The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Why did I do that? Back to DSLR.

Godfrey

Well-known member
Jorgen,

No need to rationalize or explain to me. I was responding to Marc's post immediately preceding mine. I guess it didn't thread quite as I thought it would. :)

It's all good, far as I'm concerned. A solid Nikon is a fine camera.

I've been traveling since last Wednesday with only the Leica X. It's been enough: light, small, solid, great photos, and easy to use. Only thing it's lacking is that added bit of responsiveness that the M9 and E-M1 have.

G

Godfrey,
The "do-it-all" wasn't something that I expected to happen and nothing I was searching for until I actually held the camera in my hand. It's never a 100% true notion of course, but for now, it's good enough.

To have a camera like that has two consequences for me:

- I save money by only having to buy lenses and other stuff for one camera system.
- I travel a lot, and m4/3 has mostly been great for that, but sometimes during my travels, the need arises for higher resolution, less DOF, better AF etc., not because I couldn't mostly get the images I needed or wanted before, but because the commercial value of my photos increases and because I can stretch the limits further.

When going to places where few westerners travel, and that I never know if I will be able to return to, not bringing the best camera gear that I can afford would be silly. Not being prepared for more or less any shooting situation would also be silly. Bringing a camera that doesn't have a user interface that makes the job as easy and as fluent as possible doesn't make sense.

It's not only about pushing ones vision. It's also about pushing physical limits and about using a system that has been proven to work always. Nikon cameras are rather boring, but like a MacBook or a Toyota, they mostly work the way they are supposed to.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
It's interesting the "one camera that can do it all" notion. I suppose it's conceivable if all your imaging vision falls into a particular domain of seeing that such tools exist. But it's never been that way for me.

In the film era, I always had 35mm cameras, mostly Nikon and Leica. But I also had Rolleiflex TLRs, 4x5, half frame, subminiature, and a few others as well as Polaroid. Each for the different way they recorded the world and how that interacted with my sight and vision.

When I was running my photo business, I eschewed all the variations to focus on a particular range of seeing that I wanted to promote as my business. At that time, a pair of DSLRs did the job, I shot with them exclusively from end-2004 to late 2009 when the first 'mirrorless' came out. For what I was shooting at the time, the mirrorless did pretty much the same job as the DSLRs and I used them mostly interchangeably. They were the same format (FourThirds) and the lenses interchanged between the bodies easily (SLR lenses onto mirrorless bodies). The DSLRs were chosen when responsiveness was primary, but in most cases it was purely a matter of what other features I wanted to take advantage of as they certainly weren't identical. I shot that way until 2011, by which time I'd closed the business and moved on to other ways of making a living.

Now I'm back to multiple film formats and several different digital camera systems because I pursue only my own vision without clients to satisfy. One camera certainly does not do it all, although over time I see my subject matter is becoming smaller while my ways of seeing it expand.

So for a pro working a business, the 'one camera that does it all' makes some sense, I guess, but for the photographer pushing his or her own vision it depends entirely on what pushing the vision means.

G
Let your mind take you where equipment alone cannot go.
By hoping that a FF Sony A camera can "do it all", I mean meet the list of "for pay" requirements I outlined, not do everything I need done all the time. Parallel to that is my own photography, which entails a different set of requirements fulfilled by different tools.

- Marc
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
By hoping that a FF Sony A camera can "do it all", I mean meet the list of "for pay" requirements I outlined, not do everything I need done all the time. Parallel to that is my own photography, which entails a different set of requirements fulfilled by different tools.
Good ... It seems we're in agreement on this. :)

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Here's one thing that puzzles me endlessly:
The user interface of the D810 dates back to the F5, a camera that was launched in 1996, 18 years ago. The digital parts were added in 2000 with the D1 and changed for the smaller body when the D200 was launched in 2006. Most photographers, except for some Canon users who think that God lives in their cameras, seem to agree that this is a user interface that works rather well (The Canon interface works well too, I suppose). That is obviously also the reason why it has lasted so long.

Apart from the GH3/4, the NX1 and to a certain degree the E-M1, none of the current mirrorless cameras seem to look in that direction. I understand that retro is cool and all that, and re-inventing the wheel is fun too, but the reason why the butt ugly Canon Rebel cameras have sold by the truckload for years, is probably mostly down to one thing: people feel at home with the user interface.

As a photographer, and this probably goes for most members of this forum, I'm often asked to take photos of people. With their camera! If it's a DSLR, any DSLR, it's easy. I lift the camera to my eye, zoom in or out and "click", photo taken. When I'm handed a mirrorless, a p&s or a camera phone, I have to figure out how the camera works first. Sometimes, I give up and have to ask the owner to explain the basics.

What if cars were like that, or computer keyboards. It's unthinkable of course. But with cameras nowadays, anything goes. Making something that looks and works distinctly different from other cameras seems to be more important than making something that is intuitive and easy to use. The day I buy a mirrorless again, it will be one that follow certain norms when it comes to design and UI. Until then, I use something that was designed in 1996. My hands haven't changed much since then as far as I can see :)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I know exactly what you mean. The Leica X is the same experience... When I got the camera, I took it out of the box and was ready to shoot with it a minute later, without looking at the instructions at all.

Why is this so darn difficult for most camera designers to achieve?

I can understand the complexity of the E-M1 and other cameras like it that have a boatload of sophisticated features and need the user to be able to customize it for specific kinds of use. But why does it seem so difficult for the basics to be approachable on so many modern cameras? It's surely not rocket science...

G
 

rayyan

Well-known member
I was in Dubai last week.

Tried the Sony A7 system. With a few Sony/Zeiss and some M lenses.
A friend of mine, with good dealer connections, facilitated me having the camera
for a few days.

I brought the Df along with me, just for comparison. The Df is not a speed monster. Few focus points..well you all know the tech better than me.

No one camera is a panacea..do it all.

But as far as I am concerned, I shall wait for the next A7xxx iteration.

I have agreed to do some heritage photography in the UAE. I shall do it
With my Df; when I go back to the UAE shortly.

p.s. http://http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/18/8063269/sony-electronics-future-selling-off-pc-smartphone-tv
 
Last edited:
Top