Appeal for Divergence and Simplicity

[peterpix]

Every single camera that takes a medium format digital back.

Yeah and probably that's less than one percent of photographers.

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[jjj]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[jjj]

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....

[Colorado David]

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?

[Isaac]

... 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!

[Rhossydd]

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.

[dreed]

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
... and that doesn't include microphone boom.

When motion of the video camera is required, they're put on dollies:
Alexa on a dolly:

And a 3D rig:
Alex on BX3

This helps put into correct perspective Canon 5D Mark II's being used like this:
Shoulder rig for 5D Mark II

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
... 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.

[barryfitzgerald]

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.

[Colorado David]

I sense that there is a market for an add-on button cover.  Maybe I should pitch it to Really Right Stuff.

[Isaac]

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

[BJL]

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.

[MarkL]

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.

[John Camp]

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.

[Richowens]

John,
 If you had simply passed on the GX7...................did you really need it?

Rich

[Isaac]

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 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".)

[G*]

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.

[kencameron]

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.