Camera Makers
Have camera makers lost vision of actually making photos?
It seems that like the nuclear arms race of the cold war, cameras have generally become overkill to the taking of photos.
Yes, some advances are welcome, especially in the realm of AF and fps. But overall does a camera need to be so complex, needing over 1,500 pages of instructions in some cases, to use them?
Or are all the bells and whistles truly needed and used?
Just wondering for a friend.
Architect1776 wrote:
Have camera makers lost vision of actually making photos?
It seems that like the nuclear arms race of the cold war, cameras have generally become overkill to the taking of photos.
Yes, some advances are welcome, especially in the realm of AF and fps. But overall does a camera need to be so complex, needing over 1,500 pages of instructions in some cases, to use them?
Or are all the bells and whistles truly needed and used?
Just wondering for a friend.
I have been wonder that myself
It appears that the only way to get a simple, picture-taking camera is to go with film cameras. It seems to me that the only cameras that take quality pictures are the more expensive ones, Leica, Hasselblad, etc.
It appears that the only way to get a simple, picture-taking camera is to go with film cameras. It seems to me that the only cameras that take quality pictures are the more expensive ones, Leica, Hasselblad, etc.
All the features are used by someone but no one person uses all the features. They just have to make the cameras with all the features to sell them to a lot of different people. So in fact I understand why they do what they do.
For me I don't care for AF, FPS, video, all the auto modes P,S and even A. I do want a nice looking camera but it seems nobody makes it.
Cameras are like today’s cars/trucks - plenty of features, designed to cater to every possible user. Probably more economical to put in every feature, whether you need it or want it, instead of creating 20 different models for different subsets of users.
I don’t need or use most of the features in my Nikon. I’m sure there are others who would find those same features indispensable.
[quote=NMGal]It appears that the only way to get a simple, picture-taking camera is to go with film cameras. It seems to me that the only cameras that take quality pictures are the more expensive ones, Leica, Hasselblad, etc.
I just reread my post and it is not what I meant. Quality photos can be made with practically any camera. It depends on the photographer. I meant cameras with simple, direct menus.
Have never used many of the bells and whistles on my Nikon D7200.
Don
There seems to be a"nuclear arms race" to ar the camers with more and more bells, whistles, and gadgets to entice all the "gear- heads, and GAS sufferers.
I am certainly no engineer or designer of cameras but my experience has proven to me that the more unnecessary stuff you squeeze into a camer body or a lens mechanism, the more potential for breakdown, which usually occurs at the most inopportune times. Even if the newfangled contraption does not fail, I find photographers fussing and fiddling with all the endless settings instead of being able to concentrate on the elements of good photography. I am sure there are many instances where some"safeguard" of automated feature kicks in, unbeknown to the photographer, and locks down the camera or takes over control of whatever!
Of course, built-in metering, exposure and WB management programs, and AF make workig more convenient and certainly come in handy. The problem is that many new photographers have never learned the basic rudiments of manual operation and therefore do not know to work without automation, fully undestadr how the automation is functioning, or how to work around issues where the automation is "fooled"!
What's next a camra that will sense your blood, pressure, EKG, and body temperature? It would be disconcerting to peer into your viewfinder and find that you are about to experience a medical emergency!
The bells & whistles are available.
Use them, or not. Simple, not rocket science.
"Camera makers" are businesses - in the business of making money. If people don't buy something, it stops being made. Or it gets tweaked to be more enticing and is offered again. Simply free-market capitalism at work, period.
Linda From Maine wrote:
"Camera makers" are businesses - in the business of making money. If people don't buy something, it stops being made. Or it gets tweaked to be more enticing and is offered again. Simply free-market capitalism, period.
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
There seems to be a"nuclear arms race" to ar the camers with more and more bells, whistles, and gadgets to entice all the "gear- heads, and GAS sufferers...
And what would you have a business do if they are in the business of making money for owners or stock holders? I assume if you own stock in a company, you want them to make money
Longshadow wrote:
The bells & whistles are available.
Use them, or not. Simple, not rocket science.
Thaz really the whole deal. So simple.
"Not rocket science" is, unfortunately, beyond the reach of the typical Hawg. Certainly no secret, plainly displayed.
Architect1776 wrote:
Have camera makers lost vision of actually making photos?
It seems that like the nuclear arms race of the cold war, cameras have generally become overkill to the taking of photos.
Yes, some advances are welcome, especially in the realm of AF and fps. But overall does a camera need to be so complex, needing over 1,500 pages of instructions in some cases, to use them?
Or are all the bells and whistles truly needed and used?
Just wondering for a friend.
I can agree with this.
My first film camera manual was 10 pages. As the cameras became more sophisticated, their manuals became more elaborate and the price of the model went through the roof.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.