Some quick thoughts on tools and their use

First a very happy Christmas to all amd then a very quick note prompted by recent experience buying a dslr for my brother.

As part of the selection process when buying a dslr for my brother and his partner I tried a number of entry level cameras, including canon, nikon sony olympus. Two things struck me about every entry level dslr

1. The interfaces were universally awful in comparison to my 5D or 1Ds3, or even in comparison to my AE-1. All were heavily menu driven and basically not designed to work with the photographer unless they were shooting in P mode.

2. The viewfinders were universally awful - tunnel like in the extreme. Moving up to the canon 50D level sees an improvement, but things are still not good compared to my AE-1 or my dslrs. The panasonic G1 is in many respects better than or at least a match for thse slr bodies, and can be accuraetly manually focused.

This started me thinking about the interface between the tools and the work and I quickly reached the conclusion that what I want in a camera is the ability to see what I am shooting well - all my bodies allow for this whether slr or rf (even the Zorki 4K is in almost every respect better than the entry level dslrs were) and I use an optical finder on the GX100, and to control the camera functions quickly and easily - without having to dig through menus to do so.

After a bit of thought I accept that I would quickly learn to control camera functions as I don't generally use that many of them(!) but I couldn't get over how limiting I felt the poor quality viewfinders were in terms of seeing and composing. Whilst it's certainly the case that I usually compose without the camera to my eye, I still found the view very disconcerting and limiting.

Any other thoughts?

Mike

Mike I agree fully with your observations. I don't have the answers, though. It is a bit of a dilemma: one should make the entry level cameras easy to use and mostly automatic in handling so that starters can shoot with them. But by doing so, and by hiding many features deep in menu structures, less users of those cameras will make the transaction to "advanced" photography. Make it too successful, and you are eventually unsuccessful. It depends on how one defines success though. To the camera manufacturers, it is about sales figures at the end of the day.

Happy days to all of you,

Cheers,

Cem_Usakligil said:

...But by doing so, and by hiding many features deep in menu structures, less users of those cameras will make the transaction to "advanced" photography.

Click to expand...

Hi folks,

I have just realized that I have written something controversial. The term "advanced" photography was not a very good choice of words. What I wanted to say was that they would possibly not use their cameras efficiently enough towards taking even better pictures than they already do.

This doesn't take away the fact that one can take terrific pictures using the "P" mode (lol).

Cheers,

the nikon pro bodies seem to have alot of features on the camera itself, instead of in the menus. I'd check them out if you haven't I really like the design of the Nikon bodies (the higher end ones anyway) I don't own one, but I've shot a few several times in the past.

I agree with you about the viewfinders they are aweful on almost every entry/consumer level DSLR :-( I would much rather have a nice big viewfinder than a print button, or some other cheesy feature.

Pentax makes a magnifying eyepiece that also fits the Sonys. I have not tried it yet, but will probably get one and a Sony within a few months. I understand they work quite well.
My film camera of choice was an OM1, so I am quite comfortable with manual settings. Even so, I find that I use P most of the time, and adjust if needed. The exception is using flash- there I much prefer manual.

Wishing for the days

Remember the simplicity of film cameras?
No ISO/ASA to worry about
No Post Processing on a computer - I developed my own Tri-X and Black and White prints but the lab did the rest.

Only went out and took a roll of film at a time and was very careful in my shooting.
If I traveled maybe I shot a roll a day of 36. Now I might travel and take as many as 100-200 in a day.

Oh, for the simple times. I still have my camera. Time to experiment!

Maybe the interfaces are laid out for "entry level" photographers.

As comparison when I bought my Canon G9 a friend said "get me the one your getting". I warned her that we may have different needs but we ended up getting the same kit. We enrolled in an underwater photography course and during the assignments we shot all the different modes and flash settings but also shot a P-mode and all auto shot for refference. Her G9 is almost alway's on auto and sometimes now comes of as she learned to recognized situations where auto doess not give her the result she is looking for. But in general she preferred less buttons and easier "auto"operation. Guess the layout of entry level DSLR's also meets these needs.

I think is is great that, although harder to reach, so many of the advanced slr functions are already showing up in entry level camera's. Great tools to learn step by step and implemented user friendly enough not to be overwhelming.

And as far as viewfinders, AF is on auto anyway, so there is only a need to be able to clearly see to compose a shot. The tunnel like very dim viewfinders don't make it easier. Live view is a true selling point here and the Panny G1 does really well here as well. It could be recommendable that if some one has an interest in really learning/advancing in photography to recommend an older second hand pro-body to start of with.

For my Olympus there is a magnifying eye-piece as well but never felt the need to get one.


Martin