Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already
RichA
signature image pictures of the Olympus cameras he's owned since the
early 1990s. What you notice, strikingly, is the reversion across the
years from experimental to absolutely conservative, lock-step camera
design. DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save
for some enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
being presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
the cameras that need re-thinks.
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html
extract:
by Andy Westlake on March 05, 2009 in Lens reviews
There's something that's been troubling me a bit recently, and I want
to get it off my chest. It's an irritation about the photographic
equipment available today, and its fitness for the purpose for which
it's most likely to be used. It has germinated over the course of
testing an array of 50mm prime lenses, developed further with the
recent arrival at the dpreview offices of an array of new fast primes,
and finally crystallized with the relative lack of interesting new
products and ideas at PMA. And it's this; most manufacturers seem be
be thinking very conservatively, treating digital as though nothing's
changed from the days of 35mm film
Doug Jewell
> There is a poster on dpreview, can't remember his name, who has as his
> signature image pictures of the Olympus cameras he's owned since the
> early 1990s. What you notice, strikingly, is the reversion across the
> years from experimental to absolutely conservative, lock-step camera
> design. DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save
> for some enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
> being presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
> the cameras that need re-thinks.
and works well. Unless you are left handed, the design of
right-hand grip and controls works well. Having the
viewfinder on the same vertical plane as the lens makes it
simpler to aim. Looking through the lens means there are no
parallax issues to deal with, the effects of filters can be
previewed real time, and you don't have to worry about
complex calculations to adjust your exposure to compensate
for things like bellows. In essence, the basic late 60's
early 70's design is exceptionally good.
Just because a design is dated doesn't automatically mean it
is bad. Aircraft we fly in today are built to the same
basic design as aircraft almost 100 years ago - the size,
powerplant, and technology have progressed, but the basic
layout remains the same. Once again, it is because it is a
good design that works very well.
You'll remember that Olympus did do something revolutionary
with the E300/330, and their corner viewfinder. Apart from
the fact that the cameras were crap, this design didn't take
off.
There's also things like micro 4/3 and that new Samsung that
are revolutionary by doing away with the reflex, but these
designs have inherent drawbacks also - the EVF's don't have
the same resolution as an optical finder. The speed gains of
not having to wait for a mirror to slap back, are to some
extent offset by the viewfinder lag, and slower contrast
detection focussing.
Paul Furman
> ...pictures of the Olympus cameras he's owned since the
> early 1990s. What you notice, strikingly, is the reversion across the
> years from experimental to absolutely conservative, lock-step camera
> design. DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save
> for some enhanced grips.
I wish there was a DSLR that looked like those:
http://edgehill.net/1/Misc/photography/2006-11-25-oly-om-1/full-size/_PBF5729-c.jpg
I wouldn't mind a simple smaller brick shaped metal body. You can get
P&S like that but all DSLRS look like the same Darth Vader paraphernalia
<g>.
> There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
> being presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
> the cameras that need re-thinks.
What needs to change on cameras?
The electronics have been advancing in astounding ways so not much room
for complaint there.
The basic shape just makes sense: pentaprisms work and that places the
viewfinder above the lens. You want to mount the tripod in the center
too, though the left side doesn't need to be as big, or could even
disappear I guess. Look at an old Hassleblad for a different shape, an
elongated box behind the lens, but if you did that with 35mm it'd be too
small & awkward to hold like a flashlight. I dunno, maybe a stout scope
type arrangement would work... sounds awkward though.
> http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html
> extract: by Andy Westlake on March 05, 2009 in Lens reviews
"So what I'd like to see is ...produce a new breed of 70mm lenses
[105mm 35mm equivalent]
optimized for shooting portraits on APS-C. These could perhaps come in
two flavors, a ‘cheap and cheerful’ F2 and higher-end F1.4. No need for
the manufacturers to obsess over pure sharpness or minimal vignetting
wide open; let's just have something small, light and discreet to work
in harmony with the new capabilities of our DSLRs.
So Sony, if you're listening; scrap that 50mm F1.8 DT, it's just 'old
think' and a hangover from the days of the film. If you're really
serious about making an APS-C prime, start afresh and offer something
more suited to the digital era. The world will be a better place."
That's not revolutionary, pretty conservative really.
He makes a good case for that particular situation.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Wilba
> The basic shape just makes sense: pentaprisms work and that places the
> viewfinder above the lens. You want to mount the tripod in the center too,
> though the left side doesn't need to be as big, or could even disappear I
> guess. Look at an old Hassleblad for a different shape, an elongated box
> behind the lens, but if you did that with 35mm it'd be too small & awkward
> to hold like a flashlight. I dunno, maybe a stout scope type arrangement
> would work... sounds awkward though.
Like the Epoca? - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canon_Epoca
They are huge but the fundamental ergonomics are superb compared to any SLR.
Paul Furman
Last year visiting my mother, she was cleaning out closets & found an
Olympus film camera in that kind of shape. It went in the trash,
assuming there was no market. But video cameras are all in that shape so
maybe there is no logic... all tradition... I've never tried that shape.
Jeremy Nixon
> DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save for some
> enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas being
> presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
> the cameras that need re-thinks.
You know, I actually wish that were the case. The digital SLRs we get
today are computerized monstrosities -- and I'm not talking about the
"digital" part, which obviously has to be that, but the "camera" part.
Last night I shot a roll of Tri-X on a mechanical 35mm SLR. What's
striking is how much more enjoyable the act of photography is with a
regular old camera, without all the crap getting in the way. I *wish*
my digital SLR were just like that, only digital. I really, really
wish.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Get lost
It would be a marketing risk to release a DSLR like a Nikon FM or
Olympus OM-1n (as examples) but it would be interesting if at least
one company tried it out. Keep the techno-junk to bare minimum, don't
include an LCD screen.
Put the money into the sensor, the body and the internal camera
optics. Just for the fun of it, have a swing open back so sensor
cleaning would be easier too.
DRS
news:71hs6jF...@mid.individual.net
[...]
> You know, I actually wish that were the case. The digital SLRs we get
> today are computerized monstrosities -- and I'm not talking about the
> "digital" part, which obviously has to be that, but the "camera" part.
>
> Last night I shot a roll of Tri-X on a mechanical 35mm SLR. What's
> striking is how much more enjoyable the act of photography is with a
> regular old camera, without all the crap getting in the way. I *wish*
> my digital SLR were just like that, only digital. I really, really
> wish.
Hear! Hear!
I have an EOS 1 (recently and reluctantly retired) and an EOS 50D. They're
similar in size, weight and feel, but the 50D has more controls than the
Space Shuttle whereas the 1 is just a joy to use.
Don Stauffer
> There is a poster on dpreview, can't remember his name, who has as his
> signature image pictures of the Olympus cameras he's owned since the
> early 1990s. What you notice, strikingly, is the reversion across the
> years from experimental to absolutely conservative, lock-step camera
> design. DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save
> for some enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
> being presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
> the cameras that need re-thinks.
It sounds like you are talking about styling. I could care less what the
styling is. The film SLR styling evolved over decades, and makes for a
fairly handy package. It is fine for me.
>
> http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html
>
> extract:
>
> by Andy Westlake on March 05, 2009 in Lens reviews
>
> There's something that's been troubling me a bit recently, and I want
> to get it off my chest. It's an irritation about the photographic
> equipment available today, and its fitness for the purpose for which
> it's most likely to be used. It has germinated over the course of
> testing an array of 50mm prime lenses, developed further with the
> recent arrival at the dpreview offices of an array of new fast primes,
> and finally crystallized with the relative lack of interesting new
> products and ideas at PMA. And it's this; most manufacturers seem be
> be thinking very conservatively, treating digital as though nothing's
> changed from the days of 35mm film
Now you seem to be talking functionality. What function(s) of existing
cameras need improvement that could come with more innovative design?
Personally, I am thrilled by the performance of our DSLRs. Of course,
my film SLR was about 30 years old, so the newest DSLRs seem to be major
advances to me. However, for all its bells and whistles, I rarely use
my autofocus, and do not use hardly any of the programmed modes-
primarily use aperture priority.
C J Campbell
Honestly, all that stuff does not get in my way. If I want simplicity,
then "f/8 and be there" works just fine. But I really like the control
that the DSLR gives me.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Bob Haar
> There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
> being presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
> the cameras that need re-thinks.
The maxim "If it aint broke, don't fix it." applies.
Bruce
>
>DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save
>for some enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
>being presented.
That's nonsense. Different layouts have been tried, but they didn't
succeed in the market for a variety of reasons, one of which is the
conservatism of buyers who have expectations of what a (D)SLR should
look like. If it deviates too far from that, it is unlikely to sell.
Likewise, non-SLR digital cameras mostly follow a small number of widely
accepted designs, and woe betide any manufacturer who tries something
too radical.
Instead, all the innovation has gone into features, notably autofocus
and metering, which have become ever more sophisticated. The main
demand here comes from people who would never have bought a film SLR,
but want a DSLR that makes all their decisions for them.
OK, in film days, there were people who bought sophisticated SLR camera
bodies as status symbols, and then used them only in Program mode with a
consumer grade junk lens on the front. But there were nowhere near as
many of them as there are people buying very sophisticated DSLRs.
The fact is that features sell, and the more sophisticated DSLRs get,
the more people will buy them. The fact that most of these people
wouldn't have a hope of producing competent images without the help of
multi-point predictive autofocus, matrix metering and Program exposure
modes to do it all for them, is irrelevant. These cameras are bought to
make a statement about the purchaser, that (usually) he is "serious
about photography".
The truth, of course, is that anyone who is genuinely serious about
photography will spend more time learning the craft rather than more
money on equipment. But the pressure is on consumers to upgrade their
equipment rather than their ability, because selling equipment is a lot
more profitable than selling books or tuition.
semoi
Exacta it will not be taken seriously by the advanced amateur/pro market
that drives sales.
The market has spoken and the market is driven by idiots, whether it is
camera buyers, home buyers, SUV buyers ad infinitum. Consumers do not
usually make informed choices regardless of what they think is their level
of sophistication. The marketers know this well and that it will not change
regardless of the current economic situation.
If a sensor does not adhere to the ancient and arbitrarily created 35mm
double frame format it will not be considered technically adequate
regardless of actual performance.
The sensor/electonics in the Nikon D300 equals or outperforms those in "full
frame" dSLRS at high ISOs and in every practical use that the morons on this
newsgroup could ever need but since the sensor is not the size of the holy
35mm double frame 1936 Exacta it is no good.
Olympus has a long history of trying to buck the prevailing camera form
factor going back to the Pen half frame series, the small bodied film SLRs
and the original 4/3 sensor dSLR designs (and the sensor itself) and its
reward is that it is about to go out of business.
Whither Minolta, the most innovative Japanese camera company ever, done in
by an idiot SUV driving jury in Minnesota.
Panasonic tried to buck the Exacta form factor with its first dSLR, which
went nowhere.
Now Panasonic is really on to something with the interchangeable lens EVF
camera--rejected sight unseen and unused by the nitwit trolls on this
newsgroup.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
Bruce
>
>Now Panasonic is really on to something with the interchangeable lens EVF
>camera--rejected sight unseen and unused by the nitwit trolls on this
>newsgroup.
I tried a Panasonic G1 and was very disappointed with the EVF. It will
not satisfy anyone who has sets a minimum standard of, say, an average
full frame (D)SLR viewfinder. On the other hand, it will probably
satisfy owners of P&S digicams who don't value what a good reflex
viewfinder offers, or people who have only used the worst of the smaller
than full frame DSLR finders.
>Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
That's obviously a mantra you are determined to follow. ;-)
Ron Hunter
Have you tried it standing up in a hammock?
Sigh.
Ron Hunter
could be talked into parting with, for a reasonable price.
Nothing to do but look through the viewfinder, and push the button.
What could be simpler? And you thought you needed a DSLR.....
Rich
bob...@comcast.net:
"You can have any colour on your model T you want, as long as it's black."
At which point, GM became the largest car company, eclipsing Ford.
Alan Browne
>>
>
> "You can have any colour on your model T you want, as long as it's black."
> At which point, GM became the largest car company, eclipsing Ford.
oy. More distortions of history from Rich.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Twibil
> Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
You didn't.
Like living things, our tools slowly evolve towards more efficient/
useful forms. That's why shovels the world 'round look like, well,
other shovels. Today's pickup trucks tend to look pretty much akin to
pickup trucks from the 1920s, and (surprise!) DSLR cameras still
resemble their film-camera predecessors.
It isn't a plot; it's just efficiency that's based on the concept of
keeping the best features of older designs while at the same time
seeking to improve them. For instance; a modern compound hunting bow
has absolutely *no* parts in common with the English Longbow that was
it's ancestor, but it still shoots arrows and it still looks -more or
less- like a bow.
Upon seeing it for the first time, an archer from a culture 2000 years
in our past would instantly recognise what it was, and would know how
to use it without instructions.
Design Evolution: it's a *good* thing.
~Pete
Rich
news:P4udnQx9C6ECFynU...@giganews.com:
> Rich wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> "You can have any colour on your model T you want, as long as it's
>> black." At which point, GM became the largest car company, eclipsing
>> Ford.
>
> oy. More distortions of history from Rich.
>
>
No one is served well by lack of innovation.
Pete D
> Now Panasonic is really on to something with the interchangeable lens EVF
> camera--rejected sight unseen and unused by the nitwit trolls on this
> newsgroup.
> Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
>
>
Perhaps they just don't need another below average camera like you do is my
guess.
bugbear
> Hear! Hear!
>
> I have an EOS 1 (recently and reluctantly retired) and an EOS 50D. They're
> similar in size, weight and feel, but the 50D has more controls than the
> Space Shuttle whereas the 1 is just a joy to use.
I love the idea of an EOS1 as a simple classic
BugBear (Pentax LX owner)
DRS
news:96udneVtsKSXYCnU...@posted.plusnet
> DRS wrote:
>>
>> I have an EOS 1 (recently and reluctantly retired) and an EOS 50D.
>> They're similar in size, weight and feel, but the 50D has more
>> controls than the Space Shuttle whereas the 1 is just a joy to use.
>
> I love the idea of an EOS1 as a simple classic
It says something about the 50D, eh?
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>>
>> > DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save for some
>>> enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas being
>>> presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
>>> the cameras that need re-thinks.
>>
>> You know, I actually wish that were the case. The digital SLRs we get
>> today are computerized monstrosities -- and I'm not talking about the
>> "digital" part, which obviously has to be that, but the "camera" part.
>>
>> Last night I shot a roll of Tri-X on a mechanical 35mm SLR. What's
>> striking is how much more enjoyable the act of photography is with a
>> regular old camera, without all the crap getting in the way.
Let me say the opposite: I love my Canon 30D. It's far
superior to any film camera.
Why? Simple: it has a review screen and "the histogram".
The histogram alone makes up for all the other complication.
Doug McDonald
Jeremy Nixon
> Let me say the opposite: I love my Canon 30D. It's far
> superior to any film camera.
>
> Why? Simple: it has a review screen and "the histogram".
>
> The histogram alone makes up for all the other complication.
Yes, of course. That's the "digital" part, not the "camera" part. Digital
beats film by any technical measure. (For black-and-white there are still
good aesthetic reasons to use film; but I can't think of any reason at all
to shoot 35mm E-6 ever again, and I gave up on C-41 before digital even
became a thing.)
What I'd like is to take that, the "digital" part, and put it in a camera
that doesn't have a whole bunch of crap getting in my way.
J. Clarke
Well now, let's see, my 30d has aperture and shutter speed just like my 50
year old Leica did, and while the controls aren't in exactly the same place,
they can both be worked while I'm looking through the finder. Then it has
ISO and white balance, that I can also change without taking my eye away
from the finder, instead of having to change film or mount filters like I
did on the Leica. Then it has a multispeed motor drive, but I have to take
it down from eye level to adjust that, instead of having to open the camera
and take the back off like I would on the Leica.
Then it has a bunch of fine tuning controls of various kinds where I can
tweak things. And several semi- and full- auto modes.
So I don't see where there's any "crap" "getting in my way".
Twibil
In this case, "Crap" seems to translate as "anything I haven't figured
out how to use yet".
~Pete
Jeremy Nixon
> So I don't see where there's any "crap" "getting in my way".
Well, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I guess.
But, to change exposure modes, I'm supposed to hold down a button while
turning a wheel. First of all, why? Second, the modes include useless
"P" and "S" modes that I'm never going to use, and since it's not a
dedicated control, I inevitably turn it the wrong way and then I have
to cycle past idiot modes I don't even care if the camera has. On my
film camera, I just have to set the shutter speed dial to "A" when I
want automatic exposure. Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
So I'm supposed to set the shutter speed with a "multi-function" dial,
but look at what I get dedicated controls for -- JPEG quality? I
didn't get a DSLR so I could shoot JPEGs. I'm never going to shoot
a JPEG. White balance? What for? White balance is done in post,
it's irrelevant. The only time I move that from auto is when shooting
with flash, just so the preview images look right, and even then, I
have to go through dumb little icons when all I really want is to set
it to 5500.
"1005-Pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II" with "Scene Recognition System"?
Really? I'm choosing a shutter speed, not sending a space probe to Mars.
You can look at a scene and know just what a regular center-weighted meter
is going to make of it, but you can't reliably predict the matrix metering.
So I can switch it to center-weighted, but the stupid switch keeps getting
moved while the camera is in my bag, so I have to remember to check that
it's on the right setting.
Dozens of autofocus modes. Thankfully, this switch knows how to stay put,
at least.
Now they're giving us lenses that don't even have aperture rings. I'm
supposed to set the aperture with another multi-function dial. What for?
A menu dive to turn Auto ISO on and off. Great. Adjust ISO with the same
multi-function wheel you're supposed to use for shutter speed. Or is it
aperture?
More and more features to add to a list, and most of them don't help you
take better pictures at all. They just give you more to fiddle with so
you can feel like you know what you're doing. Shoot, check the LCD,
adjust exposure, shoot again. You see people doing it outside in the
sun. What do you even need a light meter for, outside on a sunny day?
Remember when you didn't have the LCD and you still got it right, even
shooting slides with no latitude?
And we have to replace the camera every few years, to boot, bypass all
the automatic crap all over again, and pay for a whole load of bollocks
that doesn't matter in the least, just to get new "film". A camera
isn't a complicated device; it shouldn't get between you and the
pictures. Sure, it's all stuff you learn to work with, but try
shooting with a simple camera again and it's just a whole different
experience.
Ray Fischer
>J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> So I don't see where there's any "crap" "getting in my way".
>
>Well, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I guess.
>
>But, to change exposure modes, I'm supposed to hold down a button while
>turning a wheel. First of all, why?
You picked the wrong camera.
> Second, the modes include useless
>"P" and "S" modes that I'm never going to use, and since it's not a
>dedicated control, I inevitably turn it the wrong way and then I have
>to cycle past idiot modes I don't even care if the camera has. On my
>film camera, I just have to set the shutter speed dial to "A" when I
>want automatic exposure. Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
use. Whose fault is that?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jeremy Nixon
>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>
> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
> use. Whose fault is that?
Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
Chris Malcolm
> Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>>J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So I don't see where there's any "crap" "getting in my way".
>>
>>Well, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I guess.
>>
>>But, to change exposure modes, I'm supposed to hold down a button while
>>turning a wheel. First of all, why?
> You picked the wrong camera.
I'm inclined to agree. I'd be pretty fed up with a DSLR as awkward to
operate as Jeremy describes.
>> Second, the modes include useless
>>"P" and "S" modes that I'm never going to use, and since it's not a
>>dedicated control, I inevitably turn it the wrong way and then I have
>>to cycle past idiot modes I don't even care if the camera has. On my
>>film camera, I just have to set the shutter speed dial to "A" when I
>>want automatic exposure. Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
> use. Whose fault is that?
However, it sounds as though it might be the case that lurking in some
parts of Jeremy's camera's modes of operation there may be ways of doing
the things Jeremy wants to do much more simply than the kind of fuss he
describes. In each of my last two cameras, while neither sounds as
awkward as he describes, it was the case that six months after getting
it and working my way through the entire manual a few times, I was
still occasionally stumbling across a way of doing something which was
a lot easier than the "obvious" way I had been doing it.
Of course if the entire camera was less complex, and hadn't got any of
those features I never use, there wouldn't be simple useful shortcuts
lurking in places it hadn't occurred to me to look. But I wouldn't
want either of them to have been less complex, because maybe once or
twice a year I find myself wanting to do a kind of photography I
"never do" for a special occasion, and almost always find that the
camera has some very useful features which make it much easier
and faster to get good results, in some cases so much easier and
faster that it can get good shots in conditions I wouldn't have
believed possible.
It's true that learning how to use these new complex digital cameras
is orders of magnitude more complicated than my old purely manual film
SLR. But once I'd mastered their sometimes obscure complexities I find
that I can do everything I used to do more quickly than I could with
the old film SLR, and quite a lot of things I could never have done
with it.
It sounds as though Jeremy wants a DSLR whose manual mode incorporates
a wheel for adjusting shutter and another wheel for adjusting
aperture. I hope it's not the case that he's overlooking a simple way
of flipping his single wheel from aperture to shutter control. On my
single-wheel DSLR, which does have the "hold down a button and turn
the wheel" way of doing it that he dislikes, there are some other less
obvious but easy ways of doing it which require less dexterity. But
nothing is quite as easy as having two dedicated wheels, and there are
enough DSLRs with that feature to make it a bit silly to rant about
having bought one which doesn't.
--
Chris Malcolm
Doug Jewell
> J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> So I don't see where there's any "crap" "getting in my way".
>
> Well, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I guess.
>
> But, to change exposure modes, I'm supposed to hold down a button while
> turning a wheel. First of all, why? Second, the modes include useless
> "P" and "S" modes that I'm never going to use, and since it's not a
> dedicated control, I inevitably turn it the wrong way and then I have
> to cycle past idiot modes I don't even care if the camera has. On my
> film camera, I just have to set the shutter speed dial to "A" when I
> want automatic exposure. Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
lamented the fact that all digitals did everything with
those damned dials. I liked my classic film cameras with the
ISO & Shutter dials and an aperture ring on the lens. I
figured the ideal way would be to have an A setting on all 3
dials (for the sake of easy reading I'll refer to them all
as dials, even though the aperture ring is a... ring, not a
dial). If all are set to A the camera functions in full
auto. Moving a dial off A means that setting becomes fixed
to what the dial is set to, while any left in A are set
automatically by the camera. So to operate in aperture
priority, you'd leave the shutter dial on A, you could have
ISO on A or on a set ISO if you preferred, and then manually
set the aperture ring to the setting you preferred. Such a
system would be quite logical and easy to use IMO.
Then I got my GX10 and I realised the error of my ways. See
my old classic Pentaxes and Ricohs were wonderful cameras to
use, but you couldn't change the shutter without taking the
camera away from your eye. You could change aperture, but
you had to keep your wits about you as to how open/closed it
was. The K10D has two wheels, one under your middle finger,
and one under your thumb. It also has this wonderful setting
called "Sv" or sensitivity priority, and a feature called
hyper-program. Put the camera on Sv mode, and the rear
thumb-wheel changes ISO. The front wheel then scrolls
through the shutter/aperture combinations that will give
correct exposure. The exposure compensation button is right
next to the thumb, press that and scroll the front wheel to
lock aperture and give under/over exposure as desired. Just
near the shutter button is the magic "green button" which
resets everything back to what the camera thinks is the
ideal auto-everything setting to use as a base. Everything
is displayed in the viewfinder, so it is exceptionally quick
and easy to use - While you are composing your scene you can
see what shutter/aperture are going to be used, and adjust
both with one easy turn of the front wheel. Lighting is a
little low to get a decent shutter speed with the 300mm
lens? no worries, spin the thumb-wheel and lift the ISO.
>
> So I'm supposed to set the shutter speed with a "multi-function" dial,
> but look at what I get dedicated controls for -- JPEG quality? I
> didn't get a DSLR so I could shoot JPEGs. I'm never going to shoot
> a JPEG. White balance? What for? White balance is done in post,
> it's irrelevant. The only time I move that from auto is when shooting
> with flash, just so the preview images look right, and even then, I
> have to go through dumb little icons when all I really want is to set
> it to 5500.
Guess it depends on the way you operate - I shoot RAW+JPG,
and have the camera set to produce the type of JPG's I like.
That way, I probably won't have to do any post processing,
but I have the RAW file available if I decide I need to give
it a touch up in post. I couldn't be bothered spending hours
in front of a computer for every photo. Which is kinda like
how I operated with film - every photo got the standard 6x4
print, but the good ones got scanned, tweaked, and printed
as 8x10 or bigger. On most photos, the 6x4 was all I'd ever
bother with, with some though it was good to have the
negative to produce a better image from. I relate the 6x4 to
the JPG, and the Neg to the RAW.
>
> "1005-Pixel 3D Color Matrix Metering II" with "Scene Recognition System"?
> Really? I'm choosing a shutter speed, not sending a space probe to Mars.
> You can look at a scene and know just what a regular center-weighted meter
> is going to make of it, but you can't reliably predict the matrix metering.
> So I can switch it to center-weighted, but the stupid switch keeps getting
> moved while the camera is in my bag, so I have to remember to check that
> it's on the right setting.
Yeah can't get my head around matrix metering - I always
leave it switched to centre-weighted, at least that way it
is predictable.
>
> Dozens of autofocus modes. Thankfully, this switch knows how to stay put,
> at least.
>
> Now they're giving us lenses that don't even have aperture rings. I'm
> supposed to set the aperture with another multi-function dial. What for?
as above - when implemented properly, this actually works
better than an aperture ring. Unfortunately most cameras
don't implement this properly.
>
> A menu dive to turn Auto ISO on and off. Great. Adjust ISO with the same
> multi-function wheel you're supposed to use for shutter speed. Or is it
> aperture?
As above - when implemented properly it works a treat. When
not implemented properly it's a dog.
>
> More and more features to add to a list, and most of them don't help you
> take better pictures at all. They just give you more to fiddle with so
> you can feel like you know what you're doing.
Most of the settings are to allow you to set image
parameters that previously would have been determined by
film type. You frequently see posted here that this is
digital's big advantage, that you can change this on a shot
to shot basis, instead of only per roll of film. Yeah, guess
that's a plus, but I find I tend to shoot mostly on 1 of 3
settings. With film I usually had one body loaded with
velvia or another slide film for landscapes, one loaded with
a more gentle film for portrait type work, and one loaded
with a mid speed B&W film. Now before you all go on about
carrying 3 cameras when one DSLR will do the job, you
generally know ahead of time which film type will be most
appropriate, and only take that one body. On a cost basis,
the film bodies were a fraction of the cost of a digital
body, and they were considerably lighter and smaller so
carrying 2 or 3 film bodies wasn't that big of a deal.
>Shoot, check the LCD,
> adjust exposure, shoot again. You see people doing it outside in the
> sun. What do you even need a light meter for, outside on a sunny day?
> Remember when you didn't have the LCD and you still got it right, even
> shooting slides with no latitude?
Dunno why light metering on digitals is so atrocious. My
film cameras, even going back to my 1963 Yashica MIII
rangefinder, would meter right pretty much every time - yeah
there was the odd occassion where you'd have to give them a
slight tweak if you had a large mass of black or white in
the image, but it was pretty rare. And even with slide film,
they got it right pretty much every time. Enter digital, and
something as simple as a scenic with green trees and blue
sky, becomes a pain of trouble, shooting and reshooting with
different exposures to try to get the right balance of sky
not being blown white, and land not being blocked shadows.
Perhaps it was just the better latitude of film, but
shooting a scenic was basically point and shoot, because the
meter would get it right every time. Took me ages to work
out settings that would get rid of the white skies with
digital. Must admit my 450D on "highlight tone priority" is
a hell of a lot better than any of my older digitals, but
still not as good as any of my film cameras in that regard.
>
> And we have to replace the camera every few years, to boot, bypass all
> the automatic crap all over again, and pay for a whole load of bollocks
> that doesn't matter in the least, just to get new "film". A camera
> isn't a complicated device; it shouldn't get between you and the
> pictures. Sure, it's all stuff you learn to work with, but try
> shooting with a simple camera again and it's just a whole different
> experience.
As much as I love the instant feedback of the digital and
the very low operating cost, I still find I take better
photos when I'm shooting film. I think subconsciously I go
into a different mindset.
>
John A.
wrote:
>Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>>
>> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
>> use. Whose fault is that?
>
>Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
Most of the manufacturers probably have their manuals available online
as PDFs. That might be a good place to look when comparison shopping.
JA
nospam
wrote:
> Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
all of nikon's dslrs have a shutter speed dial - it's the control wheel
on the back of the camera. aperture is controlled with the control
wheel on the front, except for the low end models (d40, d50, d60) which
lack a second control wheel and have a button to toggle the function of
the rear control wheel (only an issue in manual mode). using the
control wheels is easier and more accurate than twisting an old style
shutter speed dial or a ring on the lens.
Ray Fischer
>
>>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>>
>> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
>> use. Whose fault is that?
>
>Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial.
Sure they do.
> Who does?
So does Canon. You set the camera to shutter priority (that's the
'T' for time setting on the dial) and then the control wheel sets the
shutter speed. Aperture priority works the same way.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jeremy Nixon
> all of nikon's dslrs have a shutter speed dial - it's the control wheel
> on the back of the camera.
No, that's a multi-function dial. It does a lot more than shutter speed;
it changes the exposure mode, adjusts the ISO, etc.
I'm interested in a shutter speed dial, sitting atop the camera, with
shutter speeds printed on it and click-stops at each.
> aperture is controlled with the control wheel on the front, except for
> the low end models (d40, d50, d60) which lack a second control wheel
> and have a button to toggle the function of the rear control wheel
> (only an issue in manual mode).
Aperture is controlled with whichever dial you want, actually. On my
camera, aperture is controlled with the wheel on the back of the camera
and shutter speed with the one on the front, because I prefer it that
way and you can change it. Also, when in aperture priority mode, the
wheel on the front controls exposure compensation instead of shutter
speed.
> using the control wheels is easier and more accurate than twisting
> an old style shutter speed dial or a ring on the lens.
Like I said, if you like it, great, but I don't agree with that assessment.
I ended up setting the camera to use the aperture ring on the lens instead
of the multi-function dial, which (since I use a lot of Ai-S lenses) keeps
it more consistent; the only time I have to use the dial is if I'm using
a "G" lens, and I only have one of those.
Jeremy Nixon
> Then I got my GX10 and I realised the error of my ways. See
> my old classic Pentaxes and Ricohs were wonderful cameras to
> use, but you couldn't change the shutter without taking the
> camera away from your eye. You could change aperture, but
> you had to keep your wits about you as to how open/closed it
> was. The K10D has two wheels, one under your middle finger,
> and one under your thumb.
Well, maybe it's just a matter of design; I can change aperture and shutter
speed on my film camera while looking through the viewfinder. Actually,
owing to somewhat poor design of the exposure compensation, if I don't
want to use the automatic setting as-is, it's easier to use full manual
mode and adjust the shutter manually than it is to adjust EC in aperture
priority mode.
> Guess it depends on the way you operate - I shoot RAW+JPG,
> and have the camera set to produce the type of JPG's I like.
> That way, I probably won't have to do any post processing,
> but I have the RAW file available if I decide I need to give
> it a touch up in post. I couldn't be bothered spending hours
> in front of a computer for every photo. Which is kinda like
> how I operated with film - every photo got the standard 6x4
> print, but the good ones got scanned, tweaked, and printed
> as 8x10 or bigger. On most photos, the 6x4 was all I'd ever
> bother with, with some though it was good to have the
> negative to produce a better image from. I relate the 6x4 to
> the JPG, and the Neg to the RAW.
I don't touch JPEG until I'm creating one as final output for something.
In recognition of what you way (the way you operate), back in the day I
only printed the shots I wanted, and on the occasions when I shot C-41 I
used to confuse the one-hour lab people by asking for negatives only, no
prints at all; then I'd go make my own contact sheet. (I knew how to
develop C-41 myself, but it's a pain in the ass, and pointless as there
is no creative input. Same with E-6.)
> Yeah can't get my head around matrix metering - I always
> leave it switched to centre-weighted, at least that way it
> is predictable.
Matrix metering is one of those things that can work great, but when it
doesn't, there's just no way to predict what it's going to do.
> Dunno why light metering on digitals is so atrocious. [...]
I'm not convinced that it is, actually. I think we've just changed the
way we work.
Sure, first you have the fact that digital gives you less latitude, plus
you can tell if you're off by even a fraction of a stop. It allows you
to be picky, and to make sure you get it *exactly* right (and that's a
good thing!). But I don't think that's the whole story.
I fell into the trap at first, too. Use an automatic mode, make a shot,
if it's wrong, do it again. Then one day I found myself wondering why in
the heck it the thing couldn't get it right the first time. Then I realized
I was blaming the camera, when I'm the one taking the pictures. I was
shooting in the sun, for crying out loud! Back in the day I wouldn't have
had it on automatic at all -- the exposure is always the same!
So, switch to manual and do it the old-fashioned way. You don't even have
to check the LCD; you know you got the shot.
> As much as I love the instant feedback of the digital and
> the very low operating cost, I still find I take better
> photos when I'm shooting film.
I don't think that I do. I take *different* ones, for sure, but in all
honesty I think shooting digital made me a better photographer even when
shooting film. Though the "unlimited film, no reason not to experiment
all you want" aspect might have helped there.
nospam
wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > all of nikon's dslrs have a shutter speed dial - it's the control wheel
> > on the back of the camera.
>
> No, that's a multi-function dial. It does a lot more than shutter speed;
> it changes the exposure mode, adjusts the ISO, etc.
although it is multi-function, in all modes other than 'p' it adjusts
shutter speed. you have to press another button or go into the menus
to make it do something else.
if you want an old school shutter speed dial, get an epson r-d1x:
<http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/epsons-r-d1xg-digital-rangefinder-lo
cates-our-analog-hearts/>
> I'm interested in a shutter speed dial, sitting atop the camera, with
> shutter speeds printed on it and click-stops at each.
keep in mind that putting the dial on top was forced by mechanical
constraints from mechanical shutters. with electronic shutters, the
control wheel can go anywhere, and it's much more ergonomic to have it
on the back, under ones thumb. also, with a wheel you can get 1/2 or
1/3 steps, whereas with the old school dial, you only had full stops.
> > aperture is controlled with the control wheel on the front, except for
> > the low end models (d40, d50, d60) which lack a second control wheel
> > and have a button to toggle the function of the rear control wheel
> > (only an issue in manual mode).
>
> Aperture is controlled with whichever dial you want, actually. On my
> camera, aperture is controlled with the wheel on the back of the camera
> and shutter speed with the one on the front, because I prefer it that
> way and you can change it. Also, when in aperture priority mode, the
> wheel on the front controls exposure compensation instead of shutter
> speed.
true, but in the default configuration, the rear wheel is shutter speed
and the front wheel is aperture. that can be switched on some nikon
cameras, as well as enabling the use of the aperture ring on the lens
(if there is one).
> > using the control wheels is easier and more accurate than twisting
> > an old style shutter speed dial or a ring on the lens.
>
> Like I said, if you like it, great, but I don't agree with that assessment.
> I ended up setting the camera to use the aperture ring on the lens instead
> of the multi-function dial, which (since I use a lot of Ai-S lenses) keeps
> it more consistent; the only time I have to use the dial is if I'm using
> a "G" lens, and I only have one of those.
using the aperture ring is actually less accurate (you can't get 1/3
stop accuracy on an aperture ring) and less consistent, particularly
with variable aperture lenses and when switching lenses.
Paul Furman
Is this simple enough?:
http://prophotohub.blogspot.com/2008/09/leica-s-system.html
-actually it looks like the lenses lack an aperture ring and that's what
the dial does. If you wait for it to load, the top view shows your
shutter speed dial: http://www.s.leica-camera.com/
It does have an LCD but not much more.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Wilba
> Wilba wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>> The basic shape just makes sense: pentaprisms work and that places the
>>> viewfinder above the lens. You want to mount the tripod in the center
>>> too, though the left side doesn't need to be as big, or could even
>>> disappear I guess. Look at an old Hassleblad for a different shape, an
>>> elongated box behind the lens, but if you did that with 35mm it'd be too
>>> small & awkward to hold like a flashlight. I dunno, maybe a stout scope
>>> type arrangement would work... sounds awkward though.
>>
>> Like the Epoca? - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canon_Epoca
>>
>> They are huge but the fundamental ergonomics are superb compared to any
>> SLR.
>
> Last year visiting my mother, she was cleaning out closets & found an
> Olympus film camera in that kind of shape. It went in the trash, assuming
> there was no market. But video cameras are all in that shape so maybe
> there is no logic... all tradition... I've never tried that shape.
Hold your SLR in the normal way for a landscape shot, then rotate your wrist
back 45 degrees - how does it feel? :-)
John McWilliams
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> all of nikon's dslrs have a shutter speed dial - it's the control wheel
>> on the back of the camera.
>
> No, that's a multi-function dial. It does a lot more than shutter speed;
> it changes the exposure mode, adjusts the ISO, etc.
>
> I'm interested in a shutter speed dial, sitting atop the camera, with
> shutter speeds printed on it and click-stops at each.
Otoh, I am very satisfied with the click stops (a soft click) and the
readout in the viewfinder of shutter speeds. It also reads out on the
top panel, handy for tripod work. This is on Canons. The wheel is in a
vertical orientation, nicer for me than the ones in a horizontal plane,
as were my film Canons.
--
John McWilliams
Bob Larter
> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
>> use. Whose fault is that?
IIRC, the whole point of the Leica digital was to be as simple as an old
film camera, perhaps you should try one out.
> Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
Canon EOS. In full manual mode, one dial does shutter speed & the second
dial sets aperture.
--
W
. | , w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John McWilliams
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>>> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
>>> use. Whose fault is that?
>
> IIRC, the whole point of the Leica digital was to be as simple as an old
> film camera, perhaps you should try one out.
>
>> Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who
>> does?
>
> Canon EOS. In full manual mode, one dial does shutter speed & the second
> dial sets aperture.
Wow! I haven't seen that sig line since Lionel disappeared from these
groups.
'Dat you??
--
john mcwilliams
Bob Larter
Hi John, it's been a while.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Bob Larter wrote:
>>> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> [...] Why can't my DSLR have a shutter speed dial?
>>>>> Mine does. You picked a cheap camera instead one that was easy to
>>>>> use. Whose fault is that?
>>>
>>> IIRC, the whole point of the Leica digital was to be as simple as an
>>> old film camera, perhaps you should try one out.
>>>
>>>> Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who
>>>> does?
>>>
>>> Canon EOS. In full manual mode, one dial does shutter speed & the
>>> second dial sets aperture.
>>
>>
>> Wow! I haven't seen that sig line since Lionel disappeared from these
>> groups.
>> 'Dat you??
>
> Hi John, it's been a while.
Yes, it has been; good on ya! Any relation to my gf, Ali??
--
john mcwilliams
Max thought the night-time burglary at the California surfing museum
would be a safe caper, but that was before he spotted the security cop
riding a bull mastiff, blond hair blowing in the wind, and noticed the
blue-and-white sign wired to the cyclone fence, "Guard dude on
doggy."8:02:18 AM
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> Hi John, it's been a while.
>
> Yes, it has been; good on ya! Any relation to my gf, Ali??
No relation. ;^)
It's good to see that things seem to be a lot quieter here these days.
Jürgen Exner
>Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
Don't tell my Nikon D80, doesn't know that it doesn't have a shutter
speed dial.
Put the camera into mode P, S or M and the main dial will select the
shutter speed (the camera will automatically adjust aperture in P and
S).
jue
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in
> news:P4udnQx9C6ECFynU...@giganews.com:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> "You can have any colour on your model T you want, as long as it's
>>> black." At which point, GM became the largest car company, eclipsing
>>> Ford.
>> oy. More distortions of history from Rich.
>>
>>
>
> No one is served well by lack of innovation.
No one is well served by your misleading distortions of the truth.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Jeremy Nixon
> Don't tell my Nikon D80, doesn't know that it doesn't have a shutter
> speed dial.
What I find most sad is that people seem to have forgotten what a shutter
speed dial *is*.
Jeremy Nixon
> IIRC, the whole point of the Leica digital was to be as simple as an old
> film camera, perhaps you should try one out.
Yeah, that one would be nice if it didn't, you know, suck.
Incidentally, I'm not looking for "simple" in the sense of "easy to use".
The modern cameras are perfectly easy to use. What I'm looking for is
"simple" as in "doesn't get in the way".
>> Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
>
> Canon EOS. In full manual mode, one dial does shutter speed & the second
> dial sets aperture.
A dial that can set the shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
You look like Lionel. Where ya been?
nospam
wrote:
> A dial that can set the shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
then what is it?
Pboud
programmed for it by moving it one way or the other.
Why?
P.
David J. Littleboy
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon < )@(>> wrote:
>
>> A dial that can set the shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
>
> then what is it?
Something else. A "shutter speed dial" is a dial that has shutter speed
numbers engraved on it (or in its vicinity) and directly controls the
shutter speed and only the shutter speed. An unmarked, infinitely turning
wheel that can be (and is) arbitrarily assigned different functions
including shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
Neither Nikon nor Canon makes a camera with a shutter speed dial.
Anyway, that's the point, I think. That this "other thing" is way more
flexible and way more useful (e.g. it can control the shutter speed in 1/3
stop incremements; with a "real shutter speed dial" you have to look to the
aperture ring to get fractional f stops, and they're completely inaccurate)
doesn't seem to bother these squawkers...
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
nospam
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> >> A dial that can set the shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
> >
> > then what is it?
>
> Something else. A "shutter speed dial" is a dial that has shutter speed
> numbers engraved on it (or in its vicinity) and directly controls the
> shutter speed and only the shutter speed. An unmarked, infinitely turning
> wheel that can be (and is) arbitrarily assigned different functions
> including shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
>
> Neither Nikon nor Canon makes a camera with a shutter speed dial.
>
> Anyway, that's the point, I think.
indeed it is. cameras no longer have an engraved, antiquated, old
style, single purpose, ergonomically ill designed dial.
what they do have *does* control the shutter speed, thus it *is* a
shutter speed dial. the fact that it can do *more* doesn't negate
that. also, unless explicitly overridden (or disabled by using one of
the automatic exposure modes), it does it by default.
> That this "other thing" is way more
> flexible and way more useful (e.g. it can control the shutter speed in 1/3
> stop incremements; with a "real shutter speed dial" you have to look to the
> aperture ring to get fractional f stops, and they're completely inaccurate)
> doesn't seem to bother these squawkers...
yep, the dials are much more accurate and easier to use.
Jeremy Nixon
> Anyway, that's the point, I think. That this "other thing" is way more
> flexible and way more useful (e.g. it can control the shutter speed in 1/3
> stop incremements; with a "real shutter speed dial" you have to look to the
> aperture ring to get fractional f stops, and they're completely inaccurate)
> doesn't seem to bother these squawkers...
Yeah, I would have said that after a couple years of just using a DSLR, too.
After shooting with an old-fashioned camera a bit, and using it side by side
with a modern one, I no longer think that.
Also, I see no reason an aperture ring should be any less accurate than an
electronic control. More precise, certainly, because you get the 1/3 stop
clicks, though I don't really find that terribly useful.
Jürgen Exner
>> Jeremy Nixon < )@(>> wrote:
>>
>>> A dial that can set the shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
>>
>> then what is it?
>
>Something else. A "shutter speed dial" is a dial that has shutter speed
>numbers engraved on it (or in its vicinity) and directly controls the
>shutter speed and only the shutter speed.
Is it sufficient that the apperture numbers are shown in a display
nearby?
>An unmarked, infinitely turning
>wheel that can be (and is) arbitrarily assigned different functions
>including shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
In those modes, where you can control the shutter speed manually, that
wheel has one and only one function: controlling the shutter speed.
>Neither Nikon nor Canon makes a camera with a shutter speed dial.
Nonsense. Had you said they don't have a dedicated shutter speed dial,
that is used for shutter only and is useless appendix in any mode that
doesn't support manual setting of the shutter speed, then ok, fine,
yeah, you would be right.
However that dial selects the shutter speed whenever manual setting of
the shutter speed is available, so in those modes it becomes the shutter
speed dial, including displaying the selected shutter speed.
Or would you also say your cell phone doesn't have a '2' button, because
that button not only dials a '2' but also types an 'a', 'b', or 'c' for
texting, dials the second speed dial number, and selects the second
option in menues?
jue
David J. Littleboy
>
>> Anyway, that's the point, I think. That this "other thing" is way more
>> flexible and way more useful (e.g. it can control the shutter speed in
>> 1/3
>> stop incremements; with a "real shutter speed dial" you have to look to
>> the
>> aperture ring to get fractional f stops, and they're completely
>> inaccurate)
>> doesn't seem to bother these squawkers...
>
> Yeah, I would have said that after a couple years of just using a DSLR,
> too.
> After shooting with an old-fashioned camera a bit, and using it side by
> side
> with a modern one, I no longer think that.
Hmm. Until the 5DII, I used to shoot side by side quite a bit, carrying both
the Mamiya 7 and the 5D in a bag. With the M7, I really want to shoot up or
down 1/3 of a stop from the whole f stop setting, which is all the camera
allows. With slide films, exposure is that sensitive and my spot meter gives
that accuracy.
> Also, I see no reason an aperture ring should be any less accurate than an
> electronic control.
The electronic control gives accurate 1/3-stop increments, I've never had a
camera with fractional stop detents, so in-between settings are guesswork.
Again, the meter reads 1/3 stop increments, so I can't set the meter reading
in the camera.
> More precise, certainly, because you get the 1/3 stop
> clicks, though I don't really find that terribly useful.
Good point! With slide film you need it and don't get it; with digital, you
don't need it but do get it (I leave my dSLRs set to 1/2 stop, not 1/3 stop,
increments). Great.
David J. Littleboy
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Jeremy Nixon < )@(>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A dial that can set the shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
>>>
>>> then what is it?
>>
>>Something else. A "shutter speed dial" is a dial that has shutter speed
>>numbers engraved on it (or in its vicinity) and directly controls the
>>shutter speed and only the shutter speed.
>
> Is it sufficient that the apperture numbers are shown in a display
> nearby?
I doubt that that would be much use for a shutter speed dial...
(Ask the folks complaining: not me. I like the new dials better.)
>>An unmarked, infinitely turning
>>wheel that can be (and is) arbitrarily assigned different functions
>>including shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
>
> In those modes, where you can control the shutter speed manually, that
> wheel has one and only one function: controlling the shutter speed.
I thought that Nikon allowed you to select which dial does which? Canon
doesn't.
>>Neither Nikon nor Canon makes a camera with a shutter speed dial.
>
> Nonsense.
Please read more carefully: I was speaking for the people making the
complaint and explaining it to the people who couldn't understand it. I seem
to have failed in your case.
nospam
wrote:
> Also, I see no reason an aperture ring should be any less accurate than an
> electronic control. More precise, certainly, because you get the 1/3 stop
> clicks, though I don't really find that terribly useful.
think variable aperture lenses.
nospam
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> I thought that Nikon allowed you to select which dial does which? Canon
> doesn't.
usually yes, but i think some of the lower end models omit the option.
they even let you set which direction is up or down.
Chris Malcolm
> J?rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't tell my Nikon D80, doesn't know that it doesn't have a shutter
>> speed dial.
> What I find most sad is that people seem to have forgotten what a shutter
> speed dial *is*.
How do you feel about these new fangled electric keyboard thingies you
have to type on when writing to the newsgroup? Not quite the same as
the real old thing, are they?
--
Chris Malcolm
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the whole point of the Leica digital was to be as simple as an old
>> film camera, perhaps you should try one out.
>
> Yeah, that one would be nice if it didn't, you know, suck.
Fair enough. ;^)
> Incidentally, I'm not looking for "simple" in the sense of "easy to use".
> The modern cameras are perfectly easy to use. What I'm looking for is
> "simple" as in "doesn't get in the way".
Yes, I got that.
>>> Okay... Nikon doesn't make any DSLRs with a shutter speed dial. Who does?
>> Canon EOS. In full manual mode, one dial does shutter speed & the second
>> dial sets aperture.
>
> A dial that can set the shutter speed isn't a shutter speed dial.
Having grown up with fully manual SLRs, I much prefer being able to set
shutter speed from my DSLR thumb dial over having to take my eye from
the viewfinder to set the shutter speed on top of my SLR. I also /like/
being able to set both shutter & aperture with my right hand only.
> You look like Lionel. Where ya been?
I was spending too much time on Usenet, & it was easiest to give it up
cold-turkey. In future I'll be a bit more selective about my participation.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
Bob Larter
> Jürgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't tell my Nikon D80, doesn't know that it doesn't have a shutter
>> speed dial.
>
> What I find most sad is that people seem to have forgotten what a shutter
> speed dial *is*.
Well, I certainly haven't, it's just that I think that the digital
version (on Canon EOS 1D* models at least) is a major improvement.
nospam
<savag...@savage.net> wrote:
> Certainly my father's Argus C3 and my K1000 were wonderfully easy to
> operate, set ASA, a dial on top for shutter speed and aperture on the
> lens. Hand held meter for the Argus, For the K1000, center that TLM
> needle and shoot. Just as anyone who has learned to ride a bicycle will
> have little trouble mounting and riding a modern bike, anyone who knew
> the fundementals of the classic cameras could move between cameras with
> a shallow learning curve.
it's exactly the same today. set the dslr to 'm' and instead of
matching a hard to see needle, you center easy to see leds in the
viewfinder. it's exactly like a k1000 and in a smaller body too. if
you want to use a handheld meter, you can do that as well.
the shutter speed dial is on the back instead of the top and the
aperture control is on the front instead of the lens (although on the
lens can be enabled on some cameras). even film cameras didn't always
have the shutter speed dial on top - olympus slrs put it on the lens
barrel.
and if you're using a pentax dslr then old k-mount lenses even work as
they used to.
Jeremy Nixon
> Hmm. Until the 5DII, I used to shoot side by side quite a bit, carrying both
> the Mamiya 7 and the 5D in a bag. With the M7, I really want to shoot up or
> down 1/3 of a stop from the whole f stop setting, which is all the camera
> allows. With slide films, exposure is that sensitive and my spot meter gives
> that accuracy.
I *never* use the third-stop aperture settings, with digital. Ever. I
don't think in third-stops, and I've chosen the f/stop I want before I've
even raised the camera, let alone looked at the meter. I choose the
shutter speed from there.
>> Also, I see no reason an aperture ring should be any less accurate than an
>> electronic control.
>
> The electronic control gives accurate 1/3-stop increments, I've never had a
> camera with fractional stop detents, so in-between settings are guesswork.
That's precision, not accuracy. The aperture ring is certainly less precise,
as I said.
> Again, the meter reads 1/3 stop increments, so I can't set the meter reading
> in the camera.
You know what's interesting, is that the digital camera's meter only
gives you 1/3 stop increments. My film camera's light meter is infinitely
variable, and the shutter speed is, too, in automatic mode. So you get
*more* precision there. Why live with only 1/3 stop increments?
The aperture ring is infinitely variable, too, not limited to 1/3 stops.
I never actually take advantage of this feature, but it's there.
Jeremy Nixon
No worries; I don't think I've managed to impress on some people that my
problem with the whole thing *isn't* not knowing how to use the new stuff.
I know quite well how to use it. I'm just discovering that I don't want
to, necessarily. But I *do* want the most modern, sophisticated electronic
stuff in the "film replacement" part of the "digital camera".
Jeremy Nixon
> Having grown up with fully manual SLRs, I much prefer being able to set
> shutter speed from my DSLR thumb dial over having to take my eye from
> the viewfinder to set the shutter speed on top of my SLR.
No need to take my eye from the viewfinder when the shutter speed (and the
aperture, for what it's worth) are shown in the viewfinder.
> I also /like/ being able to set both shutter & aperture with my right
> hand only.
That's a fair point, certainly.
>> You look like Lionel. Where ya been?
>
> I was spending too much time on Usenet, & it was easiest to give it up
> cold-turkey. In future I'll be a bit more selective about my participation.
Welcome back! :)
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Having grown up with fully manual SLRs, I much prefer being able to set
>> shutter speed from my DSLR thumb dial over having to take my eye from
>> the viewfinder to set the shutter speed on top of my SLR.
>
> No need to take my eye from the viewfinder when the shutter speed (and the
> aperture, for what it's worth) are shown in the viewfinder.
Fair enough. The old SLRs I'm used to require you to lift the shutter
speed dial to unlock it before it'll turn, which is a pain, or which
don't indicate the shutter speed in the viewfinder.
>> I also /like/ being able to set both shutter & aperture with my right
>> hand only.
>
> That's a fair point, certainly.
I think so. ;^)
>>> You look like Lionel. Where ya been?
>> I was spending too much time on Usenet, & it was easiest to give it up
>> cold-turkey. In future I'll be a bit more selective about my participation.
>
> Welcome back! :)
Thanks!
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> ?????? ??? ??????
news:kgkjr4dslmdne3uev...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:50:14 -0400, Paul Arthur
> <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-03-13, John A <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 13 Mar 2009 00:58:55 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>> them now.
>>
>>That's still an electronic keyboard. Buckling springs does not a
>>mechanical keyboard make.
>
> True enough. How about these alternatives, then:
> http://www.multipledigression.com/type/
> http://www.ahleman.com/ElectriClerk.html
And how about a japanese typewriter?
http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido_e/rekishi_e/kyota_sugimoto.htm
Now, to type japanese, all you need is an ordinary PC, with win XP. XP
includes japanese support... I never got the hang of typewriters, my small
fingers were always too weak to type (touch type).
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
nospam
wrote:
> > Again, the meter reads 1/3 stop increments, so I can't set the meter
> > reading
> > in the camera.
>
> You know what's interesting, is that the digital camera's meter only
> gives you 1/3 stop increments. My film camera's light meter is infinitely
> variable, and the shutter speed is, too, in automatic mode. So you get
> *more* precision there. Why live with only 1/3 stop increments?
the 1/3 (or 1/2) stop increment is only when using the control wheel.
in automatic mode, shutter speed and aperture (and iso with auto-iso)
are infinitely variable.
> The aperture ring is infinitely variable, too, not limited to 1/3 stops.
> I never actually take advantage of this feature, but it's there.
good luck trying to adjust the ring on the lens in between the click
stops.
Jeremy Nixon
> the 1/3 (or 1/2) stop increment is only when using the control wheel.
> in automatic mode, shutter speed and aperture (and iso with auto-iso)
> are infinitely variable.
With Nikon at least, the ISO is definitely not stepless, it goes only
in 1/3 stops. I have never seen a shutter speed in EXIF in anything
other than 1/3 stops. I've never used the cameras in any way that
lets the camera choose an aperture, but I'd be surprised if it were
any different.
nospam
wrote:
> > the 1/3 (or 1/2) stop increment is only when using the control wheel.
> > in automatic mode, shutter speed and aperture (and iso with auto-iso)
> > are infinitely variable.
>
> With Nikon at least, the ISO is definitely not stepless, it goes only
> in 1/3 stops. I have never seen a shutter speed in EXIF in anything
> other than 1/3 stops. I've never used the cameras in any way that
> lets the camera choose an aperture, but I'd be surprised if it were
> any different.
i just looked at the exif of some of my images and saw nonstandard
settings such as iso 220, 1/290th second and f/5.9.
Chris Malcolm
My camera uses such freely variable intermediate values for ISO,
aperture, and shutter, when I let it choose them. It only allows me to
set them to the usual fixed values, however.
--
Chris Malcolm
Paul Furman
The "carriage return" key is anticlimactic :-)