Sunday musings: make the D700 better by throwing out 80% of its features

<p>Built-in flash? Nice, even I admit that. But get rid of it. I don't need this feature. And it blocks some of the PC lenses from shifting all the way up (AFAIK).</p>

<p>Active D-Lighting? I don't care. I can do that on the computer.</p>

<p>JPEG size and quality levels? Really? Can't I do that on the computer? How about just one setting: fine, full resolution. There. Fixed.</p>

<p>Contrast? Sharpness? Saturation? Tone curves? Talk to the hand...</p>

<p>Video is likely to be included in the D700's successor. You can guess my attitude to that.</p>

<p>You know, I'm sure that no matter what the feature, no matter how trivial, someone will jump up and say that they want it. Well, fair enough. YMMV. But for me - and tens of thousands like me - I want a reliable DSLR with no BS. A good DSLR needs only a really good sensor and a few, selected, powerful features which actually make a difference: like an F3 with a few tweaks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Built-in flash? Nice, even I admit that. But get rid of it. I don't need this feature. And it blocks some of the PC lenses from shifting all the way up (AFAIK).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, your understanding is wrong. The D700 does not block any Nikon PC-E lenses from shifting all the way up. The only PC-E lens in question is the 24mm/f3.5, which I own. All of its functionalities are available on the D700. The viewfinder overhang can block certain rotation by 90 degrees, but you can rotate by 90 degrees the other way and achieve exactly the same result.</p>

<p>Don't take the percentage literally, but as people say, perhaps most of us only use like 10% (or 20%) of the camera functionalities; the problem is that each one of us uses a different 10% of the capabilities. Therefore Nikon (and Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc.) needs to provide a lot of different functionalities to make most people happy.</p>

<p>Otherwise, you can ask Nikon to taylor make a camera for your personal needs, but the cost is going to be very high.</p>

<p>Sounds like another vote for a digital FM...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"But for me - and tens of thousands like me..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd bet Nikon's marketing research would pay attention to such a large demographic of actual customers, if it existed.</p>

 

<p>You do not seem to realise that in the days of mechanical camera's features were 'hardware', levers, pins, gears. Every feature needed some space in the camera body and added weight and cost. In modern cameras the features, apart from the flash and video, are in the software of the camera, they add no weight, they need no extra space, the extra cost is minimal. So there is no reason not to add these extras that one day may be useful for somebody. My experience with the D700 is that the features I really need are well accessible, those that I do not need are hidden in the menu structure. It makes absolutely no sense to make a 'stripped' camera. The only thing you could ask of the manufacturer is to make his interface a bit more adaptable, so that you can hide all the features you do not want...</p>

<p>Isn't it the japanese way to provide lots and lots of features, useful or not?<br /> Minimalism is not in the cards and Nikon probably doesn't care about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law">Hick's law</a> - having multiple choices will slow you down.</p>

<p>And <a href=" Law</a> demonstrates that restricting choices may lead to absurdity.</p>

<p>All I know is it is a great camera.</p>

<p>Karim, while I can appreciate your POV, I still think Nikon has it right. We can set these cameras to whatever we want and shoot to our taste. If I want the purist route, I'll still go B&W with my trusty Hasselblads. Once I hit the small bag, I want to setup the features I want and go with it. I want flexibility to setup for special situations and sometimes want the camera to just use it's brain instead of mine, lol.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Active D-Lighting? I don't care. I can do that on the computer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, actually, you can't. Active D-Lighting alters the exposure (usually reducing it slightly) so that post processing will have a better chance at being able to do a decent job with "tone mapping", the "do that on the computer" part of the process.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Video is likely to be included in the D700's successor. You can guess my attitude to that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I can. I "guess" it's pretty similar to your attitude on digital, 5-10 years ago. And your attitude about autofocus and automatic exposure, if you've been in the game as long as I. Actually, I don't need to guess, I've seen your attitude, time and again.</p>

<p>Shun is exactly right. Each of us uses a different subset of a camera's features. I don't find the 9 frame/sec drive system in my D3 to be particularly necessary. And that's a feature that substantially increase the weight, size, complexity, and <strong>cost </strong>of the camera, unlike the features that you named. Even the 5 frame/sec drive system on my D90 is more than I really need.</p>

<p>The features you name are what we call "low hanging fruit". They don't cost much to develop, and they bring in substantial numbers of buyers (your made up "tens of thousands" not withstanding). They don't alter the reliability of the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want a reliable DSLR with no BS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you name a single incident of camera software problems that can be traced to adding the sort of features that you're ranting (call it what it is) about?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A good DSLR needs only a really good sensor and a few, selected, powerful features which actually make a difference: like an F3 with a few tweaks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah. Leica made something sort of like that, with the M8 and M9. Good sensor, a few powerful features, none of what you so insultingly call "BS". From a software standpoint, it was one of the most, if not the most, problematic high end camera released in the last 10 years, with quite buggy software: it actually could lock up, lose images, get images garbled.</p>

<p>Why was that so? Basically, because it was made in such small quantities, tens of thousands, that Leica could not build up a mature, stable software base. Nikon and Canon sell tens of millions (that's a real number, not your tens of thousands of made up supporters) of cameras, and because of that, they have had to learn to write code that's stable enough, even with the "BS" features, to perform well under hard use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lex - I'd bet Nikon's marketing research would pay attention to such a large demographic of actual customers, if it existed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, people like the OP always "create" a large number of like minded people, that they become the "spokesman" for. It's a way of denying the unpleasant reality that their opinions are so off-the-wall that they are essentially alone in their beliefs.</p>

<p>Aside from the already pointed out errors in your rant, I don't see why the few features you want to omit would make the D700 a <strong>better </strong>camera - except for you maybe. Wouldn't it be easier to just ignore the ones you have no use for? So, you don't want to be able to adjust contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc. in camera - I bet there are quite a few who don't want to do this at the computer afterwards (some actually like the straight-out-of-camera approach to photography - though I am not one of them). Personally, I don't see me using the video feature - and I still question why Nikon felt compelled to ever add it to a DSLR - but that ship has sailed so I ignore it (even though I have to pay for it). But by bundling everything in one package, the camera will likely cost less than if there were five models with a different subset of features.</p>

<p>Since this post is more fantasy than reality, I'll have my input:</p>

<p>FF frame in the size of a FM3A with more (not less) features. Panaroma in-camera ala Sony. Art filters/jpeg quality ala Olympus. Long shoulder DR ala Fuji. IBIS ala Sony. No or extreme weak AA filter ala Foveon. a few pancake lenses ala pentax. Priced like a Samsung;)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For me too. Less is more. More of what you don't want make it a lesser camera. To be fair I expect to pay the same price as a regular D700.</p>

<i>To be fair I expect to pay the same price as a regular D700.</i><P>

Actually, you should expect to pay quite a bit more. Rewriting the firmware to eliminate "useless" features and setting up a different production line to build cameras with fewer buttons would cost a lot of money, and those costs would be spread out over relatively few cameras. Of course, Nikon probably won't do anything like this just to satisfy a handful of people on internet forums who claim they would buy one.

<p>Mike's right... ever wonder how the leica corned the M9 market all to itself for like 8k per cam? Just market camera pure essence. And as an added bonus, they don't even have to spend any dough rewriting the "useless" firmware because, uh, they never had any to begin with:)</p>

<p>Seriously though, if nikon is willing to take a risk instead of being their usual conservative self, it might work...FMDigital FF or even aps-c. Steal some flame from the M...Camera nuts and photogs alike are drooling all over the Fuji X100, even at inflated prices. Whether the X100 is actually an awesome camera or not is an after thought of its "back to basic" aura...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I forgot to mention: get rid of the option to shoot 12-bit RAW. I didn't buy this camera to shoot at 12 bits!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, your understanding is wrong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm quite happy about that. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In modern cameras the features, apart from the flash and video, are in the software of the camera, they add no weight, they need no extra space, the extra cost is minimal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough - but imagine not having to write menus and software for all the features that don't need to be there.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No, actually, you can't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, actually, you can.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't it be easier to just ignore the ones you have no use for?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do. But Nikon might find it easier to not have them. Professional cameras are aimed at different people. So it seems, anyway.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Priced like a Samsung;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a moment there I confused Samsung with Sigma! :-P</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>if nikon is willing to take a risk instead of being their usual conservative self, it might work...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps a digital S3 or SP as well. Something like that?</p>

<i>Professional cameras are aimed at different people.</i><P>

So now you're speaking for professionals, as well? Do the guys shooting events/news and transmitting files to their editors within a few minutes or hours know that they shouldn't have any control over the size, contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc. of their jpegs? Are they happy about needing to carry an additional camera so they can shoot video clips?<P>

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it sounds to claim that professional photographers want a camera that gives them fewer capabilities and far <b>less</b> control over their output?

<p>The way that digital product development happens, you'd pay MORE for this camera because it would cost them money to remove features from a perfectly good camera.</p>

<p>So a "DMF3a" would cost a few hundred more than a D700. How many of your "tens of thousands" would buy that?</p>

<p>You don't like a feature? Don't use it. Problem solved.</p>

<p>I just phoned my utility company and asked that they stop the flow of gas to my home as I really don't need it.<br>

I'll just slog thru the snow and ice next winter, chop and stack the firewood and stay awake all night long stoking it lest I die from the cold.</p>

<p>Can you spell "L-u-d-d-i-t-e" ? I knew you could.</p>

Karim: "Contrast? Sharpness? Saturation? Tone curves? Talk to the hand..."

 

 

Ha ha! I LOVE it! Great points, Karim! Who buys a D700 to shoot JPEG Small? And lose the pathetic on-camera

flash, already!

 

 

LOL

<p>I can understand the point Karim is trying to make as well as the responses. I find the "recently used" part of the menu system of the d700 helps me avoid running into those features/adjustments that I rarely use.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

Wow! I just read them the responses to Karim's fun and light-hearted original post. What a dour and humorless bunch!

 

 

So let me ask you curmudgeons a question. When was the last time you shot small, low-quality JPEGs with your

D700? (By the way, please don't answer if you don't own a D700. Save your criticism for something that you actually

know about.). Any option other than NEF, JPEG Large, or both is tantamount to a waste of some engineer's time, time

he could have spent on professional features such as Live View and Mirror Lock Up that actually work together, or a

Live View implementation that doesn't close and re-open mirrors unnecessarily. Or an LCD screen that gives better

feedback for manual focus. Or a user-configurable PC lens design.

 

 

Pop up flash? Well, here's a flash for you. The comparable full-frame Canon doesn't have one and that model sells

quite well.

 

 

Karim, great post! You gave me a good laugh on a gloomy Sunday morning.

<blockquote>

<p>So let me ask you curmudgeons a question. When was the last time you shot small, low-quality JPEGs with your D700?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, just some days ago, since you're asking. I often use a combination of raw and low-res jpg when travelling, as I shoot street shots. I own a micro polaroid printer that just does jpg format and can be connected to the camera, so I often give a photo of the person to the person right away. But why do I have to justify the use of an option, I wonder?<br>

I also love the built-in flash, as I can use it as master to control my two speedlights. Thank you for leaving this feature untouched.<br>

I wonder if Karim owns a D700 after all...</p>

<p>Just my two.</p>

Good points, Monika. After I posted I thought about the application of instant printing of ID cards with small photos. A

small JPEG file would be useful if the printer doesn't scale down larger files.