New Product Diversity

<p>One thing that I find boring about the digital age in cameras is that it has drastically reduced the diversity of products.<br>

All the cameras look the same, like a blob of plastic, sometimes oversized and unwieldly. Photo magazines discuss only digital - little or nothing is said of film photography. At least when film cameras were still being produced there was a diversity of products ranging in different formats (35 mm and MF and Large Format) and including manual cameras as well as autofocus. If I prefer a simple manual digital camera today without autofocus, I can't buy one - I have to make do with an autofocus camera. If I prefer a rangefinder camera I must either have a digital leica, which is very expensive, or else opt for a film camera. That is one of the reasons I was impressed with the Panasonic G1 - at least it was something different. Any camera you buy today is ready to be retired or worthless and junked in a couple of years. Anyone have a comment about this.</p>

<p>your sentiments match my own.</p>

<p>When buying digital I looked high and low for a digital "equivalent" of my OM (albeit with auto-focus).<br>

Have you seen how many buttons and menus and sub-menus and sub-sub-menus there are on the Olympus E-series cameras? wtf??<br>

The digital leicas look great. But when talking digital, there is no image-quality factor involved in choosing one above any other digital camera.<br>

It would be great if Olympus (for example) had the guts to re-design the DSLR and strip it right down to the basics. They need somebody to design the software and "front-end".<br>

They might want to look at how apple can streamline an interface for those that don't want to operate bloated, ghastly software.</p>

<p>DSLRs are just horrible.</p>

<p>I would love to have a Contax G2 in digital. The lenses for it are excellent and it would be nice to have this small portable package in digital. No dummies mode, no added plug in to direct print stuff. Just the basic camera, AutoFocus for old eyes getting older each year and a small package with top glass and clean digital images I can work with.<br>

Can it be done without costing $4-8 thousand dollars?</p>

<p>John, I think that the answer lies more in the realm of commerce and marketing than it does in the needs of photography. A manufacturer of any product; from high-end cameras to broiler chickens isn't going to spend much resource on what they think a niche market customer wants. They are going to present to the public what they feel the public will part with their money for.</p>

<p>With a sizable chunk of the public given to a herd mentality, it is no wonder why products all look alike. It is the very same thing as most popular music sounding alike. Give the masses what they think they want, and what they think they want is exactly what you tell them is the current fashion of the hour.</p>

<p>Twas ever thus.</p>

<p>Variations on this topic occur on photo.net over and over again. We are experienced and somewhat obsessive photographers, and we say that what we want in a camera is simplicity. But it's a kind of simplicity that comes from our years of understanding of what photography is about. No camera maker will ever make his fortune catering to our rather specialised needs.<br>

On the other hand, what Joe Public wants is his idea of a simple camera - which means the user interface is simple, though the camera may be far from. And Joe Public outnumbers us by a considerable margin.</p>

<p>You want "simple" in a DSLR?<br>

Simple.<br>

Set the White Balance to AUTO. Set the Mode Dial to AUTO. Set the autofocus to S-AF. Set the flash to AUTO. Press the shutter button.</p>

 

<p>^^^FAIL^^^<br>

in the sense photographers here are using the word, simple does <b>not</b> mean automatic.</p>

<p>Yes, auto everything is not the kind of simple I'm talking about.</p>

<p>If only. ISO dial, shutter speed dial, aperature control on the lens (as it should be!), maybe one or two metering mode options on/off switch and your done. Okay realistically you'd want at least a simple review button and left/right buttons to review taken images. Considering storage space why offer an on camera delete? Also why raw or jpeg or raw + jpeg, set the default to raw + jpeg and for the jpeg have auto WB set, you can manipulate the raw later if you want. Maybe an autofocus point selector and/or autofocus setting (servo, etc)<br>

When it comes down to it I think if a camera manufacturer were willing to take the risk you could basically design something like the OM-1 (asthetically) with the addition of a back LCD and maybe 4-5 buttons on the back/top with 0 menus and all of the important settings controlled by knobs/dials.</p>

<p>John A, You are hardly alone on this matter. The very reason why i like the G1. </p>

<p>Not perfect but it is refreshingly different than the rest out there.</p>

<p>All of my cameras are simple. I turn off the convenience features and work with them the same way I worked with my Nikon F3T/FE2/FM and Leica Ms for 20+ years.</p>

<p>All of my cameras have a unique personality. From the svelte and chunky shape of the E-1 to the crisp, boxy lines of the L1 to the small, almost dinky, slightly cluttered feel of the G1. </p>

<p>None of my cameras are obsolete. Despite the E-1 being a 2003 model, the L1 being a 2006 model and the G1 being a 2008 model, they all continue to produce excellent photographs. </p>

<p>What's to complain about?</p>

<p>"Set the White Balance to AUTO. Set the Mode Dial to AUTO. Set the autofocus to S-AF. Set the flash to AUTO."</p>

<p>Set the shutter speed. Set the aperture. Focus. If simplicity lies in fewer steps, the very act of setting the DLSR to auto takes more steps than actually taking a photograph with an OM-1. Now there's something to think about.</p>

<p>I often manual focus manual meter K20D (two of my lenses are manual and I prefer that operation for portraits) . Huge prism viewfinder and APS's larger-than 4/3 format makes focus in low light as easy as with the best SLR (Canon F1). Pentax's pancake lenses make this stainless-steel body camera fairly compact, if Canon F1-heavy. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Patrick, </p>

<p>That's a dumb argument. </p>

<p>You will make the auto settings just once and leave them there. They don't change when you turn the camera on and off.</p>

<p>So the auto operation, once the auto configuration is set up just once, is "switch on, press shutter release" where the manual camera operation, every time, is "switch on, check metering, make adjustments, focus, press shutter release". The auto camera is definitely simpler and faster to operate on average, shot to shot. </p>

<p>Just my thoughts but couldnt you just not use the menu i mean for all the in depth dummie settings i cant speak for other cameras but my Olympus has all the major functions on the camera they are not knobs but function the same way then one button to review your shot and back to work.Sometimes i think we make it more compicated than it really seems to be </p>

<p>Amber</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any camera you buy today is ready to be retired or worthless and junked in a couple of years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no need to throw them away or stop using them. Unless you let yourself being pushed by the hype of the megapixel wars.</p>

<p>But don't get me wrong, I do feel sort of the same way as you do. Back in the 80's and 90's there was a big difference between cameras and brands. Even between medium format cameras, a Hasselblad was a very different thing than a Mamiya RB67. A Leica M6 was so different from the first Canon AF cameras. Those were really interesting times for photography. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I prefer a simple manual digital camera today without autofocus, I can't buy one - I have to make do with an autofocus camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I also often visit the past and set my digital camera up for manual operation. I put on one of my old OM lenses (zoom or straight), inclusive of the MF-adapter. I'm now forced to shoot without AF. The shutter speed and lens opening are set to manual and viola! You have a digital manual camera setup. And the AF can be turned off if using a digital lens... I'm not impressed with the manual focus of some digital lenses. And I wish they would add a split image to the viewfinder/prism... gee, I miss that. </p>

<p>Most better quality DSLRs make split image screens available.</p>

<p>IMO it's better to think in terms of photography than in terms of toys.</p>

<p>For some people cameras might be toys, for others like myself, they are the tools with which I pay the mortgage and put food on the table. I do not disregard the importance of these tools. I find myself far from fondling my cameras and lenses, instead I put them to work; each one of them serve a specific purpose as there is no camera that can do everything well. The right choice of camera and lens can make a big difference in the end result of a photography assignment, therefore diversity helps. Life is also much more interesting when we have a wider selection to choose from and I see nothing wrong with it.</p>

<p>John, </p>

<p>I think you're out of touch. I haven't seen an OEM focusing screen with split image rangefinder available from anyone for a DSLR at all. Third parties are offering them for some bodies. </p>

<p>The one thing I'm surprised no one has mentioned here goes back to a "rule" I was taught way back in the very late '70's when I was working part time in a camera store to support my addiction to my brand new Nikon FE. The first rule of photography for Boris Spremo was "treat film as though its free". Keep on shooting and shooting and learning and practicing. For professionals who can always write off the costs this has always been possible. But for someone just starting out in the business or a dedicated amateur, it was never realistic.<br>

With digital, film is free. I can shoot hundreds of photos now with my E-510 without thinking of anything but the learning experience. The money I'm not spending on film and processing has allowed me a freedom to grow and learn in photography that I never had in my youth. I'm just glad I still have the imagination to explore the potential digital has.<br>

There will always be fans of film. I was very late to make the jump myself but after seeing the results of my first digital trip to Europe in 2005 I came home, traded in all the Nikon equipment that had served me well for 27 years for my first olympus digital and have never looked back.<br>

I occassionally do miss the responsiveness and feel of my manual focus Nikon (which I was comfortable enough with to not understand the need for autofocus) but my Olympus is just as sturdy and durable and offers me so much more freedom to be creative. And you what? I occassionally miss the "Brownie" that came before that Nikon too. But I'm not going back to that either.</p>

<p>The one thing I'm surprised no one has mentioned here goes back to a "rule" I was taught way back in the very late '70's when I was working part time in a camera store to support my addiction to my brand new Nikon FE. The first rule of photography for Boris Spremo was "treat film as though its free". Keep on shooting and shooting and learning and practicing. For professionals who can always write off the costs this has always been possible. But for someone just starting out in the business or a dedicated amateur, it was never realistic.<br>

With digital, film is free. I can shoot hundreds of photos now with my E-510 without thinking of anything but the learning experience. The money I'm not spending on film and processing has allowed me a freedom to grow and learn in photography that I never had in my youth. I'm just glad I still have the imagination to explore the potential digital has.<br>

There will always be fans of film. I was very late to make the jump myself but after seeing the results of my first digital trip to Europe in 2005 I came home, traded in all the Nikon equipment that had served me well for 27 years for my first olympus digital and have never looked back.<br>

I occassionally do miss the responsiveness and feel of my manual focus Nikon (which I was comfortable enough with to not understand the need for autofocus) but my Olympus is just as sturdy and durable and offers me so much more freedom to be creative. And you what? I occassionally miss the "Brownie" that came before that Nikon too. But I'm not going back to that either.</p>

<p>I started out with Leica rangefinder cameras more than fifty years ago, and still like the concept, but I can't justify the cost of a Leica M8. My solution was to equip my Oly E-510 with a Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/28mm lens, set the selector to Aperture-preferred, and I have a fairly simple digital camera with great glass. Sure, focusing could be easier, but it works, and gives me a solution I can live with.</p>

<p>John Kelly wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most better quality DSLRs make split image screens available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please, if you can, show me where I can get a split image rangefinder for the Olympus E-3, E-510, or E-500.</p>