« It's the platform, stupid | Main | More proof »
I now know a group that is an even more insufferable group of douchebag snobs than the freetards AND the MacMacs put together: DSLR snobs.
Heaven forbid you suggest that the fact of there being no such thing as a low-end, simple DSLR, (think Pentax K1000 gone digital, NO NEW FEATURES) is a bad thing. Man, I think I could shit on their rug while I bang their spouses with their dog's dick, and not offend them as much.
What I love is when some dumbass who has never even taken a picture without an assload of circuitry to do all the real work for him tells me that you need that shit to take good pics.
No, you don't. It can, in the hands of a pro, be a HUGE help. But to take good pictures? Hardly. How do I know this? My dad took pictures of cars at Elkhart Lake and Indy going VERY FAST with a Speed Graphic. He taught me the basics of focus, depth of field, and photography, then handed me a K1000 with a dippy flash and a basic 50mm lens, and said, "Stick that thing on your eye, and don't take it off for a month". Now, literally, I couldn't do that, but as much as possible, I did. What it made me do was think through the lens. To see the picture before you even grabbed the camera.
There's no autofocus/autoaperture that will do that. And no, spending a grand and setting the fucking thing on "manual" is not the answer. And please, spare the bullshit about the LCD screen helping you take better pictures. It's all a line of crap.
I think Point and Shoots are great. I think the high-end DSLRs are great too. But when you get told "those are the only options", well, that's bullshit, and honestly, cameras have not gotten easier to use. They just have more buttons to fuck with at a lower price. I think this quote, from a 2005 NYT article on David Burnett says it all:
Average consumers, of course, often have enough trouble even with that. Pressed for a tip for the birthday-party photographer, Mr. Burnett said: "The thing that bugs me the most when I see people taking pictures of their family or the Grand Canyon or whatever, is that they spend so much time fumbling with the controls that whatever real moment there might have been is inevitably lost."When I can take a picture faster with a K1000 than a P&S built over thirty years after the K1000 was introduced, and get better results more consistently, something has gone terribly wrong."Ultimately, the technology is just a tool," he said. "It's a tool that lets your eye become the picture. It's easy to get caught up with all of the gadgets and all of the technology, but the most important thing is just to get comfortable with the tools you have."
Posted by John C. Welch at 20:36 | Permalink
Comments
In any discussion, about any topic, when the "my way is the only way" line is thrown in, I just walk away, because that discussion is a one way road to nowhere. There are uno-tards for every topic in the damn world they are all grossly un- or misinformed, not too mention simple minded, as being unable or unwilling to think of alternatives is a sign of severe brain damage.
As far as I'm concerned, when you're shouting out "there can be only one!!!11one" you'd better be swinging your broadsword through the neck of the last other remaining immortal at that very moment. And even then they make sequels.
There are always other options, the fact that one person (the whatever-tard) thinks they "suck" doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. In my years of programming and making UIs and such I can't count the number of times I've heard something along the lines of "Well, no one does/wants/needs that!"
WRONG, motherfucker! The fact that YOUR mind can't comprehend that any of the 7 billion people on this planet do things in a different way makes YOU the dumbass, not them!
OK, I'm done.
Posted by:
Super Joe 
|
September 4, 2008 9:47 PM
Goddamn MovableType! If I review my comment, then EDIT them and press submit, I expect the edited version to appear on the site! WTF! That's fucking it, I'm writing my own blogging software, and John will get a free license FOR LIFE to use it.
RAAAAAAAAGHrr
Posted by:
Super Joe |
September 4, 2008 9:50 PM
And please, spare the bullshit about the LCD screen helping you take better pictures. It's all a line of crap.
No, I don't think it is. Many digital cameras will show at least a luminance histogram of a photo, and some will also show histograms for the R, G, and B channels as well. This is instant availability of info you just can't get with film (unless you scan in your prints/slides/negatives, etc.) and gives you exposure information that will help you learn how to make better exposures.
Do you need that to be a good photographer? No, but it absolutely helps you improve, and shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
Posted by:
Jeff Daigle |
September 7, 2008 10:47 PM
How in the hell does that help you look at the real world and say "That's the picture I need to take"?
After you take the pic? Well, if you need that kind of control in the camera, sure. That's handy stuff. But it doesn't help you learn how to look at the world and figure out what you need to put on the card so that you can then adjust it afterwards.
Unless you're taking portraits or still lifes, you're not going to be doing histogram adjustments BEFORE you take the picture, because the moment will be long gone.
Posted by:
John C. Welch 
|
September 7, 2008 10:54 PM
I dunno. My K100D will, if I leave it in Program mode, "just takes pictures" very fast and very well.
"No new features from the K1000" is not an economically feasible target; it wouldn't cost more than a trifle less than the K110D already costs... and if you really want the effect of just a K1000 in digital, get a K100D/K110D, put it in Manual mode, with AF off.
Once you have shutter control and exposure metering components, adding auto-exposure is free - and cameras without auto-focus, sadly, just don't sell very well to the low-end market these past 20-odd years.
(I mean, I agree completely about no amount of technology replacing knowing what to take a picture of. But sometimes it's pretty nice to not have to care about exposure or focus, and just frame what you want and go.
Speaking of P+Ss, I got a Nikon Lite*Touch at Goodwill for $4. It's the same size as a Minox 35, with the added advantage of actually working (and focusing without a scale). I bring it up because it has a grand total of, IIRC, four buttons, only two of which are relevant to actually using it in most cases; power and shutter.
I think part of the problem is not that cameras have too many controls, but that either people think they need to use them or bad design makes them use them.
If I just want to take a snap with my K100D, all I need to do is turn the power on, point it at the subject, and hit the shutter - assuming I left it on Program and AF, which I usually do.
There are something like probably 20-30 other switches and buttons there, none of which get in my way or require my attention. That's how a camera should be designed; enough interface to do anything you want, and good enough interface that you almost never have to do any of it.)
Posted by:
Sigivald |
September 8, 2008 5:45 PM
How in the hell does that help you look at the real world and say "That's the picture I need to take"?
It helps by helping you to teach yourself how to look at the real world and say "That's the picture I need to take, and I know how to get a great exposure of it." Like I said, you don't need it (you can usually rely on the camera getting it pretty damn close to right for times when you can't/don't want to set the exposure yourself), but like you said, that level of control can be handy, especially if you don't want to have to spend time adjusting your photos afterwards.
You can't declare unequivocally that an on-camera LCD can't help you take "better" pictures. I agree that it's tough to use it to learn better composition, but it's absolutely useful for learning to control exposure which is also a part of taking better pictures.
Posted by:
Jeff Daigle |
September 8, 2008 11:24 PM
I dunno. My K100D will, if I leave it in Program mode, "just takes pictures" very fast and very well.
Yes, it becomes an overpriced P&S. Or, you can leave it in manual...
"No new features from the K1000" is not an economically feasible target; it wouldn't cost more than a trifle less than the K110D already costs... and if you really want the effect of just a K1000 in digital, get a K100D/K110D, put it in Manual mode, with AF off.
Because I am not going to pay that much money for something that I have to dick with to make it act like something that cost half that price. I also find it amusing that everyone insists that somehow, taking an overcomplicated shitpile and ignoring features turns it into what I want. It doesn't. It's still an overcomplicated shitpile that I have to wait for it to boot up so I can take my fucking picture.
I think part of the problem is not that cameras have too many controls, but that either people think they need to use them or bad design makes them use them.If I just want to take a snap with my K100D, all I need to do is turn the power on, point it at the subject, and hit the shutter - assuming I left it on Program and AF, which I usually do.
I
Don't
Want
Any
Of
That
Crap
On
My
Camera
I do not know how to make it more clear. I don't want it, nor shall I ever pay for it, NOR WILL I STOP POINTING OUT THAT DSLRs ARE OVERCOMPLICATED SHITPILES DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO THINK THEY'RE ANSEL-FUCKING-ADAMS.
There are something like probably 20-30 other switches and buttons there, none of which get in my way or require my attention. That's how a camera should be designed; enough interface to do anything you want, and good enough interface that you almost never have to do any of it.)
funny, because by DSLR logic, iPods should have failed. Not enough features.
Posted by:
John Welch |
September 9, 2008 7:08 AM
It helps by helping you to teach yourself how to look at the real world and say "That's the picture I need to take, and I know how to get a great exposure of it." Like I said, you don't need it (you can usually rely on the camera getting it pretty damn close to right for times when you can't/don't want to set the exposure yourself), but like you said, that level of control can be handy, especially if you don't want to have to spend time adjusting your photos afterwards.
Nonsense. It teaches you "I can point and shoot, and hope the camera does all the work for me correctly, because I don't have a gods-damned clue as to how to do any of it myself. I just leave it in auto and button mash like I was playing Mortal Kombat"
You can't declare unequivocally that an on-camera LCD can't help you take "better" pictures. I agree that it's tough to use it to learn better composition, but it's absolutely useful for learning to control exposure which is also a part of taking better pictures.
No one's proven me wrong yet, so yeah, I think I actually can declare that unequivocally. You don't need an LCD to learn to control exposure, not at all.
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
September 9, 2008 7:13 AM
It's my suspicion that the histograms are in some ways compensation for a uniquely digital-age problem: digital cameras are to film cameras what CDs are to LPs. There's concrete advantages CDs have, obviously, but one area that LPs win on is dealing with peaks. Analog media has soft clipping; digital media has hard clipping. You can't "push" the digital media past its recommended tolerance, because you've exceeded the available bits, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Likewise, when you've "blown out" on a digital camera, you're just overloading it. There's nothing you can do in your digital darkroom to recover information from those areas.
I think John's basically right, in that the most important part of shooting is composition -- which the camera can't help you with -- and the fundamentals of exposure, focus and depth of field haven't appreciably changed since the beginning of photography. A good photographer is going to take good pictures with a crappy camera; a crappy photographer is going to take crappy pictures with a good camera. That's just the way it is.
Having said that, the point of having an SLR hasn't changed since the film days, either. The rationale for having one isn't what the camera can do for you when you put it in the "Shooting Fireworks Shot On the Beach at Night" scene mode, it's what you can do with the camera when you take it *off* the automatic modes. I doubt you'll find any serious photographers -- and I can define "serious" as loosely as "knows where their nearest non-chain camera store is" -- who doesn't spend most of their time shooting in aperture or shutter priority modes.
Having said *that,* though: I learned photography on a manual focus Canon AE-1, and I gotta say, it's not like shooting with the Nikon D70 is appreciably more difficult. You put it in the shooting mode you want with a dial on both cameras, turn *another* dial to make a manual adjustment on both cameras, press a depth of field preview button to, uh, preview the depth of field on both cameras, press the shutter button to take the picture on both cameras. And while it's not "necessary" to have things like auto focus, letting the camera set either the aperture or shutter correctly for the shutter speed or aperture that I've set priority to, doing exposure bracketing, or taking continuous shots... there are times they can be awfully nice.
Posted by:
Watts Martin |
September 9, 2008 4:25 PM
Oh, the advanced features can indeed be handy. The problem is, there's no choice in DSLRs. At least with computers, I don't only have an Xserve or an iPhone as my only options. I may not be able to buy Apple for certain things, but at least I can get a *computer*.
With DSLRs, there's no choice, only "has slightly less features and MP count". I just want a DSLR that doesn't act like a Boy Scout on crack trying to help me across the street even though I'm trying to take a leak.
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
September 9, 2008 4:57 PM
Well, I did say "enough interface to do anything you want, and good enough interface that you almost never have to do any of it." - doesn't that describe the iPod almost perfectly?
(And while you might want to Just Not Have Even The Option Of Anything the K100 Didn't Do, well that camera will still cost nearly as much as a K110D to produce*, and it won't sell very well. That's why you can't have one; because Pentax isn't stupid enough to make one and throw piles of money away.
*At the parts and production level; of course since they wouldn't sell many, they'd have to charge much more if they wanted to actually make them, to make up for economies of scale they'd have thrown out. So Pentax could totally make your "Digital K1000", and they'd have to charge you $750 to break even, despite the image quality being identical to a K100D, and the K100D being able to literally do everything the Digital K1000 could do [take pictures without AF and in Manual mode].
I can't imagine why such a device is not in production other than the fact that absolutely nobody would buy one.)
And even if I use my K100D "like a point and shoot" (except for manual focus and depth of field control when they're necessary for the shot, such as when using my SMC-M 50/1.7), I still get a bigger sensor and thus less noise and better low-light sensitivity. And replaceable lenses.
Hell, I learned to take pictures on a Pentax MX. I just don't get the idea that having buttons that don't hurt you because you never have to use them, and a knob that lets you go to Program Mode but doesn't keep you from leaving it in Manual at all times is a problem, given that, again, their existence is the only thing that makes the camera a viable product and thus affordable in the first place.
Posted by:
Sigivald |
September 16, 2008 5:30 PM
I can't imagine why such a device is not in production other than the fact that absolutely nobody would buy one.
Again, history disagrees. Even AFTER the rise of the Maxxum, the K1000 sold well, and steadily. In the same numbers as the Maxxum? No, but it sold really well, because it was the perfect teaching camera.
How the fuck do you teach someone the roots of photography when they put it in auto, press the button, take 209485720394578 shots and figure one will work out? You don't.
Hell, I learned to take pictures on a Pentax MX. I just don't get the idea that having buttons that don't hurt you because you never have to use them, and a knob that lets you go to Program Mode but doesn't keep you from leaving it in Manual at all times is a problem, given that, again, their existence is the only thing that makes the camera a viable product and thus affordable in the first place.
Everyone keeps saying "it's impossible to build a DSLR for any cheaper than $500, yet no one comes up with any proof beyond "No one's done it yet".
Sorry, but that's not proof of can't, that's reasons for won't. Can't & Won't are two very different words. That's why they're spelled differently, and have different meanings, because THEY AREN'T THE SAME THINGS.
As far as why I don't want a bunch of shit all over my camera that I don't want to use, and never would? For the same reason Apple created the one button mouse. It's impossible to hit the wrong button if it's not there. It's impossible to fuck up a camera setting if there aren't any. It's impossible to use the wrong scene when there aren't any.
When someone comes up with something involving proof that isn't "Well no one's done it yet", I'll take it seriously.
As far as what customers want, well Henry Ford said it best:
"If I'd have asked people what they wanted, they'd have said 'A faster horse'."
There is absolutely no such thing as a low-end DSLR, there's absolutely no such thing as a DSLR that makes you learn how to deal with the basics of photography sans crutch, (which would be PERFECT for school photography courses, one of the things that allowed the K1000 to have a product run of TWENTY YEARS). Yet you insist it is impossible to build a basic, low-cost DSLR, SOLELY because no one's done it yet.
Funny, but when the iPod came out, it wasn't cheap, but everyone said it couldn't succeed because it didn't have (long list of inane features) built in to the iPod itself.
Lemme get back to you on how badly the iPod failed for lack of features.
Posted by:
John Welch |
September 16, 2008 5:49 PM
