That exactly is the problem. This camera appears to be a kind of worst of two worlds: All the old dials plus all the new buttons. Add a $2500+ price tag and I have no clue why anybody would want that.
There is a reason why old cameras needed to have a myriad of dials for all functions: It was the only technologically possible way to do it. And there is also a reason why newer cameras have all these extra buttons: Durable, quality touch screens weren't invented yet and also any kind of screen drained way to much battery. So they added buttons.
We are beyond this. It's perfectly possible to have all the settings in the world adjusted via a touch screen and nothing more. Sure, sometimes you'll want a dial, for example I need one to adjust the shutter speed or to browse through the pictures on the card. It's simply quicker. So I think a few user configurable dials and buttons are definitely a good idea.
The solution would have been so, so simple: Take a F2, remove all the clutter and really reduce it to the purest form of the design. That would pretty much be a rather rectangular form with the signature prism on top. You machine this out of aluminum and add some vulcanite/leatherette. Slap a non-italics "Nikon" logo on it. Add two metal dials on top. Add another two small dials in front of, and behind the shutter. Very large touchscreen. D-Pad and a three four dedicated buttons on the back. Full frame sans bayer inside. You're done.
It’s my view that the entire reason one might desire a ‘retro’ styled camera is simply to get rid of the additional stuff that digital introduced.
All any competent shooter needs is a focus ring on the lens, an aperture ring on the lens, a shutter speed control on the camera and, courtesy the digital revolution, a simple, non-menu method of selecting ISO and auto ISO.
The pentaprism should display the exposure bar as currently done, and that would obviate the need for any additional thing such a + or – dial because you do it in the prism with your left hand on the diaphragm ring. Considering how often one changes shooting/viewing position relative to the subject’s lighting, setting a mechanical control into a ‘permanent’ + or – is a nonsense: you easily forget and over/under expose all that follows should you fail to remember what you’ve set that’s different to the meter’s opinion.
Frankly, I’ve found the Nikon’s matrix to be so accurate that I no longer chimp. There’s no need. (And that from a guy who always incident light metered everything obsessively. I even bought my Nikon F2 as a Photomic, in hope, and never used the favour after the first battery died.)
Live View is not in the nature of the person for whom this sort of camera would have been designed.
Another poster in a similar thread mentioned that Polaroid was a kind of early alternative to the rear screen of contemporary cameras, providing a great way of learning photography by instant checking of mistakes; Polaroid didn’t work like that, it had other professional uses, and one of the worst aspects of Polaroid was its intrusion into the creative flow of a session. Polaroid was the darling of the fussing art director who made his presence valued by his determination to inspect what was going down at any given moment. Any guy shooting upmarket already knew how to light, what he was likely to be getting from his exposures. Polaroid simply didn’t look like your film looked. That was why having a break between the shoot and getting the trannies back didn’t help or hinder a thing. There was no need to see them in order to know what was what.
Rob C
