Complexity and the DSLR -- how it affects us

I've been using DSLRs now for 6 months (KM 5D, Canon 5D). Both cameras have

what I'd call a high complexity (lots of features, lots of menus, lots of

controls, etc.). The KM menus made a bit more sense to me, but maybe that's my

Minolta heritage talking. Really the cameras pretty much Have to be more

complex because there are so many more things to "set" on the DSLRs that

didn't exist in the film world (iso, white balance, sharpness, etc.).

 

I have always liked simple cameras with elegant interfaces (Leicas, Contax

SLRs, etc). Really the DSLRs have been something of a traumatic shock. However

I am a software engineer, so I've been able to apply enough careful study to

both cameras to use them effectively. I find you have to continually go back

and restudy the manual in order to just remember what the controls do and how

to find them when you need them. And I find I spend significantly more of my

photographic time when shooting fussing with the camera instead of thinking

about the shots.

 

So do you all have a similar experience? Do you find yourself spending more

study time when not shooting to master the hardware, and do you spend more

time on site working the machine then you used to with film bodies? If so, do

you think that is bad or good? If bad, what do you think the chances are that

future DSLRs will find smoother ways to integrate the features?

 

Remember, there is such a thing as superior UI design. I think the Minolta

600si when it debuted was pretty much acknowledged as an "easier" camera to

use than my previous 7xi. I still have a couple of 600si bodies and I liked

them a lot. Maybe there is a way to configure the controls of some future DSLR

so that the features are easier to use and more intuitive. What do you think?

I use a Canon 5D and have zero problem with complexity. Granted I don't use many of the advanced features as I shoot mostly landscapes and use many of the manual modes. I like the fact that all the other options are available to me, but you are right, I would have to study the manual to use some of the more advanced features, but that is not really any different than a regular advanced SLR. I don't know that your point has anything to do with digital - my Nikon F5 has features that I would have to look up as well.

If you know how to ignore the features that you dont need like I do,

 

Any dslr on the market today would be easy to use.

I actually find the digital point and shoots, even the expensive, highly advanced ones, to be more complex to operate than my DSLRs. There's just not enough surface space on a P&S to accomodate the controls, and there's a race to see how many "features" can be crammed into each camera, so there's buttons and menus everywhere.

 

Give me a SLR, digtial or film, anyday. At least I don't have to put on my reading glasses to use it!

I don't require very much complexity with my photography in terms of settings available. The only thing I change with any sort of regularity is ISO. Coming in second would be drive mode (multi-shot or timer).

 

Other than that, I mostly ignore WB as I shoot RAW all of the time. So I guess I relegate some of what you may do in the field to time in front of the PC. It's probably not a whole lot more time as I only mess with the WB on shots I'm either going to post online or print. I have little to no use (right now) for different AF modes or metering modes.

 

There seems to be a tendency in some people to want to "use" every option available to them. I tend to be this way with lenses (hauling around more than I really need). For others it's in-camera options.

 

I really enjoy having all these options available to me. But I think it's important to try and keep things simple when shooting and so I strive towards that. Lots of failures along the way, but as with everything, it's a process of learning.

There is only as much camera complexity as you care to involve yourself with.

 

White balance and sharpness? Shoot RAW. Dial in White Balance later. Or, don't. When you

shot film, you accepted the color temperature that was recorded on the film. To me, that

was part of the character of film. Unless i have to record 'flat,' neutral color balance, i

don't. Sharpness. Set it once and then forget it, just like most of the other 'features' and

menu items. Sharpen your images in Photoshop, as needed. No different than a film scan.

 

ISO control is the one item i truly welcome on a DSLR. Nothing complex about it.

 

I really don't even know about "advanced features." If i don't think about them, i don't try

to use them. I pretty much stick with the same controls i use on a film camera. Maybe one

custom function - i dunno. Read the manual once, set up your camera, and then use it the

way you want to.

After a few months of using professional DSLR's, I had pretty much settled in. My shooting method really boils down all the complexity until the only extra thing I worry about is the ISO. When I shoot, I mostly use aperture prioty mode (unless I am doing a long exposure or something), so for each shot I am thinking about the aperture, the exposure compensation, and the ISO. Since I shoot raw, I don't have to worry about anything else (sharpness, white balance, contrast, ) until post processing in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. So I have found that I actually spend a lot less time fiddling around with the settings on my camera than when I used film. Even changing a memory card is way simpler than changing a roll of film. I do think however, that most, if not all, cameras come with wayy to many 'features.' For me, all that matters is a nice sensor, a nice lens, and a decent metering system. I even keep my autofocusing point right in the center most of the time except when shooting really wide or shooting action. That way I can focus on the thing I want then move it around in the frame after holding the shutter button halfway down, ensuring that only the thing I want to be in focus has the best focus.

I'm certainly not saying we have to understand every exotic feature in the menus. When I say I need to study, I mean that I need to study just to remember where the card formatter is and how to set the iso, etc. In other words, the features I DO use. And you're also right my Minolta 7xi was definitely one mega-complex SLR. DSLRs are a little worse because they contain more features, but I certainly didn't mean to exclude film from that complexity problem.

 

I would say though that the simplest DSLR today (used in some mode other than program) tends to be fairly complex. I don't think anyone could just pick up a DSLR for the first time and expect to use it without studying the manual. I did that very thing though with countless film cameras and rarely had a problem (the Minolta 7xi being an exception).

 

Another difference this all makes to me is that I find it hard to switch to the Konica Minolta 5D from the Canon, or even back forth to my Leica rangefinder, because without the constant practice with the particular DSLR I forget some of the intricasies of the DSLR. It's kind of like an F22 pilot needing constant practice with the cockpit -- something a Cessna 172 pilot might not need so much of.

Hand-held meter, camera in manual, take a reding and press the shutter=ZERO complexity...

 

The ADDED advantage of a (some) DSLR is that they can be adjusted for precise WB, something that once had to be done ny using CC filters (I know, I had dozens of those). A DSLR also gives you instant feedback and will allow you to experiment without worrying about film costs.

 

If you did your own darkromm work you can also add all that into the equation, etc...

 

The fact that some DSRL may offer many options one doesn't need it's not a matter of complexity. It's a matter of flexibily. We, the users, ask for those features. Each model is basically designed for a certain user group: a 1D MKIII will have far more Custom Functions than a 400D. Now, if one decides to buy a 1D MKIII, for example, and one is overwhelmed by its level of programmability, who's to blame?

 

Most, if not all, DSRL can be used the old fashioned way...full manual control.

<<. When I say I need to study, I mean that I need to study just to remember where the card formatter is and how to set the iso, etc. In other words, the features I DO use>>

 

Perhaps this is due to the fact that I first had a Canon A80 point and shoot, but I found the transition to the 350D fairly seamless. I've not had to study the manual, except when I wanted to confirm a custom function. The 5D is a different beast though and I've had only a few minutes experience with one.

 

Your experience may be more about your learning process than how complex current DSLR's actually are.

<i>I don't think anyone could just pick up a DSLR for the first time and expect to use it without studying the manual.</i>

 

<p>I did this with the Canon 10D, and later with a Canon 1D MkII, and expect to do it with the MkIII. What I found disturbing wasn't any complexity, but the fact that there was such a large difference in interface between the 10D and the 1D2. But even with that, I only had to check into the manual on the meaning of a few items found in the menus (e.g., custom functions). I think it's been 18 months since I've needed the manual. I'm not even sure where it is...

 

<p>That all said, I still think there are significant problems with the user-interfaces on Canon's cameras. Too much useless stuff present, useful stuff is not there. A lot of these would be simple firmware updates, so has essentially no cost to implement, at least when spread over the number of units manufactured.

Can't say I have a problem and the camera I used before this was a fully manual Canon Ftb.

 

Before the camera arrived I read the manual through from a downloaded copy. When I had the camera in my hands I tried everything out with the manual in front of me reproducing what the manual did and experimenting. There was a period of consolidation for a couple of months but I had most of it down with a few weeks.

 

It might help that I shoot RAW so things like colour temperature I do in PP.

I started with a pair of 1V-HS film bodies, sold one of them and bought a 1Ds. It was a

simple transition as the ergonomics had not changed, so my shooting style and menu

buttons essentially remained the same. But, you have to admire the simplicity of a Leica M.

Shutter speed in full stops increments, and aperture in half. Thats it-nothing else to

interfere with the process of image making.

On the one hand, there is the complexity surrounding a camera that possesses a lot of

features. Then there is the requirement to recall the settings you change seldom or often.

Which is why I made a small cheat-sheet checklist. Little reminders that save a lot of

headaches like when I?ve shot a series of pictures, put the camera away, then suddenly

remember that I should have changed a setting that would have improved things immensely.

It can be something as simple as turning IS off after you have mounted the camera to a

tripod. Or other such gotcha.

I think this complexity is part of the experience. Digital photography seems process-oriented (rather than image-oriented). One can fiddle with the thing for days on end, isn't that what a hobby is all about?

 

More seriously, I think the technology is not good enough yet. For example, when the car starters were not reliable enough, cars had a hole for the crank; now this extra way of "controlling" the car is happily forgotten. Likewise, when I press the shutter of my film EOS with Provia in it, I know the results will be good (unless it gets lost in the mail to/from the lab). With my 350D, based on 6 months experience, they will mostly be awful - but there's a lot of buttons to at least take my mind off it.

My 5D seems pretty straight forward to me. Of course I've been using EOS since 1990 so

most things were second nature. However I bought a point 'n shoot last year, a Canon SD700

IS. Now that sucker is confusing. Controls are tiny, with tiny labels and most features are

hidden deep within a system of menus. The 5D is a walk in the park in comparison.

 

But yeah, every once in a while I run a roll 'o chrome through my FM3A. It's as easy as falling

off a log. Plus no post-processing needed.

I'm hoping that the cockpit of a modern fighter becomes second nature to our fighter pilots, but that doesn't mean the instruments can't be improved. That doesn't mean the instruments are not complex.

 

I'm willing to consider that maybe the current cameras are pretty much as intuitive as anyone can think of a way to make them given the feature load. I'm getting that some you don't think this is a problem that needs a solution. For those of you who do think things could be better, is the answer fewer features or more untuitive ways to access them? We've all seen radical concept automobiles with different "user interfaces" for the driver. What sort of revolutionary (or evolutionary) change could make it possible for anyone to just pick it up and use it?

I read the manual, set the custom functions to my liking, turned off AF, set WB to 5000 (like daylight balanced film), ignore the features I don't have a use for, and pretty much operate my DSLRs just like any 35mm SLR I've used (Nikon FM2n my favorite).

I treat my 10D like my T-90 on aperture priority. I have yet to open the manual that came with the 10D. The P&S is another matter, however. Seems like it should be the other way around.

My first SLR was a Canon EOS 10s in 1990, I read the manual, went out and tried things out, waited for the film to come back and did it again. I felt it was my learning curve, not the complexity of the camera.

 

When it wore out, it was replaced by a EOS 3 in 2004. I started using it right away, but read the manual as I went. I never did use or care to use some of the features of the camera. I found it to be both the most complex and most capable camera I've had or used.

 

Two years later, 06, I got the EOS 5D. I felt like it was far less complex than the EOS 3 and the first camera that felt "right" I read

through the manual, but the buttons, commands and everything seem very easy and logical (except for MLU as some have complained about). Some of that may be because at this point I was probably pretty indoctrinated into the Canon system.

 

Are there things that could be better? Of course. For instance I'd prefer a programmable view finder because most of the time I'd like to see ISO, Shutter, Aperture and +/- compensation. It is VERY rare that I care at all about the buffer.

 

Like DN said above, I actually find the various P&S's much more frustrating and hard to use. Toggling thru menu after menu, on those lcd screens and with their weird terminology etc. I end up just wanting to throw them at something...because I know, if I just had my 5D I could have changed the lens, got the shot in vertical, horizontal and 3 different apertures in the time it took me to figure out how to get the flash to work or not (if my frustration is showing, it is because today I had to take some photos at work with a Nikon P&S:)

Boy, am I glad to hear some of these responses about P&Ss. I went Rebel>Elan>A2>1N1>10D>20D, so it was a shallow learning curve, but my A540 has got more crap to fiddle with...

Complexity is what you make of it. . and what you expect out of the camera.

 

If you treat your dSLR as a film P&S (take pictures as JPEGS, and give it to Walmart for printing). . then a dSLR is just as simple as a film P&S. Afterall, you can put the camera (most of them) on "green square", with JPEG, and 80% of your shots will be *perfect*.

 

The problem is that in a $1100 camera with a $1200 lens attached. . . . .you expect better than 80% of your shots as "perfect"

 

That's where the complexity sets in. And it is not the camera. . it is the post processing. Last fall, I was helping someone with a xmas post card photo. I started saturating this person just by a discussion of "cropping". This person was floored when I started discussing color saturation (do you want that bathing suit Navy Blue or Aquamarine?). Even more floored when I started removing skin blemishes. . . .

 

. . .we spent an hour working up two proofs. So yes. . .it is more complicated now.

I'm not a big fan of my 1Ds II's interface and was glad to see that Canon addressed some of the issues with the new 1D III. For example to "chimp" (replay while scrolling through) images requires two hands (the 20D needs just one) and to "select" something requires "letting go" of a button instead of just pressing it, which isn't terribly intuitive for me. I have a 20D as a backup and the interface is so completely different it's like two different companies made the respective cameras. It's a $ch going back and forth between the two. Personally I don't see this as a "complexity" issue as much as a design "screw-up" for want of a better way to put it. It's as though Canon was trying to protect us from ourselves by making each and every selection ridiculously deliberate with the 1DsII. The 20D has, IMHO, a far better interface but even it could use some tweaking; for example, sometimes selecting the focus point I want with the joystick can be a pita. Just my .02 cent's.

Just quickly. I have been a pilot since 1954. I have flown a lot of airplanes. The heads up display on a Navy F 18 is far more intuitive than my DSLR. I have several hours in the F18 simulator and was functioning with the display in about 20 minutes. Talk about cluttered displays, look at the one on the XTi. I have had, I think because I stopped counting, eight Canon bodies since the 650. I never fully mastered any of them including the D60 I am about to retire. I have gotten by knowing only those functions I use. I did master my all manual Bronicas. Not much to know except how to rapidly load a film back at a wedding and how to use flash fill on a 283. What does confound me is that when I first started printing digital in 2002 I thought it was pretty simple and quick to make a print. I guess I didn't know what I didn't know. Now using photoshop seems exceedingly complex particularly when I am making an exhibition print. Lately I have been yearning for my darkroom. You basically got what the film gave you if you exposed properly. Now I have all this confusing flexibility. My answer is to do as little to a print as possible.

>.The heads up display on a Navy F 18 is far more intuitive than my DSLR.<<

 

I would certainly hope so, for the pilot's sake! ;)

 

However, the 400D is meant for a different typs of use, certainly NOT under the same stress situation as a dog fight. Because most DSLR have limited LCd space they have to cram several info on one page and/or have many sub-menus, etc... There is always room for improvement of course. I had written a suggestion to have an "easy" mode which would only display certain "frequently used" functions.

 

As far as the wet darkroom is concerned I think that to have total control one must have a very good knowledge of photographic chemistry (or at least the various soups) as they relate to each film and the desired results. Ditto for printing. I have done that for over 20 years and I have no desire to go back to it ;) Type of developer, temperature, agitation, etc... all contribute to the final negative/positive image and...there is no turning back either...once it's done, it's done. I much prefer Photoshop now...and I don't have to breathe that smelly, chemical filled air anymore :)