Simplifying Digital SLRs

tko · Apr 26, 2004

Seems like you're just identifying the features which are useful to you and throwing out the rest, w/o considering that they might be useful to anyone else. Honestly, it's not that hard to read the manual and learn how to use the camera. What you want is a camera custom designed to your needs, because you've decided that features that the rest of us use are "useless."

Sounds like you're coming from a pro background, but want a siimple product because youi can't be bothered to read the manual?

The camera that you describe might make sense in a very specific pro dSLR. I doubt that the market for a pro level camera with just limited features would be very large. Leica did just come out with a nice camera w/a very minimal feature set but no one thinks it's going to be a big seller. Why pay big bucks for something with fewer features?

Of course, all pro's are going to be using their camera in a studio mode, with a laptop connected, and have the time to process RAW files. All those photojournalists, are those people in the field, all those sports photographers will have to depend on the speed and convenience of RAW files.

Marketing a camera that requires a special "palmtop" computer to be lugged around would be a wonderful task (what's the minium you could sell it for? $800). I'm sure everyone, pro's and consumers, would just love that, and rush to buy the camera. Of course, it couldn't come with a manual - that would be too complicated : )

I've just decided that since testing shows JPEG give the same quality as RAW, RAW should be eliminated from future cameras. Plus, I can bracket 4 JPEGs in the space of one RAW, so I always get the exposure right. Also, by using program shift and exposure compensation in auto mode, you don't need any manual modes. The rear LCD isn't needed either - too tiny to be useful and film cameras never needed them, so why should we get them? Different ISO's are a waste too - I just set everything to ISO 50 and use studio lighting anyway.

Seriously, some of your ideas are quite good. But you forget that a camera is a mass marketed product that must appeal to a wide variety of users. A lot of us use the very features that you think are useless. There are a LOT of pro's who argue against RAW - and a lot who swear by it. Should the camera designer tell the photographer how to work?

sonjabean · Apr 26, 2004

I'm not saying they should do away with current DSLRs, but I would have loved to have bought a fully manual dSLR like my old, trusty, Pentax K1000. I had a wonderful relationship with my K1000, full of understanding and compromise. My relationship with my Nikon N80 was rife with bitterness, miscommunication, and frustration. I ended up with a Nikon D100, but I would have bought the digital version of the K1000 in a hearbeat--fully manual knobs, rings, etc. Again, not suggesting that the current dSLRs go away. Just wishing there was a fully manual dSLR out there.

Joseph S Wisniewski · Apr 26, 2004

tko said:
Seems like you're just identifying the features which are useful to
you and throwing out the rest, w/o considering that they might be
useful to anyone else.

I made that observation, too.

"Sorry, but at a systems level, you have to satisfy a multitude of users. You're designing a camera purely at the "personal" level. Otherwise, where do you stop "simplifying"? When you're down to no controls except a shutter button?"

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=8560363

Unfortunatly, I think he is serious. He just simply has trouble realizing that he's a bit atypical, and that his personal views don't come anywhere near those of the majority. I can sympathize completly. My shrinks consider me to be textbook Asperger's syndrome (sort of like a high functioning autistic, but a little different), so I have a great deal of difficulty dealing with the concept that other people's opinions might differ from mine.

It takes a while to realize this is how you are, and even longer to become "socialized", for lack of a better term.

tko said:
Honestly, it's not that hard to read the
manual and learn how to use the camera. What you want is a camera
custom designed to your needs, because you've decided that features
that the rest of us use are "useless."

Sounds like you're coming from a pro background, but want a siimple
product because youi can't be bothered to read the manual?

The camera that you describe might make sense in a very specific
pro dSLR. I doubt that the market for a pro level camera with just
limited features would be very large.

Man, I wish I had said something like that.

tko said:
Leica did just come out with
a nice camera w/a very minimal feature set but no one thinks it's
going to be a big seller. Why pay big bucks for something with
fewer features?

Big red dot. The ladies go for the photographer with the big red dot. Everybody knows that. And the bowtie. Big red dot and bowtie. And a Ph.D. Red dot, bowtie, and Ph.D.

(Ok, I'm just poking fun of a friend of mine. Let's see if he notices).

tko said:
Of course, all pro's are going to be using their camera in a studio
mode, with a laptop connected, and have the time to process RAW
files. All those photojournalists, are those people in the field,
all those sports photographers will have to depend on the speed and
convenience of RAW files.

Yup.

tko said:
Marketing a camera that requires a special "palmtop" computer to be
lugged around would be a wonderful task (what's the minium you
could sell it for? $800). I'm sure everyone, pro's and consumers,
would just love that, and rush to buy the camera. Of course, it
couldn't come with a manual - that would be too complicated : )

I've just decided that since testing shows JPEG give the same
quality as RAW, RAW should be eliminated from future cameras. Plus,
I can bracket 4 JPEGs in the space of one RAW, so I always get the
exposure right. Also, by using program shift and exposure
compensation in auto mode, you don't need any manual modes. The
rear LCD isn't needed either - too tiny to be useful and film
cameras never needed them, so why should we get them? Different
ISO's are a waste too - I just set everything to ISO 50 and use
studio lighting anyway.

Seriously, some of your ideas are quite good. But you forget that a
camera is a mass marketed product that must appeal to a wide
variety of users. A lot of us use the very features that you think
are useless. There are a LOT of pro's who argue against RAW - and a
lot who swear by it. Should the camera designer tell the
photographer how to work?

It's all about choice.

The camera designer has the responsability to make sure the users can exercise that freedom. If one wants to "run simple", the controls shouldn't force themselves on you. If one wants to use all the controls, they should be convenient. Personally, I think the Nikon D70 is a pretty good example of getting this right.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

chuxter · Apr 26, 2004

Some of your points are good, but I think your main problem may not be the complexity of the current crop of prosumer cameras as much as the incompetent way some manufacturers do their "Human Interface".

You obviously have a Coolpix...so do I. I find it unbelievable that intelligent humans can screw up a simple device that badly. It takes great pictures, but the front end effort is often excessive. And the "Manual" is a classic example of how NOT to write a technical manual. My constant analogy is that they obviously hired the guys that designed the interfaces on those old VCRs and cheap $10 wristwatches (they knew how to control multiple functions with one button).

The learning curve is steep with a CP. After 3 months of ownership, I still have to consult the manual often. I carry it in my camera bag. But consulting it is frustrating...trying to find where the information I need is located! A 3+ month long bad OBE...

I too hope Nikon is listening.

But I like some of the features...

--
Charlie Davis

vFunct · Apr 26, 2004

chuxter said:
Some of your points are good, but I think your main problem may not
be the complexity of the current crop of prosumer cameras as much
as the incompetent way some manufacturers do their "Human
Interface".

You obviously have a Coolpix...so do I. I find it unbelievable that
intelligent humans can screw up a simple device that badly. It
takes great pictures, but the front end effort is often excessive.
And the "Manual" is a classic example of how NOT to write a
technical manual. My constant analogy is that they obviously hired
the guys that designed the interfaces on those old VCRs and cheap
$10 wristwatches (they knew how to control multiple functions with
one button).

The learning curve is steep with a CP. After 3 months of ownership,
I still have to consult the manual often. I carry it in my camera
bag. But consulting it is frustrating...trying to find where the
information I need is located! A 3+ month long bad OBE...

I too hope Nikon is listening.

But I like some of the features...

--
Charlie Davis

Again, that's why I say that if you have to have a "feature", put it in it's OWN BUTTON. Don't have ANYTHING modal! Why aren't there seperate knobs for Brightness/Contrast/Sharpness, etc..? If there were, then your system is pretty complicated, isn't it? But what's isn't it worse to have modal buttons that force you to go through "menus"???

The danger in digital cameras compared to analog ones is that they now have on-board computers, and that has the potential to exponentially increase the complexity of your system design in a non-polynomial way.

vFunct · Apr 26, 2004

The fact that you have to set it once is even too much. It needs to be completely modeless, as it's way too easy to accidentally hit a switch that changes a camera mode into some weird state that you spend minutes figuring out. Another scenario is when you're trying to figure out why your camera is doing something wrong, and you're forced to try unknown switches.. ("Why isn't my flash working?!? God maybe it's in some "Mountain" mode.. how do I turn that off? Oh great now I changed the ISO setting! ARGH!!")

If any of you have engineering backgrounds, you'll know what I'm talking about, with state machines- you always try to minimize the number of possible states to minimize our system's complexity. The advanced digital SLRs are supreme examples of BAD engineering, and how marketing forces people to accept BAD engineering as "features". Just look at this forum- people LOVE their useless "features" like Program modes, file settings, and what not. The camera geeks out there don't realize how much time they wasted learning a new useless "feature" on a camera- They could have saved HOURS from their lives had the camera manufacturers designed the digital SLRs to be more intuitive and correct.

Leuf · Apr 26, 2004

vFunct said:
Another scenario is when you're trying
to figure out why your camera is doing something wrong, and you're
forced to try unknown switches.. ("Why isn't my flash working?!?
God maybe it's in some "Mountain" mode.. how do I turn that off?
Oh great now I changed the ISO setting! ARGH!!")

The other week my dad somehow managed to get his p&s so that it was "hiding" every picture he took somewhere in the middle of his day trip. He thought he'd lost half his shots. He only knows how to transfer them by hitting the transfer button on the camera, so I had to help him get the files. Neither he nor and I can figure out how this happened, the manual just tells you that it can hide them, it doesn't actually tell you how to do it. To get it to stop he had to reset to defaults. There's a feature I think we could do without.

vFunct said:
Just look at this forum- people LOVE their useless
"features" like Program modes, file settings, and what not.

I have to beg to differ on this though. At least on mine, full auto mode has a lot stuff either hidden or locked out so that stuff like accidentally changing settings can't happen. Program let's you keep the simplicity of auto mode, but gives you access to the more advanced stuff. It's also a nice stepping stone for someone learning this stuff, it makes it less intimidating to start thinking about A/S modes. Maybe it's not necessary on a dslr, but it's not hurting anything.

But when it comes to unintuitive controls, I have to say that the word "aperature" has no business even appearing on the outside of a camera. A good UI gives you control over the things you actually care about. No one ever looked at a photograph and said, "Wow, what spectacular use of f4!" Surely we can come up with something better. Imagine walking into a car dealership and having this conversation with the salesman:

"So, how do you tell how fast it's going?"

"Well, you look at the tachometer, and you multiply that by the gear ratio, and then you take the diameter of the wheels and pi..."
"Uh..."

"Don't worry about it, after a couple of years you'll just know how fast you are going without thinking about it"

And yet that's exactly the sort of stuff you get with cameras.

-Leuf

vFunct · Apr 26, 2004

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
No, I'm worried about a camera with both the slowest continuous
shooting rate and the slowest raw writing rate in the entire
industry being held up as an example of the right way of doing
things.

So therefore everything about the SD10 becomes invalidated?

Also, how slow is too slow? There's always a tradeoff- Would you rather have something slower, but easier to use? Or faster, but more complicated to use? Where do you make the tradeoff?

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
You show a very limited knowledge of technology. Adding multiple CF
slots means you need processors with the increased IO to support
it, and it increases the UI. Try a Canon, Fuji, or Oly which have
multiple slots: they have multiple menu items ot go with them.
Backup one slot to the other. Fill the cards alternatly or
sequentially. There are a lot of different things users want
multiple card slots to do.

Bad design. I design microelectronics as well. There is no excuse to increase complexity of your system to increase storage bandwidth. My guess is they fell for the "feature-creep" tendancies that marketing and engineering often gets into- "Well, since we're having 2 slots, maybe we could have an option to backup one to another? Oh- we could have an option to fill alternatively?" They do this not becuase they need a feature, but they throw it in to help market products at certain price points. Notice that a lot of high-end digital SLRs have like 30 different Program priority modes, and a lot of cheaper ones have like 1 or 2? This has nothing to do with price, as each additional program mode adds nothing to production cost. It's purely a marketing bullet-point add-on at certain price points- they want to have something additional to differentiate lower-end models to "upsell" to higher end models, because suckers fall for the differentials. Eventually they'll add these features reluctantly to lower priced models the moment a competitor does.

I've designed CMOS Image sensors at Intel 8 years ago for some of the earliest digital cameras. The goal of these was to help kick-start the digital camera market, to, ultimately, sell more PCs (The ultimate goal at anything at Intel is to sell more Microprocessors..). If you've ever looked at those early cameras, they were the most obvious to use cameras in the digital world. Ever. They even had a speaker to make clicking & film advance noises to mimic a film camera! This was needed because we KNEW people would "fear" digital cameras in comparison to analog ones. There were no mass-market analog-replacement digital cameras at the time, and we tried to make it as intutive as possible. Quite successful at their stated goals- one of the most popular uses of personal computers these days is for digital pictures.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
And that's where you keep getting stuck, with this belief that your
way is the "one right way".

Of course there's one right way.. my way? I mean, isn't that a correct, but self-serving statement? Therefore, why can't a camera manufacturer build one for me? (And one that incidentally seems to have the support of half the posters on this forum so far?)

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
And that's just a function of your not understanding the situation
at all. I can set just about any DSLR or P&S camera on the market
for "no fiddling" spontaneous shooting. And then, if the situation
demands, I can override anything.

Again, the fact that you have to SET an option, is a BAD thing.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

If I'm doing that I might as well break out
the 8x10.. (BTW the shutter controls are on the lenses there).

Click to expand...

btw, I've designed and built my own 4x5. Go be condenscending to
someone else.

How was I condescending? Lose your sensitivities. Learn to be critical. Question things. I do. I encourage everyone to question things as well. Make no assumptions.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
I believe in choice. If I want simplicity, I set the camera in a
simple mode, and shoot from instinct.

Is that so hard for you to understand? Set your camera to raw, then
don't touch that knob abain. Set your mode to manual, and don't
touch that knob again.

A popular test of simplicity for a digital system is the "mother" test. If your mother can't figure out your camera you designed because you have to set some sort of "raw" mode, then you have failed. Again, the day a digital SLR comes out without a user manual, I'm buying.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
I'd say, looking at the failure of the Nikon 4004 (which
implemented your ideas on using the shutter and aperture controls
to select the automated modes) and the low sales of the existing
DigiLux and low projected sales of the RD-1, that the market for
your kind of ideas is very, very small.

As I said before, actual sales and marketing make it 1/1000 of the
genera market.

And my response would be to point out the success of low-end cameras. Someone must be doing something right to sell so many feature-less cameras? Also, the FM3a also has "auto" settings along the individual knobs. They still sell these, right?

And, right now in the Digital SLR market, there is NO CHOICE available from either Canon or Nikon for a simple, obvious, and minimalist digital SLR. So, I'm pushing to have that choice. Eventually I do think they're going to have the digital equivalent of an FM3a, but probably not until the image sensors prices come down greatly. It seems the useless feature list is a by-product of the marketing price point- if you're going to spend $1000 on a camera, it might as well have 50 different Program modes and image-processing switches, or the owner is going to have some sort of inferiority complex *****-envy due to competitive marketing pressures.

VJ · Apr 27, 2004

vFunct said:
Ever. They even had a speaker to make clicking & film advance
noises to mimic a film camera! This was needed because we KNEW
people would "fear" digital cameras in comparison to analog ones.

Well, IMO opinion, such 'features' are plain silly. THAT seems like a useless feature. It is like designing an electrical car, but still have it make the usual engine noise (and why not: the usual puff of smoke coming out a fictionous tailpipe) because people are used to it. Technology moves on.
If the camera doesn't need to make a noise, then why have it do so ?

vFunct said:
Of course there's one right way.. my way? I mean, isn't that a
correct, but self-serving statement? Therefore, why can't a camera
manufacturer build one for me?

Most of the hardware of your minimal camera would be the same (as the other guy pointed out). Price-wise, it would not be much cheaper than the 'feature-rich' version.

I personally always shoot RAW, and don't need most of the settings: all I really need are the buttons related to the photography part (mode dial (PASM), dials for shutter and aperture, EV, metering (spot, 3D Matrix, ...), ...). And sometimes the LCD preview...

But I'm not bothered by the fact that those other features are there: in rare occasions, the do serve a purpose for me (e.g. the example I gave regarding the church).

vFunct said:
How was I condescending? Lose your sensitivities. Learn to be
critical. Question things. I do. I encourage everyone to
question things as well. Make no assumptions.

We question things.... It just happens to result in conclusion you don't like...

vFunct said:
vFunct said:

I believe in choice. If I want simplicity, I set the camera in a
simple mode, and shoot from instinct.

Click to expand...

Same here.

vFunct said:
And, right now in the Digital SLR market, there is NO CHOICE
available from either Canon or Nikon for a simple, obvious, and
minimalist digital SLR. So, I'm pushing to have that choice.

Well, the higher ranged DSLRs do lack the programmed modes (sports, landscape, ...), the onboard flash, ... So that shows that pro-devices to skimp on unimportant features.

Jörg

Jonathan F. · Apr 27, 2004

Each day, there are more and more idiots on this forum.

Seriously, these demands are ridiculous. I rarely shoot RAW for the type of work I do. Usually I have all my presets right the first time and don't need the longer post production, and added memory space due to the RAW format. Also, I hate auto functions. If possible I always shoot manual. If needed, I'll use the different settings such as shutter priority, aperature priority, etc. for the given situation.

Anyways, are you another IT tech-head on this site claiming to be a so called 'professional'? It's usually the amateurs here that seem to be the real photographers.

vFunct said:
Discussion going on in slashdot about megapixels. Some of my
thoughts on digitals cut & pasted here:

It's amazing how many useless "features" the camera makers are
adding to jack up their marketing feature list at the expense of
usability. There are just WAY too many options. They could get rid
of almost all the buttons on a Digital camera for even the pros. I
really wish they would simply cut out switches and menu options and
make it so that you DON'T need a manual to operate it. My favorite
camera is still a $100 fully-manual 35mm Nikon FM2. Either that or
an 8x10. (I actually am starting to think that my 8x10 view camera
is easier to use than my Nikon Coolpix. And, it takes a whole day
of planning and work to set up one shot for an 8x10...)

----

My D100 was stolen. I will beat the cr@p out of all thieves.

inhousephoto inc. digital / photography / media
http://www.inhousephoto.com

toughluck · Apr 27, 2004

Minolta Dynax 600si Classic Digital

I wouldn't get rid of a setup knob. I would keep it in the same version as 600si had:
1. Knob for: P, A, S, M
And that's it.

Perhaps, add a boxed [P] for greenhorn operation (no possibility to affect anything): AF on, P mode, no program shift (possible in P mode).

2. Dial for exposure modes: single, continuous, bracket, 2s mirror up, 10s self timer.

Perhaps custom functions to set continuous speed, as well as bracketing mode (single, continuous, burst - mirror up+taking all images at varying shutter speeds), and self timers.

3. Knob for adjusting exposure compensation -2 to +2 with 1/3 EV steps, and -3 to +3 with 1/2 EV steps
4. Knob for adjusting flash compensation - same as above
5. Button for ISO

6. Custom function for saving jpeg or png image with RAW file (associated with each other by filename) - for quick preview of good and dud images on a computer.
7. Two dials, one to set Av, another to set Tv.
8. DOF preview button
9. AF mode switch: A, S, C
10. AF/MF switch
11. AF mode switch: area AF, spot AF
12. Switch for metering modes: matrix, spot, CWA
13. AEL button
14. Menu button
15. OK button
16. Cancel button
17. Cursor buttons for changing AF points and navigating through menus.
18. Eject button
19. Power switch

Simple as that. I would love it.

Brett DiMichele · Apr 27, 2004

The only button I would change on the Sigma SD body is the DOF
Preview it needs to extend out a bit further and I would like it to be of
the tactile rubber coating of the rest of the buttons.

The Sigma is one of the easiest to use bodies out there.. There is NO
menu diving other than to set White Balance and that, truly is it..

I had gripes and complaints about both the D100 and 10D button layouts,
command/sub command dials and the need to menu dive to do the most
rumedial of things like MLU.

Now if Sigma would just design a new controller board that actually makes
use of that 233Mhz StrongArm instead of running it at 20Mhz...

The Sigma isn't "Slow" because of the sensor.. It's slow because Sigma
made it slow... The Foveon CMOS can do 4.4FPS Continious but the
Sigma Shutter/Mirror assembly can only do 3.0FPS at best.. And the on
board Processor is not running fast enough nor is the 128MB buffer large
enough to do the task of Speed Shooting.. Unless you drop into Medium
mode and then you can get 3FPS for 14+ Frames.

Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
vFunct said:

There's so many useless switches on a modern Digital SLR that can
be completely thrown away and still provide all the functionality
anyone would want. It's possible to improve usability without
compromising features, when you look at the design of a digital
camera in a Systems Level perspective.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but at a systems level, you have to satisfy a multitude of
users. You're designing a camera purely at the "personal" level.
Otherwise, where do you stop "simplifying"? When you're down to no
controls except a shutter button?

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I also desire to create the
highest quality photos in all situations with the least bit of
effort. Remember- each little option and each little switch adds
just a little bit more complexity to the camera.

Things I wish manufacturers did:

1. Store all data ONLY in RAW format. (Thanks to Sigma for pushing
this.)

Click to expand...

Sigma isn't "pushing" this, they're stuck with iut, because of the
computational complexity of the math for Foveon color.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

This get rids of the useless "low/medium/high quality"
switch on the camera. There goes one pointless switch.

Click to expand...

Actually, on my D100, it's just a position on the mode selector
knob, the same one that lets you select manual, aperture or shutter
preferred. Would you have that knob deleted and lock the camera in
manual mode full time? (Actually, it sounds like you would).

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

You don't
need small file sizes, JPG files, built in image processing, etc,
if all you needed was to store the data in one big RAW file, like
what Sigma is doing...

Click to expand...

The man has obviously never used a Nikon D70, which can maintain
close to 3 frames/second in JPEG mode, until the battery gos dead
or the memory card fills up. You can shoot sports and not worry
about buffers. That Sigma which seems to amaze you so can do 1.7
frames/sec into a 6 frame buffer, and takes about 8 seconds to
write a raw to CF. "Hey ref, can you call a minute timeout? I need
to wait for my buffer to clear"

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

2. Store all data at the highest resolution. Get rid of the
"small/medium/large" switch. If I needed to store more pictures on
my card, I would have bought a higher-capacity CF drive. I can get
4GB CF microdrives for cheap, so it's pointless to have to
micro-manage file sizes. That should be enough to store hundreds of
pics. Another pointless switch, gone...

Click to expand...

Again, only pointless to you. Some people need to take thousands of
pics, not the 500 that a Sigma can put on a 4 gig microdrive.

Some people won't trust a mechanical microdrive with even one
important picture, let alone hundreds. Price a 4 gig, or even a 2
gig CF card, then try to repeat your "nobody needs JPEG" speil
again with a straight face.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

3. Get rid of in-camera white-balance setting, and do this on the
computer or laptop or even palmtop to simplify the camera and force
the complexity outside. (Again, thanks to Sigma) This can be done
on the computer if needed with the RAW file. Most amateur users
have NO idea what the hell white-balance means anyways. A third
pointless switch gone..

Click to expand...

Again, only pointless to you. I don't really want to have to
manually correct every picture because we switched from the strobes
to the Fresnel to the fluorescent ringlight 14 times during the
shoot, but the images aren't tagged with which is which.

Have you ever shot slides? What's easier, continually changing
filters in front of the lens, or a white balance button?

[to be continued]

Oh, by the way, nice first post. Best way to introduce yourself to
the group, a rant with a strong dose fo flame bait and trolling.
Welcome aboard.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

--

I am not a Professional but I did stay at Holiday Inn!
Please take a look at my gallery!

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/brett_dimichele

chuxter · Apr 27, 2004

VJ said:
vFunct said:

Ever. They even had a speaker to make clicking & film advance
noises to mimic a film camera! This was needed because we KNEW
people would "fear" digital cameras in comparison to analog ones.

Click to expand...

Well, IMO opinion, such 'features' are plain silly. THAT seems
like a useless feature. It is like designing an electrical car, but
still have it make the usual engine noise (and why not: the usual
puff of smoke coming out a fictionous tailpipe) because people are
used to it. Technology moves on.

VJ said:
If the camera doesn't need to make a noise, then why have it do so ?

Because w/o sound, it's difficult to tell when buttons are pressed. The shutter release on DCs often don't offer much tactile feedback. I wish mine made a LOUDER sound.

One mans junk is another mans treasure...

--
Charlie Davis

Phillip Bonfiglio · Apr 27, 2004

Some 30 years ago when I was young and keen, I bought my first SLR, a Mamiya ZE-X. It was a revolutionary camera ahead of its time. The first camera to use electronic contact on the lenses. It had all the bells and wistles but it was very easy for me to learn because it was at a time when my thirst for photographic knowlwdge was at its highest. Since then I have used everything from Nikons to Hasselblads etc. but at this stage of my life I don't have the same inclination towards learning menus and function keys etc. Thats why a couple of years ago I sold my Minolta 7xi in favour of the 600si. Soon I will probably buy a DSLR and I'm hoping to find one with a simple interface but I know that the young and keen photographers of today would not think much of such a camera. Old photographers are a dying breed so I wont hold my breath waiting for a simple (to use) DSLR.

David Hughes124436 · Apr 27, 2004

Snip, snip, snip!

vFunct said:
A popular test of simplicity for a digital system is the "mother"
test. If your mother can't figure out your camera you designed
because you have to set some sort of "raw" mode, then you have
failed. Again, the day a digital SLR comes out without a user
manual, I'm buying.
(Final snip!)

Hi all,

Just think of it. This wonder digicam with one button, no manual and a "this side up" label and then your mother has to process and print from RAW...

David

Joseph S Wisniewski · Apr 27, 2004

vFunct said:
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:

No, I'm worried about a camera with both the slowest continuous
shooting rate and the slowest raw writing rate in the entire
industry being held up as an example of the right way of doing
things.

Click to expand...

So therefore everything about the SD10 becomes invalidated?

No. Just your arguments about it. SD10 is an excellent camera. But relative to your "DSLR simplification" arguments, it only has one feature on your list: RAW only.

Everything else about it meets less of your criteria than any other body on the market. It has more knobs and buttons than the D70 which you were considering. It's viewfinder is smaller, therefore harder to focus manually.

vFunct said:
Also, how slow is too slow? There's always a tradeoff- Would you
rather have something slower, but easier to use? Or faster, but
more complicated to use? Where do you make the tradeoff?

There is no tradeoff. Those two parameters are not mutually exclusive. You can make the SD10 faster by giving it a faster processor (more money) without decreasing its usability in any way, shape, or form. In fact, making the processor faster gives the camer an overall "snappier" feel: there's less delay between when you turn a knob or press a button and when something happens. This increases usability.

vFunct said:
vFunct said:

You show a very limited knowledge of technology. Adding multiple CF
slots means you need processors with the increased IO to support
it, and it increases the UI. Try a Canon, Fuji, or Oly which have
multiple slots: they have multiple menu items ot go with them.
Backup one slot to the other. Fill the cards alternatly or
sequentially. There are a lot of different things users want
multiple card slots to do.

Click to expand...

Bad design. I design microelectronics as well. There is no excuse
to increase complexity of your system to increase storage
bandwidth. My guess is they fell for the "feature-creep"
tendancies that marketing and engineering often gets into- "Well,
since we're having 2 slots, maybe we could have an option to backup
one to another? Oh- we could have an option to fill
alternatively?"

You're still falling into the trap of assuming your way is the "only right way". Have you got any market research data that shows, given multiple card slots, people prefer increased bandwidth over increased reliability? It's just your opinion.

And, based on existing evidence, such as the failure of the Nikon 4004, which was designed according to your principles, your opinion does not represent the general population.

vFunct said:
They do this not becuase they need a feature, but
they throw it in to help market products at certain price points.
Notice that a lot of high-end digital SLRs have like 30 different
Program priority modes, and a lot of cheaper ones have like 1 or 2?

I don't notice this, because it's simply not true. The lowest end DSLRS (D70 and 300D) have more program modes than the higher end ones such as D2H or 1D.

[several paragraphs deleted, because I read them twice and there wasn't a trace of a point]

vFunct said:
vFunct said:

And that's where you keep getting stuck, with this belief that your
way is the "one right way".

Click to expand...

Of course there's one right way.. my way? I mean, isn't that a
correct, but self-serving statement? Therefore, why can't a camera
manufacturer build one for me?

They already are. This really doesn't appear to be sinking home. But you are such a small market segment that they aren't going to make a lot of them.

vFunct said:
(And one that incidentally seems to
have the support of half the posters on this forum so far?)

First, you can't criticize this forum as being too "geeky" to represent mainstream opinion, then turn around and claim the support of its posters represents a valid market trend.

Second, you don't have the support of 1/2 the poster in this forum, or even 1/2 the ones in this thread.

You have the full support of one out of fifteen posters, dog010.

There are three other posters who you might be clinging desperatly to.

sonjabean would like a digital K1000, but acknowledges it's specialty item, not a mainstream camera. You're getting that much support from camera manufacturers, one such specialty camera, the DigiLux, is already on the market, three more are launching soon, the RD-1, the Modul-R, and the Digital M.

Brett DiMichele and Cliff Johnson praise SD10 usability, and you probably misinterpreted that as support. But SD10 has more buttons and knobs than the other DSLRs in its class, D70, 10D, E-1, etc. so their idea of usability is totally the opposite of yours.

No one lese thinks at all highly of your opinion.

VJ says you're "silly".
Johnathan F thinks you're an "idiot" who's smoking crack".
Chuxter likes the feature (even sound effects) but thinks HMI's need work.
David Hughes says "ordinary people", i.e. your mother, can't process raw.
BirdsAndMore says "set once and forget" switches on an existing camera

Leuf likes multiple modes, including a foolproof program mode, and doesn't want an aperture control!

Jón Ragnarsson doesn't want to spend time processing raws, and likes touchscreens and wheels
tko says "are you serious?"
And I honestly believe you're mentally ill. Look into Asperger's syndrome.
Toughluck wants 7 knobs, 5 switches, 11 buttons, raw, JPEG, and PNG.
Phillip Bonfiglio think's you're the same "dying breed" he is, too old to learn.

[to be continued]

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

BirdsAndMore · Apr 27, 2004

vFunct said:
The fact that you have to set it once is even too much.

I suppose this comes down to personal wordview or something, but I can't see how spending 15 minutes setting up a new toy is too much.

vFunct said:
It needs
to be completely modeless, as it's way too easy to accidentally hit
a switch that changes a camera mode into some weird state that you
spend minutes figuring out.

To me it sounds like you're asking for a car to be built without gears. I mean that's half a dozen states: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and Reverse, plus neutral. You could hit the clutch, you could go for 2nd and hit 4th instead, or even reverse, and drop your transmition!! Automatics aren't better; the car decides when to shift, but you still have to move that thing and choose how to set the car. Why don't they build a gearless car? It's okay if it doesn't move. We can just set it in the driveway and sit in it every now and then.

My opinion is that learning how to use a car is the price of driving.

vFunct said:
Another scenario is when you're trying
to figure out why your camera is doing something wrong, and you're
forced to try unknown switches.. ("Why isn't my flash working?!?
God maybe it's in some "Mountain" mode.. how do I turn that off?
Oh great now I changed the ISO setting! ARGH!!")

If I had to use a flash, I would learn to use a flash.

--
Have fun!

Joseph S Wisniewski · Apr 27, 2004

vFunct said:
vFunct said:

And that's just a function of your not understanding the situation
at all. I can set just about any DSLR or P&S camera on the market
for "no fiddling" spontaneous shooting. And then, if the situation
demands, I can override anything.

Click to expand...

Again, the fact that you have to SET an option, is a BAD thing.

And not having the option is a "good thing"?

You do realize, in the time you've spent posting to this thread and reading the responses, you could have made quite a bit of headway into a D70 manual, and be out there right now taking some really good pictures.

But that's not what you want, is it?

vFunct said:
vFunct said:

vFunct said:

If I'm doing that I might as well break out
the 8x10.. (BTW the shutter controls are on the lenses there).

Click to expand...

btw, I've designed and built my own 4x5. Go be condenscending to
someone else.

Click to expand...

How was I condescending?

If you honestly don't know, then you really are totally out of tune with other people.

vFunct said:
Lose your sensitivities. Learn to be
critical. Question things. I do. I encourage everyone to
question things as well. Make no assumptions.

All you've done is make assumptions. You question nothing, least of all your assumptions.

vFunct said:
vFunct said:

I believe in choice. If I want simplicity, I set the camera in a
simple mode, and shoot from instinct.

Is that so hard for you to understand? Set your camera to raw, then
don't touch that knob abain. Set your mode to manual, and don't
touch that knob again.

Click to expand...

A popular test of simplicity for a digital system is the "mother"
test. If your mother can't figure out your camera you designed
because you have to set some sort of "raw" mode, then you have
failed.

Then you have failed, by your own criteria. My mother can't operate a computer or a PDA. She can print JPEG (not raw) pictures from the kiosk at the local drug store. She can turn one knob to the "P" setting, which is the only green marking on the camera. One control, that never has to be turned more than a few clicks.

vFunct said:
Again, the day a digital SLR comes out without a user
manual, I'm buying.

That won't ever happen, and you know it. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

vFunct said:
vFunct said:

I'd say, looking at the failure of the Nikon 4004 (which
implemented your ideas on using the shutter and aperture controls
to select the automated modes) and the low sales of the existing
DigiLux and low projected sales of the RD-1, that the market for
your kind of ideas is very, very small.

As I said before, actual sales and marketing make it 1/1000 of the
genera market.

Click to expand...

And my response would be to point out the success of low-end
cameras. Someone must be doing something right to sell so many
feature-less cameras? Also, the FM3a also has "auto" settings
along the individual knobs. They still sell these, right?

Again, that's a specialty camera, selling in the thousands, not in the millions. It represents what a very small minority want. Not every camera company offers such a camera. There's nothing like it from Canon, Minolta, or Oly. It's not a big enough market to support that many players.

And FM3a isn't much like your idea, or like 4004. It has a single auto setting around a single knob (no shutter preferred exposure or program mode, it doesn't need anything on the aperture ring).

vFunct said:
And, right now in the Digital SLR market, there is NO CHOICE
available from either Canon or Nikon for a simple, obvious, and
minimalist digital SLR. So, I'm pushing to have that choice.

Why are you pushing here, where most people are disagreing with you?

vFunct said:
Eventually I do think they're going to have the digital equivalent
of an FM3a, but probably not until the image sensors prices come
down greatly.

Then wait for it, or learn how to hasten it in an effective fashion.

vFunct said:
It seems the useless feature list is a by-product of
the marketing price point- if you're going to spend $1000 on a
camera, it might as well have 50 different Program modes and
image-processing switches, or the owner is going to have some sort
of inferiority complex *****-envy due to competitive marketing
pressures.

Well, you've just strongly insulted Nikon and Canon marketing. That's absolutly the very best way to get them to listen to you, and respond to your wants.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

toughluck · Apr 27, 2004

from Minolta are bound to derive their original control method. They will allow easy access to all controls. Well, once again, Minolta will show how to design an ergonomy-compliant camera.

Phillip Bonfiglio said:
Some 30 years ago when I was young and keen, I bought my first SLR,
a Mamiya ZE-X. It was a revolutionary camera ahead of its time. The
first camera to use electronic contact on the lenses. It had all
the bells and wistles but it was very easy for me to learn because
it was at a time when my thirst for photographic knowlwdge was at
its highest. Since then I have used everything from Nikons to
Hasselblads etc. but at this stage of my life I don't have the same
inclination towards learning menus and function keys etc. Thats why
a couple of years ago I sold my Minolta 7xi in favour of the 600si.
Soon I will probably buy a DSLR and I'm hoping to find one with a
simple interface but I know that the young and keen photographers
of today would not think much of such a camera. Old photographers
are a dying breed so I wont hold my breath waiting for a simple (to
use) DSLR.

vFunct · Apr 27, 2004

David Hughes said:
Snip, snip, snip!

David Hughes124436 said:

A popular test of simplicity for a digital system is the "mother"
test. If your mother can't figure out your camera you designed
because you have to set some sort of "raw" mode, then you have
failed. Again, the day a digital SLR comes out without a user
manual, I'm buying.
(Final snip!)

Click to expand...

Hi all,

Just think of it. This wonder digicam with one button, no manual
and a "this side up" label and then your mother has to process and
print from RAW...

David

I suppose that would be no different from having to print from JPG?

The JPG format should be banned from all digital cameras (isn't it patented?). Hard drives are cheap. Use it.

Simplifying Digital SLRs

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts