Mark Dubovoy's essay on Divergence & Simplicity

[Isaac]

I, for one, would be happy to pay a premium to my camera manufacturer to remove any video option. That is right, I would be willing to pay more to get less. Because less is more.

Convergence follows the precept less is more because common elements are used to provide more functionality -- both still and video on the same sensor, on the same battery, in the same case, ...

Less chance of confusion with a more explicit slogan -- Less, but better

More chance of understanding within an explicit context -- Flexibility-Usability tradeoff

Within that context, we can understand kencameron's comment on the opportunity to explore different features as he loses interest in some things and become interested in others.

"When an audience can clearly anticipate its needs, more specialized designs that target those needs will be favored. When an audience cannot clearly define its future needs, more flexible designs that enable people to address future contingencies will be favored."

Two years ago with my new camera, I only used jpg functionlity; now I only use raw. How I use the camera has changed, and the camera has accomodated that changing usage.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Convergence follows the precept less is more...

All I can say, Isaac, is that less of your semantic hairsplitting would be significantly more for me.

[Isaac]

I am sorry that you don't understand what the slogans you use mean.


Compact cameras offer greater convergence, video is on the mode dial and uses the same shutter button as photos. The puzzle is why that simple successful design isn't used on all DSLRs? For cameras with a drive mode menu, video would seem a sensible drive mode.

Perhaps the manufacturers are firmly convinced that DSLR buyers are totally feature-focused and want lots of obvious buttons so that they can easily brag their new gear does so much more stuff :-)