Re: A Step Backward ?

<RJ> wrote:
Interesting responses to my 'plaint.
"Hundreds of menus, but lack of basic photo control"

No, I'm not a troll. I've been burning film since 1958.

So far, it sounds like;

"There are many P&S that offer basic control"
....but no names beyond a reference t Olympus.

or... "buy a DSLR"
Whch is odd... go to the "top of the line"
in order to return to basics.

In retrospect, I did buy the wrong camera.
It's probably meant to be left in "AUTO"
Which makes me think of a new generation of picture-takers
who'll be reduced to taking "snapshots"

( I miss my old Minolta SLR )
<rant>
I guess one of the differences with digital vs film, is that with film, while there have also been the fully auto p&s, there were also fully manual SLR/rangefinder for not much more money. If you wanted auto-anything in an SLR style camera, you paid more. With digital you start with fully auto, and pay more for improved manual control.
Even in DSLR - most of them suck for using manual controls. Whatever happened to having a shutter speed dial, and an aperture ring? I note that the new Panasonic L1 _does_ have a shutter speed dial, and an aperture ring - HOORAY!!! but the camera has a list price of $3.5k(AUS) - hang on, I got that functionality in a film camera I bought new for $250.
On any of the low end DSLR's, manual mode reduces you to using push-buttons or a combination of buttons to be able to set aperture & shutter (most work not too bad in Tv or Av, but go to M and they suck). At the very least, using one in anything other than auto becomes an exercies of "turn the mode dial onto the appropriate A, T, or M setting. Use the thumb dial and/or buttons to then dial up the shutter/aperture required". Why can't you just turn the shutter dial to A if you want auto shutter, and to a number if you want manual shutter. Turn the aperture ring to A if you want auto aperture, or to a number if you want manual. This is simple to use, makes sense, fast, and works. If old film cameras had this, why do you have to go to a $3.5k digital to get this simple bit of flexibility?
Then there is Focus - what is wrong with a split prism view finder? Instead you have these flat matte screens, that are either smaller than a film camera or 1 stop duller for the same lens, making accurate manual focus tricky to say the least. AF is fine - as long as brightness and contrast is good enough for it to work. If they aren't though, then good luck being able to manual focus. At least a film viewfinder is bright and large enough to be able to give the operator a good enough view to be able to get accurate focus in low contrast/brightness situations. Yes I know the 5D offers the same viewfinder, but for it's money I could buy 20 film bodies, or a film body and a decent swag of lenses, or a LOT of film & processing. And then there is that other abomination - focus by wire (not really a digital problem, since the same lenses can be used on either). So they decide to "improve" a lens by removing the mechanical interface between the focus ring and the focus mechanism. Great, now you find you dont have the same feel, the focussing changes in steps, so you don't have the same accuracy, and it is far slower.
Want to take Bulb shots? no longer do you just screw in a generic mechanical shutter release, that works with all of your various cameras purchased over the last 40 years. No, now you have to buy the specific remote release for this model, knowing that if you upgrade your camera you will have to also buy a new release. Oh, and you pay 5 times the price for it too. What's wrong with having a screw hole in a shutter button?
And then there are those annoying damn screens. Make any change to the cameras settings and it all appears on that screen. Great, so far so good, since the screen can show a lot of useful information. Move the camera to your eye to take a photo, and you have this bloody big bright LCD screen glaring in your face. Which button turned the screen off again? is it the 4th button on the left hand side, or the 5th? You wanted to see what you were doing in that low light? forgeddaboutit.
I do agree with the OP in the sense that ergonomics, usability and in some cases common sense, have been left behind, for the sake of features and "progress". I guess I can't blame it all on digital, as the last generation of film cameras suffered a lot of the same problems too.
</rant off>

<rj>
.

Loading