly not lack video I guess. I have been shooting MFD for four months now, and still have not figured out why I like it. Being the latest plaything is a big part of it. I also like the extra detail and working with a piece of classic equipment. The lenses I bought were dirt cheap.

Best regards
Erik


Yeah and probably that's less than one percent of photographers.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rhossydd on October 25, 2013, 05:34:08 pm
So how exactly can a feature you do not use go wrong then?
The problem occurs when an unwanted feature gets in the way of normal usage.

An excellent example is on the Sony Rx100(II). It has a dedicated video button(that can't be disabled) that is very easily pressed by mistake. If you accidentally start shooting video there are three problems;
1. The camera is shooting video when you need to shoot a still.
2. Battery life gets wasted.... very quickly.
3. Card memory gets used up and might need attention to delete unwanted clips before yo can shoot further stills.
Whilst the camera can shoot decent HD video, that capability gets in the way of what the camera excels at which is shooting great stills.
Does it deserve divergence ? no, just a far better UI that could allow the video button to be disabled or re-configured to something more appropriate for the shooting mode chosen.

Edit for factual correction:
Reply #120 points out that the above information isn't correct for the mkII version. There's a menu item to disable the button in stills mode.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 25, 2013, 05:47:35 pm
The problem occurs when an unwanted feature gets in the way of normal usage.

An excellent example is on the Sony Rx100(II). It has a dedicated video button(that can't be disabled) that is very easily pressed by mistake. If you accidentally start shooting video there are three problems;
1. The camera is shooting video when you need to shoot a still.
2. Battery life gets wasted.... very quickly.
3. Card memory gets used up and might need attention to delete unwanted clips before yo can shoot further stills.
Whilst the camera can shoot decent HD video, that capability gets in the way of what the camera excels at which is shooting great stills.
Does it deserve divergence ? no, just a far better UI that could allow the video button to be disabled or re-configured to something more appropriate for the shooting mode chosen.

Exactly, the problem is not the fault of video being a feature on the camera. It is the fault of bad design of the camera. And poor design is the actual problem, not the fact that a camera may shot video. If the shutter release was poorly designed so that the camera kept taking photos whilst being carried around, you wouldn't get people asking for the stills ability to be removed. Then again, judging by some comments....
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Colorado David on October 25, 2013, 06:18:47 pm
The problem occurs when an unwanted feature gets in the way of normal usage.

An excellent example is on the Sony Rx100(II). It has a dedicated video button(that can't be disabled) that is very easily pressed by mistake.

Super Glue?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 25, 2013, 07:07:31 pm
... Sony Rx100(II). It has a dedicated video button(that can't be disabled) that is very easily pressed by mistake.

I'll take something positive from the complaining -- I've just put a couple of layers of tape over the video button on my SLT-A35, we'll see if that's enough to keep me from pressing. 

I've mistakenly done that ~3 times in 2 years. Far more often, I mistakenly press Exposure Lock because that's where I want the magnify button to be for manual focus - it is the magnify button for playback!
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rhossydd on October 26, 2013, 04:20:26 am
Exactly, the problem is not the fault of video being a feature on the camera. It is the fault of bad design of the camera. And poor design is the actual problem, not the fact that a camera may shot video.
Totally agree.
The whole argument about 'divergence' is just avoiding the issue of poor design.

The fundamental problem is that video and stills need very different form factors.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: dreed on October 26, 2013, 09:44:33 am
The fundamental problem is that video and stills need very different form factors.

Yes and it seems some people don't understand that video really does need all of that support equipment.
e.g.
Youtube: ARRI Alexa Camera From Body Only to a Full Blown Rig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tpXfSNLNh4)
... and that doesn't include microphone boom.

When motion of the video camera is required, they're put on dollies:
Alexa on a dolly (http://streamlinercinemadolly.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/alexa-setup-2-r.jpg):

And a 3D rig:
Alex on BX3 (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ls2-r6r8bqI/TOqiBNul2DI/AAAAAAAAARs/qaB6U82AgSI/s1600/Alexa_on_BX3.jpg)

This helps put into correct perspective Canon 5D Mark II's being used like this:
Shoulder rig for 5D Mark II (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxpb58VWqM1qb4njgo1_500.jpg)

If you go on set for a TV show or movie shoot and see how they use their cameras then you'll quickly understand that needing the support rig for cameras like the 5D Mark II is no biggie.

The problem with video is that a lot of people expect video "rigs" to be more like this (or smaller):
Canon XL2 (http://www.aesthetictechnologies.org/atlab/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Canon-XL2.jpg)
... these cameras have their own market BUT that market is not the same as that for large sensor video.

The mistake is in thinking that shooting video with a DSLR is like shooting video with a handy cam. It's not but that's not to say that you can't use tripods, etc, with handy cams.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: barryfitzgerald on October 26, 2013, 10:12:29 am
I like the article.
He's right I have a Sony with a stupid video button that I can disable, but gives me an annoying message if I press it!
Worse it can't actually be set to anything else.

I'm still trying to get my head around video (still not hugely interested in it but hey I might change that view)
I don't mind it being there, but it should never get in the way for stills shooters.

I blame sites like DPR for moaning about dedicated video buttons when very few actually cared about it.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Colorado David on October 26, 2013, 10:49:33 am
I sense that there is a market for an add-on button cover.  Maybe I should pitch it to Really Right Stuff.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 26, 2013, 11:55:17 am
Quote
The solution was for me to go to the hardware store and purchase a gromet with a hole slightly larger than the diameter of the video button.  Most grommets happen to be too thick, but they are easily cut in half (like a bagel) with a sharp X-Acto knife.  This reduces the thickness and provides one flat side.

After cutting the grommet as described, I used a small amount of super glue on the flat side (Gorilla brand super glue specially formulated for rubber leather, etc. works extremely well) and glued it to the camera.

Now, neither my fingers nor my hand can push the video button.  However, if l want to shoot video I can still push the video button through the center hole with a pen, pencil, toothpick or other skinny object.  Since I rarely shoot video with the NEX 7,  this solution works great for me.

Mark Dubovoy, LuLa, May 2012  (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/the_sony_nex_7_redneck_edition.shtml)
Title: Crippling inherent video capabilities is "Treating acne by decapitation"
Post by: BJL on October 26, 2013, 01:29:11 pm
Treating the problems of a few poorly designed video interfaces by eliminating video capabilities from a camera whose sensors and processing chips can handle it with nothing more than a bit of extra firmware (that is, any modern camera with a CMOS sensor) would be like "treating acne by decapitation", as Frank Zappa once said.

Two more modest proposals:
1) Provide video only through a mode DIAL setting, using the normal shutter release button.
2) Have a button for video that can be disabled or reprogrammed, reverting to use of mode dial and shutter release if video is needed.
The latter is how the EM5 works, for example; the red dot video button is now AEL/AFL.

UPDATE: I typed "mode menu" when I meant "mode dial"; a horrible mistake given the fear and loathing of menus expressed by some people.
So the only noticeable difference necessary in having video is one dial looking like:
PSAMV
instead of
PSAM
... or maybe
SAM
as some minimalists would prefer.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: MarkL on October 26, 2013, 01:33:19 pm
While I agree that the usability of most cameras these days is woeful I can’t agree with much of this article.

The criticisms about video seem centred around one button, the cameras have live view so recording really is more of a ‘why not?’ than a ‘why?’ at the design stage. I enjoy having video on my D800 and not having to buy another camera.

The real crux of things is that most mirrorless and dslr cameras need to be a jack of all trades (just like their 35mm film counterparts) and as a result have a lot of features, just look at the amount of threads in forums moaning about not having articulated LCDs and all sorts (live view on leicas anyone?). It simply isn’t practical for the fords of the camera industry like canon and nikon to produce highly specialised cameras - this is the domain of specialist (and luxury) companies and they have a price tag that reflects this. I wouldn’t want to have to have to buy three cameras to shoot fashion, landscapes and weddings in any case. I’m sure everyone would like a ‘simple’ camera having exactly the features they need, the problem is that everyone’s needs will be different. What would be a step forward would be better customisation of menus/buttons and being able to hide menu items.

For the record, I’d never ever want a camera designed by Apple which would no doubt be full of touch screens, proprietary connections and file formats, requiring itunes to update it’s firmware and an app store.

Treating the problems of a few poorly designed video interfaces by eliminating video capabilities from a camera whose sensors and processing chips can handle it with nothing more than a bit of extra firmware (that is, any modern camera with a CMOS sensor) would be like "treating acne by decapitation", as Frank Zappa once said.

Two more modest proposals:
1) Provide video only through a mode menu setting, using the normal shutter release button.
2) Have a button for video that can be disabled or reprogrammed, reverting to use of mode dial and shutter release if video is needed.
The latter is how the EM5 works, for example; the red dot video button is now AEL/AFL.

Absolutely, this is more about bad design. 'Usability is bad so let's remove lots of features' is not the way to go imo.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: John Camp on October 26, 2013, 03:31:37 pm
Without going into small details, I think the people critical of Mark's position are pissing into the wind -- just from the responses here, it seems that a fairly large set of people (though perhaps not a majority) feel that cameras are getting too cluttered up with options, buttons, menus, etc. So even if *you* don't think this is a problem, apparently a large number of other people do.

This has no direct application to cameras (or maybe a small one) but complication, like new features, new processes, etc., always causes problems for a good set of new users of the product -- always has a price. You have to decide whether those features are worthwhile, if you are actually given the power to decide that. But in some cases, you are not really given a choice. For example, I had to download the new Mavericks OS from Apple (not because I wanted it -- I was perfectly happy and familiar with OSX 10.6.8 ) because I wanted to download the Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 offer, not because I particularly needed them, though it seemed like an okay deal (I already had an updated Lightroom 4.4 which was good enough for me) but OSX10.6.8 won't load Lightroom 5. I needed Lightroom 5 because I'd just bought a Panny GX7 and Lightroom 4.4 doesn't support the GX7 raw files. In other words, one decision, to buy the GX7, meant I had to upgrade my Lightroom program, which meant I had to upgrade the OS. So far, this has taken several hours of my time, for, essentially, almost no improvement. In fact, I've been having trouble with Mavericks, and when I went to the support forum, I found that there are some 5,000+ discussions going on, involving Mavericks problems...all kinds of compatibility issues and complaints...for an OS that's been out for less than a week. Every time I open a website in Mavericks, now, I get a warning that I need to choose something for a URL, which I really don't need to do. But it seems there's no way to stop the warning pop-up, which needs to be responded to before you can read the website. I've now hit "cancel" probably 500 times, and so far, I'm not getting any help on the issue from Apple. I am also going to have to find some kind of documentation of the new features in Mavericks, because even though I don't see any *improvements* in the features I use, there have been *changes,* and just to get back where I was last week, I have to spend time learning how to use the changes I didn't want.

Just an example of why people don't need unnecessary complication. If Adobe had simply upgraded 4.4 so I could read the GX7 raw files (which they could have easily done, since LR5 supports it) I'd be happily back in 10.6.8 and would have several hours of my life back.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Richowens on October 26, 2013, 03:41:55 pm
John,
 If you had simply passed on the GX7...................did you really need it?

Rich
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 26, 2013, 04:32:00 pm
But in some cases, you are not really given a choice. ... In other words, one decision, to buy the GX7, meant I had to upgrade my Lightroom program, which meant I had to upgrade the OS.

afaict You could have converted the GX7 raw files to DNG (http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5646) and worked on them with LR4.4; you didn't have to upgrade Lightroom and you didn't have to upgrade the OS.

You really were given a choice.


(Incidentally: only 48 people made any response to the article, which doesn't seem much like "a fairly large set of people".)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: G* on October 26, 2013, 04:55:40 pm
Hi,

Well, a prism viewfinder goes with a mirror and a prism. Camera gets larger and mirror causes vibrations.

Best regards
Erik

Sony does it with a not moving translucent mirror.
Bigger than A7r maybe, but not bigger than FM2 necessarily.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: kencameron on October 26, 2013, 05:45:18 pm
Without going into small details, I think the people critical of Mark's position are pissing into the wind
A description which seems to me apply rather better to what Mark and those supportive of his position are actually doing (ie, pissing into the gale of technological convergence, rather than the fitful breeze of a few posters on LuLa). Seems to work quite well too for your experience of dealing with Apple in relation to its new OS. Seriously, though, I would be interested in your response to the observation that the experience of simplicity is what matters and that this should be achievable (for anyone prepared to put in a minimal amount of work) through good interface design supported by a well-written manual, with or without video functionality. Arguing that way with camera manufacturers seems to me to have better prospects of success than asking them to reduce functionality.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: PatBeug on October 27, 2013, 11:54:57 am
The problem occurs when an unwanted feature gets in the way of normal usage.

An excellent example is on the Sony Rx100(II). It has a dedicated video button(that can't be disabled) that is very easily pressed by mistake. If you accidentally start shooting video there are three problems;
1. The camera is shooting video when you need to shoot a still.
2. Battery life gets wasted.... very quickly.
3. Card memory gets used up and might need attention to delete unwanted clips before yo can shoot further stills.
Whilst the camera can shoot decent HD video, that capability gets in the way of what the camera excels at which is shooting great stills.
Does it deserve divergence ? no, just a far better UI that could allow the video button to be disabled or re-configured to something more appropriate for the shooting mode chosen.

Reply: You can set the movie button on the RX100 MKII to only work when the mode dial is set to the Movie position.
Go to Menu, Gear 3, select " MOVIE button", and set it to "Movie Mode Only". Now the rear movie button is inactive unless you select the Movie icon on the mode dial. It cannot be accidently activated.  :)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rhossydd on October 27, 2013, 12:30:13 pm
Reply: You can set the movie button on the RX100 MKII to only work when the mode dial is set to the Movie position.
Go to Menu, Gear 3, select " MOVIE button", and set it to "Movie Mode Only". Now the rear movie button is inactive unless you select the Movie icon on the mode dial. It cannot be accidently activated.  :)
Thanks for the information, it's shame that option isn't there on the original RX100.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 27, 2013, 12:31:09 pm
Without going into small details, I think the people critical of Mark's position are pissing into the wind -- just from the responses here, it seems that a fairly large set of people (though perhaps not a majority) feel that cameras are getting too cluttered up with options, buttons, menus, etc. So even if *you* don't think this is a problem, apparently a large number of other people do.
It's Mark that's is positioned facing the wind as others have rightly pointed out. Besides Mark, yourself and others are confusing bad design with too many features. Very, very different things.
And just like with new software, people are selfishly complaining because features they do not need are included. I think you'd be rightly annoyed if your favourite fears were elided just because others found them pointless. So don't complain when it's the other way around as you may not like the result if your views prevailed.

Quote
....In other words, one decision, to buy the GX7, meant I had to upgrade my Lightroom program, which meant I had to upgrade the OS......
Seeing that Adobe have made a point of not forcing anyone to have to upgrade if someone buys a new camera, if  you are in upgrade hell it is because that is a hole you dug yourself. Which you cannot blame anyone else for.
Besides why blame Adobe anyway? It's the camera manufacturers that keep breaking compatibility by pointlessly changing their raw file if a camera model has a name change.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 27, 2013, 12:34:57 pm
An excellent example is on the Sony Rx100(II). It has a dedicated video button(that can't be disabled) that is very easily pressed by mistake. If you accidentally start shooting video there are three problems;
1. The camera is shooting video when you need to shoot a still.
2. Battery life gets wasted.... very quickly.
3. Card memory gets used up and might need attention to delete unwanted clips before yo can shoot further stills.
Whilst the camera can shoot decent HD video, that capability gets in the way of what the camera excels at which is shooting great stills.
Does it deserve divergence ? no, just a far better UI that could allow the video button to be disabled or re-configured to something more appropriate for the shooting mode chosen.

Reply: You can set the movie button on the RX100 MKII to only work when the mode dial is set to the Movie position.
Go to Menu, Gear 3, select " MOVIE button", and set it to "Movie Mode Only". Now the rear movie button is inactive unless you select the Movie icon on the mode dial. It cannot be accidently activated.  :)
RTM before complaining about something, is always a good move.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rhossydd on October 27, 2013, 01:31:14 pm
RTM before complaining about something, is always a good move.
As mentioned; that option is only on the latest model, not the original RX100.
Also there's no manual supplied anyway, so reading it isn't an option.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: BJL on October 27, 2013, 02:17:39 pm
As mentioned; that option is only on the latest model, not the original RX100.
Also there's no manual supplied anyway, so reading it isn't an option.
Problem 1 was fixed by the new Mark II model;
Problem 2 (Sony providing the full manual only on a website in HTML!?) was fixed by John Colton at BYU:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/Sony%20RX100%20User%20Guide.pdf
so I hope that is of use to you.

(Note that neither solution required the cost-increasing "nuclear option" of having separate video and non-video models.)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 27, 2013, 02:31:49 pm
1. I don't see how fixing the design in a later model can be seen as any kind of solution to the problem that exists in the earlier model -- that problem still exists unfixed, until the manufacturer takes on the responsibility to provide firmware updates.

2. The DSC-RX100 User Guide (.PDF) is available on the Sony website (http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=DSCRX100&LOC=3#/manualsTab).
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rhossydd on October 27, 2013, 02:35:06 pm
Problem 1 was fixed by the new Mark II model;
That's not solved the problem, it's still there on the RX100.
What it does reveal is that they could offer the same option on the RX100, but can't be bothered to support their existing clients with a firmware fix.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Manoli on October 27, 2013, 04:46:14 pm
[..] that problem still exists unfixed, until the manufacturer takes on the responsibility to provide firmware updates.

What it does reveal is that they could offer the same option on the RX100, but can't be bothered to support their existing clients with a firmware fix.

Classic SONY, unfortunately. Support and continuity isn't (wasn't) their strong point.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on October 27, 2013, 04:56:51 pm
Classic SONY, unfortunately. Support and continuity isn't (wasn't) their strong point.
Sony like to sell crippled products and then the next year sell you a slightly less crippled one and so on.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rhossydd on October 27, 2013, 04:57:41 pm
Classic SONY, unfortunately. Support and continuity isn't (wasn't) their strong point.
Yes, their consumer products get SFA support.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: AlanG on October 27, 2013, 08:03:14 pm
If you accidentally start rolling video when you want to shoot a still I'd look at it as your camera trying to tell you something... Either learn the camera and don't be such a screw up, or go with the video since the camera may be right.

There sure is a lot of griping in that article when you consider how easy it is to shoot technically good photos today with these cameras compared to how it was when I started. At one time you had to know not to accidentally open the back of your film camera too.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: BJL on October 27, 2013, 08:07:58 pm
Isaac and Rhossyd,

    i did not make myself clear: I am not defending Sony for either its original bad design in the RX100 or its failure to offer a firmware solution. I was just addressing the premise of the article that this thread is about: that a few examples of bad designs decisions like this are an argument for new camera models that "solve the problem" by eliminating video entirely.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: BFoto on October 27, 2013, 08:42:16 pm
I agree with the premise of this article. i wonder how many photographers out there, pro and amature alike, who jumped on the DSLR video waggon and have since jumped off...i'm one. Just get a gopro!
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Hans Kruse on October 29, 2013, 06:22:54 am
In general I agree that simplicity without crippling functionality is a good thing. With Apple it's mostly working but in a number of cases the simplicity makes even simple things harder than necessary to do. An example to move photos from Lightroom over on the iPad could be very simple but there are many restrictions unneeded. Btw. I'm not sure I would agree that Lightroom is a good example of simplicity. There is way too much under the hood that needs to be understood and even worse, it is not documented.

I'm currently shooting Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800E and I have not missed a single shot due to the video function and it fact I have not even shot a video so far with any of them. The old MLU burried in menues on the Canon argument...Yes it is true, but it is much better to shoot in live view and there is a button for it when you would need MLU!! MLU is not needed any more. Same on the Nikon btw. There is understandably a lot of conservatism in camera design and neither Canon nor Nikon can change their design dramatically from one model to the next or their customers would object. But I too get annoyed about bad design. One glaring one is on the D800 in live view. Why do I need to wait for the shot or shots to be written to the memory card(s) before I can take it out of LV? Or get into LV? On the 5D3 all is written to the buffer and you can go in and out LV immediately. I find very few things on the 5D3 to be annoying, only the sensor is a lower standard than the Nikon regarding DR. Resolution is a wash mostly. And why does the LV on the D800 have to stop down to the chosen aperture? There is a DOF preview button to do that when DOF needs to be checked as is the way the Canon works in LV.

Although Mark has a point I think it is a bit overdone and the examples only partially defends his case. I'm surprised he didn't mention one thing that annoyes me more than anything on the Canon and the Nikon: The lack of a true ETTR function. It would be so easy to build into the camera. For landscape shooting the solution would be as simple as: Set the camera at desired aperture and ISO (typically 100) on a tripod. The set the camera in ETTR mode and it would take a shot, analyze the RAW image and do an exposure compensation for a true ETTR shot. On top of that in high DR situations combine this with bracketing around the ETTR exposure and we are done. No more bracketing and exposure compensation and chimping. No more wasted time in looking at the LCD and histograms. We are out for composing and shooting images and not for looking at histograms, right?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on October 29, 2013, 01:59:01 pm
I’m sure everyone would like a ‘simple’ camera having exactly the features they need, the problem is that everyone’s needs will be different. What would be a step forward would be better customisation of menus/buttons and being able to hide menu items.

That seems to be happening --

"...the Sony A7's user interface (http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7/) is exceptionally configurable. ... This surely sets a new benchmark for camera configurability. (There may have been a camera or cameras with more configuration options, I just can't recall any.)

While it takes a little while to settle on the best configuration for a highly-customizable user interface like this, and some more time before your custom configurations become second nature, the benefit to regular shooters is huge. Rather than cursing a multi-level menu system, the camera becomes a fluid extension of your creative process. The impact of the sort of deep configurability of the Sony A7's user interface shouldn't be underestimated."
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: ErikKaffehr on October 29, 2013, 03:26:54 pm
Hi,

I mostly agree with Hans on this. Personally I like video and shoot some video almost each day (that I am shooting). But regarding user interface I absolutely agree with him, there is a lot to do.

I would also say that there is a lot to the old classic layout with aperture ring on lens and shutter speed dial. Regarding ETTR I find the Sony's I have work well enough, but I fully agree with what Hans says.

I would just add that presets are a great feature. I have three presets on my Sony's make life much easier. Five or six may be even better.

Best regards
Erik


In general I agree that simplicity without crippling functionality is a good thing. With Apple it's mostly working but in a number of cases the simplicity makes even simple things harder than necessary to do. An example to move photos from Lightroom over on the iPad could be very simple but there are many restrictions unneeded. Btw. I'm not sure I would agree that Lightroom is a good example of simplicity. There is way too much under the hood that needs to be understood and even worse, it is not documented.

I'm currently shooting Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800E and I have not missed a single shot due to the video function and it fact I have not even shot a video so far with any of them. The old MLU burried in menues on the Canon argument...Yes it is true, but it is much better to shoot in live view and there is a button for it when you would need MLU!! MLU is not needed any more. Same on the Nikon btw. There is understandably a lot of conservatism in camera design and neither Canon nor Nikon can change their design dramatically from one model to the next or their customers would object. But I too get annoyed about bad design. One glaring one is on the D800 in live view. Why do I need to wait for the shot or shots to be written to the memory card(s) before I can take it out of LV? Or get into LV? On the 5D3 all is written to the buffer and you can go in and out LV immediately. I find very few things on the 5D3 to be annoying, only the sensor is a lower standard than the Nikon regarding DR. Resolution is a wash mostly. And why does the LV on the D800 have to stop down to the chosen aperture? There is a DOF preview button to do that when DOF needs to be checked as is the way the Canon works in LV.

Although Mark has a point I think it is a bit overdone and the examples only partially defends his case. I'm surprised he didn't mention one thing that annoyes me more than anything on the Canon and the Nikon: The lack of a true ETTR function. It would be so easy to build into the camera. For landscape shooting the solution would be as simple as: Set the camera at desired aperture and ISO (typically 100) on a tripod. The set the camera in ETTR mode and it would take a shot, analyze the RAW image and do an exposure compensation for a true ETTR shot. On top of that in high DR situations combine this with bracketing around the ETTR exposure and we are done. No more bracketing and exposure compensation and chimping. No more wasted time in looking at the LCD and histograms. We are out for composing and shooting images and not for looking at histograms, right?
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rand47 on November 05, 2013, 08:23:33 am
"Get over it, you Luddites, you'll never see a dedicated stills camera again unless you buy a MF back."

Nikon Df

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 05, 2013, 09:25:31 am
DF is a mish mash of trying to blend old style dials and handling with a D600 back. It looks odd to me.

What Nikon should have done, forget AF just a great manual focus huge viewfinder split image. Cut the controls right down keep it simple, yes shutter speed, ISO and WB.
What we have right now is some confused designer trying to appease old school shooters with a re-packaged D600 in a partial retro body.

I for one am not convinced with the DF
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 05, 2013, 09:55:06 am
DF is a mish mash of trying to blend old style dials and handling with a D600 back. It looks odd to me.

What Nikon should have done, forget AF just a great manual focus huge viewfinder split image. Cut the controls right down keep it simple, yes shutter speed, ISO and WB.
What we have right now is some confused designer trying to appease old school shooters with a re-packaged D600 in a partial retro body.

I for one am not convinced with the DF

They should have packaged a D800 sensor at least
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 05, 2013, 10:06:02 am
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-F3-HP-35mm-film-SLR-professional-camera-body-Boxed-Japan-Grade-A-1587951-/291009851802?pt=UK_Film_Cameras&hash=item43c189f19a

Just buy that!
If you want rugged, simple and back to basics. DF is overloaded with controls
Save yourself the £2300 odd and buy some film.

I'm serious I shoot a bit of film, it's very affordable pay as you go  ::)

I don't actually mind the 16mp sensor.
Bar a few die hards with an extensive range of Nikkor glass, I can't see this doing very well... Rich boys toy




Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rob C on November 05, 2013, 11:30:15 am
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-F3-HP-35mm-film-SLR-professional-camera-body-Boxed-Japan-Grade-A-1587951-/291009851802?pt=UK_Film_Cameras&hash=item43c189f19a

Just buy that!
If you want rugged, simple and back to basics. DF is overloaded with controls
Save yourself the £2300 odd and buy some film.

I'm serious I shoot a bit of film, it's very affordable pay as you go  ::)

I don't actually mind the 16mp sensor.
Bar a few die hards with an extensive range of Nikkor glass, I can't see this doing very well... Rich boys toy




Well, I still have my pristine F3, quite a lot of film in the freezer – both tranny and b/white, but will probably never use any of that stuff again.

My eyes no longer cope with the diopter I bought for it (the F3); the dealership has vanished, water is a scarce, expensive commodity here on the island; processing E6 is a terribly expensive and difficult option now - as far as local pros tell me, you have to post off to Barcelona…

So, what should a new Nikon have offered me?

1.  A body about F3 size, if that’s possible for housing an FF sensor;
2.  dust shaker/remover (the D700 one works very well);
3.  option of using manual or af optics;
4.  auto ISO as per the D700 system which lets you pick what you want for shutter and/or iris;
5.  no video – I never have a desire for it;
6.  interchangeable screens for a real pentaprism;
7.  built-in diopter correction facility as per D700;
8.  a D700 sensor (all I can imagine ever requiring);
9,  full functionality with T/S lenses;
10. Matrix metering as good as the D700 has;
11. spot-metering ability of about 1°;
12. price point of circa £ 1800 to reflect simplicity of product;
13. no built-in flash.

In other words, a very basic camera that allows a photographer to think and make his own decisions without a host of unwanted menu choice, hidden options and nonsense – and no, I don’t need it to tell me where I’m standing – I already know that, and I don’t want ever to have to carry a computer along with me nor any other techie toy. I don’t need any ‘preferences’ buttons - what’s to prefer to simplicity? Pro studio snappers don’t need this camera: they have plenty of others to which they can tether to their heart’s content.

Making a picture is so bloody simple; why did that have to become so confused with marketing, boasting, and everything other than the making of pictures? Didn’t use to be.

Rob C

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on November 05, 2013, 01:15:25 pm

Making a picture is so bloody simple; why did that have to become so confused with marketing, boasting, and everything other than the making of pictures? Didn’t use to be.

Rob C

Quoted for truth
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on November 05, 2013, 01:23:38 pm
Truth? No boasting back in the Golden Age and human nature has suddenly changed? :-)
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rob C on November 05, 2013, 03:24:03 pm
Truth? No boasting back in the Golden Age and human nature has suddenly changed? :-)




Always the debating extremist, Isaac?

Photography has become like the sports industry. Once, you bought a pair of tennis shoes/sandshoes/plimsolls and a wooden racket, went to the local tennis courts and played a little tennis. Now, unless your kids are shod in the hip trainer of the day, they won't even go out into the street; what Mum and Dad have to wear in order to appear in sports club public is something quite else, too. It has to be accompanied by the Range Rover etc. etc. et-bloody-cetera; tennis? Are you crazy?

I remember something from my youth, when I was an engineering apprentice and just starting to discover the magic of the camera first-hand. I wasn't in the works camera club at the time, but knew one of the guys who was, a mountain climber with a great collection of slides of the Cuillins(?) that were very pretty to look at, especially on a hand-held little slide viewer during T-breaks on the factory floor. I mentioned in passing that I'd love a Hasselblad and he almost fainted, telling me that if I was a member of the club and showed up with one, I'd be laughed out of the room as being a nutter. How things change, how the emphasis shifts to charade...

Yes, the odd braggart was ever with us, but today he's the norm, and in photography it's much about the gear and what it costs, the more the better.

Rob C
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on November 05, 2013, 04:25:52 pm
Always the debating extremist, Isaac?

Always willing to laugh at your jokes :-)

... if I was a member of the club and showed up with one, I'd be laughed out of the room as being a nutter.

Inverted snobbery isn't new either.

Yes, the odd braggart was ever with us, but today he's the norm, ...

Perhaps more visible but not more prevalent.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 05, 2013, 05:17:43 pm
I have to agree with Rob's analogy with sports.
He's right on target, we might not like it but it's how the camera industry has changed so much over the years.

Half the junk we have on cameras nowadays, isn't needed or that important a very few bits are are handy but much of it is just marketing.
The industry has flogged the pixel pumping aspect to death and done it so well some folks are starting to think hmm maybe 24mp isn't really enough..can't wait to buy the 36mp APS-C sensor when it comes out or the 50mp FF one. We'll soon have 4k capable cameras shoved out there too, and people will buy them just as new shooters lapped up the D3200, marketing works so do big numbers.

Nikon's mistake here was to try to merge new tech with old rather than go for a really simple manual focus camera, with a cracking split image viewfinder. They just didn't have the guts to pull it off. Some would say that would limit it's appeal, but the DF right now is very limited in appeal anyway purely on it's slightly insane price, this is no mass market product, so what harm having a basic FF camera with MF and only the bare essentials.

It's a shame as the teaser ads led me to think Nikon were thinking minimal on this, evidently not though. They just shoved a D600 with a 16mp sensor into a "kind of" retro looking (in parts) body. That's not really very exciting IMO

Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on November 05, 2013, 07:06:51 pm

I'm currently shooting Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800E and I have not missed a single shot due to the video function and it fact I have not even shot a video so far with any of them. The old MLU burried in menues on the Canon argument...Yes it is true, but it is much better to shoot in live view and there is a button for it when you would need MLU!! MLU is not needed any more.
Except when in live view the camera sets shutter speed to a 1/30th even if you are intending on using a slower speed. Very annoying, but there is a solution (http://www.eos-network.com/2011/05/shutter-speed-settings-and-live-view/).
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: jjj on November 05, 2013, 07:26:30 pm
So, what should a new Nikon have offered me?

1.  A body about F3 size, if that’s possible for housing an FF sensor;
The new Sony A7r (http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7/) is pretty darn small and FF.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Rob C on November 06, 2013, 06:17:57 am
Rob, the point is why should I care?

I don't judge image makers by what they say or what they use or what they spend, that’s the la-di-da. The thing that grabs my interest is what they do.




And that, Keith, is a good point just made.

I don't care either, and I have avoided 'clubs' all my life, but I do care that it's the reason why the simple, basic, and totally user-friendly camera that I would like doesn't exist any longer.

I'm on the mailing list for Grays of Westminster, from whom I buy the odd thing with a lot of confidence, ever since the local wholesaler died the death. Today, they sent me the bumff for the new Nikon and I was aghast! The top plate is even more intimidating than the D700 and, I would think, far more open to mistakes. And the front elevation is plain ugly. What a dumb product (and disappointment) from an admired manufacturer.

Rob C
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: barryfitzgerald on November 06, 2013, 07:03:10 am
We can't do much about it, but it is a disappointment.
It's not even remotely a digital FM2, that camera was a solid, simple to use reliable camera with the essentials needed but nothing more.

DF is just a D600 with a 16mp sensor shoved into some retro attempt body (attempt being the word it's far from refined), with a normal Nikon DSLR back/controls.
I think it's quite sad the company could get it so wrong on this one and I can understand the disappointment from many.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: telyt on November 06, 2013, 10:16:18 am
We can't do much about it, but it is a disappointment.
It's not even remotely a digital FM2, that camera was a solid, simple to use reliable camera with the essentials needed but nothing more.

DF is just a D600 with a 16mp sensor shoved into some retro attempt body (attempt being the word it's far from refined), with a normal Nikon DSLR back/controls.
I think it's quite sad the company could get it so wrong on this one and I can understand the disappointment from many.

The teaser campaign was the clue.  A good product doesn't need hype.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: amolitor on November 06, 2013, 11:21:37 am
Plenty of people have wanted a cheaper stripped down D4, and that's pretty much what this thing is. It happens to come in a retro package, but if you set that aside and look at the list of features, the price is about right.

It's possible Nikon is testing to see if they should simply change their styling to something more distinctive. Every camera maker is in the mode of trying to figure out how they can capture as big a slice as possible of the market that will be around in 2 or 3 years, which will look quite a bit different from the market of 2-3 years ago. It's Enthusiasts and Professionals now, the moms and casual people who just want nice pictures are basically gone. Their phones make nice pictures now.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on November 06, 2013, 12:28:09 pm
I have to agree with Rob's analogy with sports.

To be charitable, I read Rob's sketch as an intentional Four Yorkshiremen parody.


It's Enthusiasts and Professionals now, the moms and casual people who just want nice pictures are basically gone. Their phones make nice pictures now.

If you're close enough (http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-graying-of-traditional-photography.html?showComment=1383097984098#c746810578841493996) --

Quote
The phrase that describes the most important segment of the DSLR community is: “soccer mom”. ... The three reasons parents buy high end cameras is telephoto reach, low light capability, and the ability to quickly focus on their children when they are jumping a hurdle or scoring a goal.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Justinr on November 06, 2013, 01:32:34 pm
Alas it's the way of the world with the computer having caused mayhem amongst the formerly straight forward and simple everywhere you look. Take the humble tractor, they didn't change much (OK, there were variations on the theme) from Mr Ferguson's system tractor of 1937 'til around a decade ago when the dreaded IT got seriously involved with yield mapping and so on. Now take a look at this, the agricultural equivalent of the D4 - www.claas.co.uk/xerion5000-4500 (http://www.claas.co.uk/products/tractors/xerion5000-4500).

A cool $400,000 will buy you a new one and not only do you get 500+hp but automatic everything including steering and implement control. Naturally all the parameters can be set and recorded on the onboard computer as well as instantly being relayed to the farm office. Indeed, many machines now alert the dealer to a problem or service requirement before the farmer himself knows about it!

How much of this will be used in the field? Some of it, but along with information overload comes complexity too baffling to be used efficiently by anyone other than the guys who designed it. Just like digital photography then.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on November 06, 2013, 03:33:07 pm
I must say I am impressed by the length of the discussion threads following Mark Dubuvoys essays.
So - something about them can't be totally wrong when he manages to pinpoint and hit the neuralgic points of the community so effectively.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on November 06, 2013, 04:35:14 pm
...along with information overload comes complexity too baffling to be used efficiently by anyone other than the guys who designed it. Just like digital photography then.

Please provide some examples of people too baffled by the AUTO or P setting on their camera.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Justinr on November 06, 2013, 05:06:27 pm
Please provide some examples of people too baffled by the AUTO or P setting on their camera.

If you are relying purely on AUTO or P then the chances are you are not using a D4.
Title: Re: Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity
Post by: Isaac on November 06, 2013, 05:26:58 pm
My pure guess is that the chances are a DSLR user is not using a D4 ;-)

I was trying to make it easier, do you have any examples of people baffled by their camera?