I just finished reading my G3 manual, all 207 pages of it ! As I was doing so, it occurred to me that cameras are now being designed more for software addicts than photographers. The basic justification for many of the mind boggling array of menu features appears to be the fact that they can be included, not that they are really needed or that most owners will ever use them. What ever happened to KISS ( keep it simple stupid ) ? I loved my Leica CL. Set the ISO, speed, aperture,focus and shoot. I don't think I will ever take any better pictures with my G3 than I did with my CL. I'd love to see a micro four-thirds version of the CL. Keep it simple enough and you won't even need a display. Am I alone ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Dinosaur musings
- Thread starter widick
- Start date
Andy Crowe
Senior Member
A modern digital camera has a lot of options, almost all of which have a use to at least some people - metering mode, self timer (how long? 10 secs for self portraits, 2 secs for tripod work etc.), burst speed (fastest possible or a slower but more stable pace), maxium iso etc.
Pretty quickly these add up to a lot of options - if any were left out then the people who do use them would be put off the camera while people who don't use them won't be put off just because there's an option there.
If you want absolute simplicity you can just leave everything in the default configuration, but still use A/S/M mode for manual adjustment of ISO, shutter and aperture etc.
The problem with KISS is to define what feature set is the "simple" feature set to give.
Mac kinda had have problem, "it just work" as long as you are wanting to do what the designer decided should be easy to do.
In today's world one solution to this problem is to have both a quick access KISS menu , and a feature bank, for those who genuinely need those features.
Mac kinda had have problem, "it just work" as long as you are wanting to do what the designer decided should be easy to do.
In today's world one solution to this problem is to have both a quick access KISS menu , and a feature bank, for those who genuinely need those features.
Well, you'll need some kind of display to show even the simplest settings unless we're going back to full dedicated controls with indexed positions. Also, LiveView wouldn't amount to much without an electronic display of some sort, but I get your point.
Maybe you should play with a PEN's Super Control Panel (SCP). Between the manual controls and the SCP, everything is pretty much there. Sure, you can dig down into some dark corners to make some adjustments, but I suspect most people rarely do so once they're happy with the camera's output.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
I'll add that a sharp manufacturer could capitalize on the depth of features available and make a truly configurable menu system. If a camera's full menu was displayed on a PC screen, a user could configure their camera via a PC profile, to include setting up their own SCP. The PC flow chart could also be interactive with hypertext, allowing the user to easily click through to a detailed description of the menu options. Imagine being able to save and reload your preferred profile if you accidentally changed something in the labyrinth, or share your profiles online.
I've heard Casio used to offer something like this. Compared to other advancements, it doesn't seem difficult to do.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
I've heard Casio used to offer something like this. Compared to other advancements, it doesn't seem difficult to do.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
I remember when I got my Oly C8080 (a good camera in good light) that it had a menu system more complicated than my M43 camera or my Canon DSLR...mind boggling at first. But it had a lot of buttons too, and a wheel etc. So after a while (after I got used to the buttons), I put it on totally manual...the meter would even read in 'match level' like my old Minolta SRT102..and I'd just leave it like that...Simple. So it made me happy. But! I couldn't even imagine someone, or myself starting out, doing that, especially today..with the mindset that an Ipad needs a front camera and a back camera. I love manual controls, even manual focusing...but nobody would probably buy those kinds of cameras...except people who are buying Leica (or who would want a more affordable version) now. It would be nice if someone did produce a camera for people who grew up using manual controls, or have become accustomed to controlling the camera, rather than it controlling them 
but they probably wouldn't sell many I'm afraid. Sure understand your point though.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
but they probably wouldn't sell many I'm afraid. Sure understand your point though. --
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
With film imaging you had the choice of lens, then a huge choice of different films, then a vast array of ways of altering the processing to change the results. Much of the capability that used to be obtained by changing film or processing method (e.g changing ISO or white balance) is part of the standard feature set of digital cameras. Then you used to have a range of add on accessories, such as angle finders, data backs etc, which give some of the functionality that's now built in to digital cameras.
So I think the complexity of the modern camera reflects the vast range of built in capability.
What I would like Panasonic to do is to provide a desktop application (with a help engine) so that the settings can be viewed and changed when the camera is connected to the computer.
The other feature I would like to see (missing on my G2) is help files built in to the camera, to explain the differences between various focus modes, O.I.S. modes etc. It is things like this that have me looking in the manual.
So I think the complexity of the modern camera reflects the vast range of built in capability.
What I would like Panasonic to do is to provide a desktop application (with a help engine) so that the settings can be viewed and changed when the camera is connected to the computer.
The other feature I would like to see (missing on my G2) is help files built in to the camera, to explain the differences between various focus modes, O.I.S. modes etc. It is things like this that have me looking in the manual.
To keep KISS afloat, skip first 10-15 pages (disclaimer) and do not read pages 96-207 (you can read the later).
Read basics, start shooting, return to advanced features later
--
MFT in progress
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
I have long suggested that Leica would be well served by introducing a camera along the lines of the digital CL which would accept M-Mount lenses. Those against such an introduction usually say it would kill sales of the M bodies.. I disagree.
A Digital CL would be a more appropriate entry level camera into the world of Leica than their rebadged Panasonics or the Leica X1. I found the X1, with its fixed lens, to be extremely disappointing.
I have also always believed that the heart and soul of Leica is not their rangefinders but their glass. I don't know many who are willing or able to drop $7K on an M body but a "reasonably" priced Digital CL would be another thing. It would not have to be a rangefinder but some alternative focus system by which you could use M lenses with accurate focus, maybe focus peaking or some other method. They'd still get make plenty of money on the lenses and it (the Digital CL) would bring in many to the Leica fold. I doubt it will ever happen but I would love to see them introduce such a camera while keeping the interface and controls limited to the basics.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
Blog: http://boxedlight.com/blog
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
A Digital CL would be a more appropriate entry level camera into the world of Leica than their rebadged Panasonics or the Leica X1. I found the X1, with its fixed lens, to be extremely disappointing.
I have also always believed that the heart and soul of Leica is not their rangefinders but their glass. I don't know many who are willing or able to drop $7K on an M body but a "reasonably" priced Digital CL would be another thing. It would not have to be a rangefinder but some alternative focus system by which you could use M lenses with accurate focus, maybe focus peaking or some other method. They'd still get make plenty of money on the lenses and it (the Digital CL) would bring in many to the Leica fold. I doubt it will ever happen but I would love to see them introduce such a camera while keeping the interface and controls limited to the basics.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
Blog: http://boxedlight.com/blog
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
That would be a great idea for any manufacturer, sort of an interactive program to manage the complexities of modern cameras in the computer...then a person could go out and keep it simple, rather than fiddling with some obscure menu item in the field. Most times a person doesn't even get a printed manual to help them with the "fiddling" in the field.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Like the Joker said: Why so serious?
Yohan Pamudji
Senior Member
The beauty of all of those options is that they're optional--you can completely ignore them if you want. You only need to do a one-time setup for your image quality (JPG/RAW), and that's it. Everything else is just exposure--aperture, shutter speed, ISO. You can even leave the LCD screen off by using the viewfinder all the time instead.
tedolf
Forum Pro
All things considered, the Leica CL was the greatest camera ever made. If someone made a digital version of it we could all die and go to heaven.
You, uh..........didn't............sell it, did you?
Uh, ok.
What about the lenses.
You kept them..........right?
TEdolph
tedolf
Forum Pro
But that is exaclty what happened. The CL killed sales of the monsterous M5, that is why Leica discontined the CL!
[snip]
Tedolph
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
No, that is not really true... the M5 had issues. That is not to say the CL did not have an impact but given todays' market and the astronomic prices Leica demands for the M system there should be a "true" entry level M digital camera.
Here's a good read on the CL... http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
Blog: http://boxedlight.com/blog
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
hlwick59
Forum Enthusiast
No you're not and I agree with your sentiments. I really don't a camera with a built-in smartphone, PDA, GPS, word-processor, photoshop, and touchscreen/vocal interface functions. I want a straightforward, enthusiast-quality camera at a reasonable price that does ONE thing well.....take pictures with a minium of fuss.
One poster suggested the Epson RD-1. I remember that camera, liked the straightforward manual controls and analog displays, and rangefinder-like focusing, but couldn't afford the price tag. Also, I wanted to use my Canon FD lenses, which the RD-1 couldn't use. The micro four-thirds cameras with an adapter can use the FD lenses, but still haven't seen a enthusiast-quality camera llike the RD-1.
The Leica M-9, Fujifilm X-100 and X10 have some straightforward controls, but are still loaded with plethora of gee-whiz computer gadgetry.
Now granted there are some bells & whistles on digital cameras, i.e, white-balance adjustments, filter effects and maybe IBIS, that are useful, but keep it to a minimum so the photographer can concentrate on framing the picture and doesn't get distracted with gee-whiz gadgetry.
Hal.
One poster suggested the Epson RD-1. I remember that camera, liked the straightforward manual controls and analog displays, and rangefinder-like focusing, but couldn't afford the price tag. Also, I wanted to use my Canon FD lenses, which the RD-1 couldn't use. The micro four-thirds cameras with an adapter can use the FD lenses, but still haven't seen a enthusiast-quality camera llike the RD-1.
The Leica M-9, Fujifilm X-100 and X10 have some straightforward controls, but are still loaded with plethora of gee-whiz computer gadgetry.
Now granted there are some bells & whistles on digital cameras, i.e, white-balance adjustments, filter effects and maybe IBIS, that are useful, but keep it to a minimum so the photographer can concentrate on framing the picture and doesn't get distracted with gee-whiz gadgetry.
Hal.
Well the subject of your post makes me think you realize that your sentiment isn't the common one these days. Still, I'd like to contest the idea of me being a 'software addict'.
I use the Olympus E-420. Like the PENs it has enormous amounts of menu options. Others have already said that you don't need to use the options if you don't want to, but they're certainly not there just to be ignored.
Take the AEL/AFL button for instance. This if anything is a photographic tool - it aims to combine the power of automation with the creative control of the photographer. Since it was customizable, I set it to be the autofocus in manual focus mode.
This made tripod photography about a thousand times easier. Manual focus isn't possible with my camera's viewfinder, so now I could focus from a certain tripod position. When that was done I could press the shutter release to my heart's content without worrying about focus. Had the factory decided that all I needed was AEL I would still be painfully autofocusing every single nighttime landscape shot.
Instead of saying that the cameras are made for software addicts I think you should see that photographers want to try a lot of different things these days, and thankfully the manufacturers are listening.
--
http://flickr.com/photos/iskender
HelMue
Member
Jim,
sometime ago Leica made it clear that they are working on a life-view ILC (NOT in the m4/3 format), even if I don't remember exactly where and when it was. Maybe we'll see the outcome at Photokina 2012 ...
Helmut
sometime ago Leica made it clear that they are working on a life-view ILC (NOT in the m4/3 format), even if I don't remember exactly where and when it was. Maybe we'll see the outcome at Photokina 2012 ...
Helmut
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
Helmut, If it does not have a proper viewfinder I do not think I will be interested. I will wait and see.
I have a love/hate relationship with Leica. I really am more of a fan than a detractor. I've always loved the quality and the glass. Leica has almost always been out of the economic reach of most amateurs and looking to the future I feel they really need to produce a "Leica for the rest of us" that is not some re-brand or a fixed lens, one trick pony as the X1 appears to be. The way Leica moves I will be dead an buried before they deliver THAT camera.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
Blog: http://boxedlight.com/blog
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
Mattersburger
Well-known member
... hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
HelMue
Member
shooting with Leicas since 1962 (M and the by now orphaned R series) I'm entirely with You concerning the company's future. In contrast to You, nevertheless, I never got a Digital M body. Getting impatient, I took the Canon-route instead - up to the day the GF1 was announced, which, for me, is something like a Digital CL (minus the viewfinder, to be sure), especially (but not exclusively) with the CL's own tiny lenses.
BTW: I love Your site and enjoy Your photography very much.
Helmut
BTW: I love Your site and enjoy Your photography very much.
Helmut
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum