Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity

[G*]

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   

[dreed]

...
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)

[jjj]

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.

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.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

You want simplicity?

Take "sunny 16" + this:

[Alan Klein]

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"? 

[jjj]

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.

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.  
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.

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.

 

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.  

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.

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.

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?

[jjj]

You want simplicity?

Take "sunny 16" + this:

It's f11/f16 here at the moment. Not bad for late October.

[HSway]

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.

[Misirlou]

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.

[Misirlou]

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.

[telyt]

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.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Seems like buying such a simple camera greatly simplifies the content of your purse as well ...

[telyt]

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.

[Misirlou]

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.

[jjj]

There's a category in the Lens Rentals competition designed specifically for the keeping it pure crowd. The category - Best Picture from a Camera without a Movie Mode 

[Isaac]

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 --

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.

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 :-)

[Isaac]

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 ;-)

[jjj]

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! 

[telyt]

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! 

Murphy's Law is precisely why some of us want fewer features.

[ErikKaffehr]

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