The Roger Hicks Syndrome

The new AP has another of Roger's pieces, and as usual he tries to be down-to-Earth and a little contentious just to spice it up a bit. He actually does it rather well, even using some nice long words to stimulate the old grey matter with!

This week the subject is over-complication in cameras. Do we need it? Would we benefit from less options and controls?

Certainly the average DSLR has much more in the way of options than any Pro level SLR ever had. The Pentax LX, for example, gave us Aperture Prioirty and Manual exposure modes, and we survived very nicely with those. That's what I use today, so all the others are a total waste for my photography.

Having said that, for those who want Shutter Priority and Program modes, the A series and Ka mount brought those options, which is fair enough.

An ME Super does very little compared to a DSLR, but often people express the wish for a digital version. Is this going to be a wish that is met by the new ranges of mini-"imitation SLRs" that have discarded the pentaprism finder and left us with an EVF or back screen?

I wonder if we would buy a stripped-down version of a DSLR. Maybe, if it were to be compact, high quality and with a simplified set of modes and options? This might be a thought for those who use mobile phones to talk to people!

I only buy the AP for Roger's column.

A digital Spotmatic F with a bayonet mount would suit me rather well as would a Leica M9. As Mies van der Rohe said, 'less is more'.

I would have bought the retro styled K10d that Pentax showed but didn't produce mainly for not having a built in flash.

I actually don't think Pentax over-complicates it's cameras at all.....

They beauty of the K20D is that the top dial gives you PASM and two extra modes, neither of which I have ventured to use since Av gives me everything I want, failing that I have Tv.

I could never understand the attarction of the picture modes (unless it was on the Z-20 which had the learning function (fab camera that)).

The shape of the most recent Pentax DSLRs cannot be faulted either - ergonomically they have been very comfortable to hold.

So while we all hark to the old cameras of the 1970s, I won't do without the K20D.

I really think the K20 is the best camera I have ever owned and I do use the 'User' mode sometimes but there is just so much in there that I cannot believe anyone needs or wants like: lcd colour tuning or custom image.

I could go on...

If a manufacturer came out with a cheap, rugged dslr that just shot RAW, had only the basic modes (aperture priority, shutter priority, manual and Ev compensation, with a simple light-meter like the one in the Spotmatic), I am sure a lot of experienced photographers would happily sacrifice features for price. I certainly would if considering a second body. However, I am not sure I would consider it as a primary camera. I do really like the idea though.

Sigma already have done this with their SDXX series but I've never seen a single one "in the wild", which suggests that (contrary to what we often read and say on forums such as this) there's not exactly an orderly queue forming for such a camera.

If Pentax (or Nikon, or Canon, or Sony, or whoever) was to release such a beast then I'd expect pricing to be in line with other ultra-low volume cameras such as the Leica M9. So the question is; would you be prepared to spend 8x the price for a stripped-down version of the camera you already have? If I was very rich I might consider it, otherwise I can't see it happening to be honest...

Good point Hefty. The sad fact (for Leica) is that the quality out of a Pentax DSLR is probably better than the Leica M9. The M9 is "better" built, but only if you count made of metal as better built. In the end, there's nothing badly built about the pentax cameras, albeat it the materials and techniques used may be different.

If you wanted to build the Spotmatic today, using the techniques that were used before, then no doubt it too would be the price of a Leica.

I think it's not so much over-complication, but the wrong kind of complication.

By which I'm referring to the fripperies... all the stupid mucking about they give you options for in the camera, where anyone that is a) interested in that sort of manipulation, and b) capable of it will inevitably do it on the computer, since it's so much easier, and the result so much better.

You end up with a lot of menu options that you never use.

On the other hand, I'm all for anything that increases the actual picture-taking versatility.

It would be interesting to find out whether the stupid stuff actually stops them doing good stuff.

For instance, in-camera sepia toning and the fat/thin 'filter' (I ask you :roll - does all that bloatware they put in actually limit the amount of useful stuff they have time for? Presumably it all has to be written, tested, developed for new models etc.

How much does the crap affect release schedules?

But can't the manufacturers use an 'obsolete' body, ie last years model, strip the software and cut the price?

After all we only have all the different modes because the on board computer can do it. Surely a RISC processor could be used to cut costs.

Maybe the long awaited digital MX (or MES) could be just around the corner...

I think this is like the video debate. I have owned four cameras (excluding mobile phones) with a video mode and have never had the inclination to shoot films.

But if I bought a new camera without video mode I would be worried about the resale value so would not be prepared to pay as much for it new.

As for the (seemingly hundreds) of functions on my DSLR I like the 'spirit level', virbration reduction, the ability to change the AV dial to be whichever I wish and a few other features. I use about 5% of the available functions, but if I didn't get the 5% I wanted I would look elsewhere. Therefore any stripped down version would have to be a compromise.

One thing I would not buy (except for a compact) is a camera with only one control wheel. I've tried using manual with a single wheel and find it a pain.

In day-to-day use my camera is on Av or Manual and the settings are never changed. And I still get lots of use out of my MZ-7, which I actually find a little annoying due to the fact that it doesn't have a manual film winder.

(My car seems to have more buttons than my camera. I'm not too sure what many of those do either?)

Unfortunately, Hefty, you're probably right. Low volume would mean high prices. I'd still like such a beast though. I have never fancied a Leica. Have to confess I've never heard of the SDXX series.

What would be useful is to be able to erase menu items in current cameras. Sometimes it takes loads of scrolling through unused menus to find what you want. Things like in-camera hdr, the various filters, are not used at all save once when I played with the hdr function (software does a better job.) I never use jpeg, so all the features pertaining to jpeg are not any use to me. It would be nice to have a stripped-down menu. Surely that would not be difficult, an ability to edit menus and remove the stuff you don't want?

I think that's a more realistic vision of where things are headed. As cameras become ever more versatile and have more features crammed into them (like it or not, that's what will happen) then the menu systems will come to resemble a small Operating System like the ones in use on mobile phones.

This could actually be the answer to many peoples' prayers! With a powerful OS the camera could be customised to a level unthinkable with today's models. You could have the option to use the camera "Old-Skool" where there would be the very minimum of options, all controlled by external buttons/wheels; and other modes for, say, videographers or point-and-shooters. Each owner would then find the same camera tuned for their own preferences with as much (or little) in way of features that takes their fancy.

Personally, I'd like to see JPEG presets that mimic certain films (Fuji have done this in some of their compacts but obviously only using a database of Fuji emulsions). It would be great to just be able to scroll through, say, Kodachrome, Reala, FP4+, etc on a shot-by-shot basis - with a powerful OS (preferably open source so that clever folk could write their own code and pass it around) all these sorts of things become possible.

That's where I see digital cameras headed anyway, and I don't think it's an entirely bad future.

But the software is there already and you can simply copy it as many of times you want without costing it more so why put in the effort, hours and money to strip it?

And to be honest many features aren't in the way with Pentax because it's locked away in the menu which you don't need to be in while shooting since Pentax has the Fn menu, Canon on the other hand.... don't know about the rest though.

But in that scenario where exactly are the cost savings for the manufacturer? Stripping out software won't save a single penny in manufacturing costs and the camera would be a much harder sell to the majority of buyers who do want those features.

If anything, the cost of "crippling" and old model would then increase its cost - it'll be a very brave marketing department who takes that one on!

I am not sure quite how the K20 is a better camera when it is a DSLR and the Leica is RF. Some might argue that any RF of a decent quality is more desirable than any SLR if the format is much the same.

In this context I am unsure what better means. The Leica will almost certainly be more durable but I am not sure how relevant that is any more.

I know Leica have had a range of problems but I thought the M8.2 and M9 had addressed most of those and their range of lenses still seems to be impressive in all ways.

Mike