[CWRailman]

As I have read numerous times on this forum (as well as others) folks wishing for more MP in their Q series or more this or more that, the first half of this blog presents a view point that I mostly agree with about the more is better philosophy.(Actually in a previous post on this forum I provided links to information explaining why more MP in the Q series would lead to worse IQ yet folks want more.) There are members of this forum who are posting some really great shots taken with their Q series cameras which result in positive responses and comments so obviously the shortcomings that some complain about are not due to the camera and fixing those issues will not guarantee that the rest of us will produce images of equal quality or interest.

The second half of this blog is a sort of review of the Fuji camera.After the blog, read the first comment posted and note what camera they use.(I was directed to this blog from another photography forum I subscribe to.)
http://www.randallarmor.com/blog/2015/4/25/the-myth-of-more-not-just-another-fuji-x100t-review

This author mentions the Pentax K1000 which was the camera most used by many photography classes in the 1970-2000 era.I have often wondered why Pentax did not come out with a stripped down rock solid digital version of that camera. That thought has come to my mind often as I watch tourists attempting to sort out the workings of their camera while standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, some vista in Sedona or near one of the other great photo opportunities we have here in Arizona.Their indecisiveness over which feature, which function or what settings to use out of that great wonder they hold in their hands has virtually paralyzed them.Usually I walk up and suggest they just flip it to “A” and get the shot before the sun sets.I do not make a lot of friends that way but who cares.They don’t write the checks I cash.

[normhead]

Mentioning the people standing trying to sort out their settings things, has it ever occurred to camera Execs that the reason DSLR sales are falling, would be because the camera have become so complicated that the average person who take a few images up to 10 times a year, can't remember how to access the controls between the times when they pick up the camera. When I pick up my K20D I'm lost for a while. I'm sorry, but from a user design perspective, that is simply inexcusable. Someone has to come out with an "Apple Computers" type DSLR. Maybe not as configurable for use with every conceivable situation, but making what folks want to do every day more intuitive. Just having a company committed to a single ease of use configuration for all their cameras would be a start. Camera companies moving their controls all over the place with each new release is just crazy. It shouldn't happen.

I mean seriously, is there not one company with a Steve Jobs at the top, taking new product, and going back to the engineers saying."from a user perspective, this is just really bad." We have a pile of cameras designed by engineers, who don't have to face a tyrannical abusive boss when they make a good idea too complicated, and it shows with modern DSLRs.

A lot of the posters here are really smart guys... and from time to time they have trouble with settings and getting what they want. How's the average joe supposed to deal with that?

[pacerr]

Your frustration with ~90 % of the camera owing market is noted . . . and appreciated.

But the fact remains that without those clueless buyers of technology (of which they have no comprehension) we'd all be sittin' here wishing we could afford $16,000 digital cameras.

V-8 auto engines are "cheap" 'cause they make so damn many of 'em -- an' if you don't believe that just price a rebuilt 100 hp aircraft engine of 1950's technology today.

A Pentax KM or K2 with 'digital film' an' a 'digital darkroom' to play with would suit me just fine . . . but I couldn't afford that unicorn.

Just smile an' suggest they ought'a purchase a new K3 . . . we'd all benefit.

[jethro10]

Mentioning the people standing trying to sort out their settings things, has it ever occurred to camera Execs that the reason DSLR sales are falling, would be because the camera have become so complicated that the average person who take a few images up to 10 times a year, can't remember how to access the controls between the times when they pick up the camera.

I totally agree.
J

---------- Post added 15-06-15 at 05:51 PM ----------

Your frustration with ~90 % of the camera owing market is noted . . . and appreciated.

But the fact remains that without those clueless buyers of technology (of which they have no comprehension) we'd all be sittin' here wishing we could afford $16,000 digital cameras.

V-8 auto engines are "cheap" 'cause they make so damn many of 'em -- an' if you don't believe that just price a rebuilt 100 hp aircraft engine of 1950's technology today.

A Pentax KM or K2 with 'digital film' an' a 'digital darkroom' to play with would suit me just fine . . . but I couldn't afford that unicorn.

Just smile an' suggest they ought'a purchase a new K3 . . . we'd all benefit.

I also totally agree with this.

J

[biz-engineer]

Except ISO, aperture, and exposure compensation, for most of the other features, I don't use them while in action, too complicated, little benefit. The most valuable accessory is the tripod because, for still subjects/landscape, the tripod provides "unlimited" camera performance (in terms of stops, in low light conditions, an APSC with a good tripod is better than any full frame handheld if what you are after with a full frame is the high iso perf.).

[GeneV]

OK, what am I missing? It seems like point and shoot cameras are out there in droves, and then there are smartphones. Back in the film days, there were Instamatics and Brownies, and 110. A DSLR or even a Q is not for about 90% of the people taking photos, and the K1000 was not for 90% of the camera users 40 years ago.

[pacerr]

Except ISO

I'm constantly surprised by the number of folks that DIDN'T use the ASA dial to manipulate film exposure on a given cassette in the "ol' daz". Granted, you had to coordinate the development process (and often give up a few shots too) but I found that the compensation available with Diafine allowed a pretty wide range of exposure acrobatics when just getting a "pretty good" image beat no image at all.

The only 'Best of . . ." I ever got was courtesy of inspired ASA manipulation in mid-roll. It was 1 of 414 frames taken that day too. Luck or . . . ?

A DSLR or even a Q is not for about 90% of the people taking photos,

But do THEY know that?

---

Last edited by pacerr; 06-15-2015 at 10:50 AM.

[stevebrot]

K1000 was not for 90% of the camera users 40 years ago.

Definitely not...the K1000 did no debut until 1976. Edit: I should have put a big smiley in there or not written it at all. Gene is a good guy and the comment appeared to unkind. End Edit That being said, half the non-photographers in my immediate family owned one in 1985. The allure was simplicity, relative ease of use, a decent normal lens, and relatively low price. Oh...and the photos were so much better than they were able to get with the simpler consumer cameras of the day.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I'm constantly surprised by the number of folks that DIDN'T use the ASA dial to manipulate film exposure on a given cassette in the "ol' daz".

I preferred to simply use the aperture ring and shutter speed dial.


Steve

[K(s)evin]

Definitely not...the K1000 did no debut until 1976. That being said, half the non-photographers in my immediate family owned one in 1985. The allure was simplicity, relative ease of use, a decent normal lens, and relatively low price. Oh...and the photos were so much better than they were able to get with the simpler consumer cameras of the day.


Steve

Okay. So 39 years ago.

[pacerr]

I preferred to simply use the aperture ring and shutter speed dial.

Me, too. Unless I was bangin' off a bunch of grab shots in changing light conditions where I wanted to concentrate on things like MF. There WAS a point to using the Spotmatic's TTL metering to make life easier.

[reh321]

Definitely not...the K1000 did not debut until 1976. That being said, half the non-photographers in my immediate family owned one in 1985. The allure was simplicity, relative ease of use, a decent normal lens, and relatively low price. Oh...and the photos were so much better than they were able to get with the simpler consumer cameras of the day.

My experience was exactly the same. I did notice that none of the non-photographers of my acquaintance who used a K1000 was still using one when I switched to DSLR - they had all switched to point-and-shoot digital almost as soon as they could, even though those early cameras were quite expensive and delivered, at most, 3 MP images (as I've mentioned earlier, I had done some experimenting that convinced me I needed to wait for 6MP before digital was going to deliver the quality I had become accustomed to)

I preferred to simply use the aperture ring and shutter speed dial.

Me too. I shot mostly Kodachrome 25, so I didn't really have much opportunity to change anything else. Instead, I got the fastest lenses I could afford, and then learned to make myself into a very stable platform while taking pictures (often I didn't travel with a tripod). I still have vivid memories of driving through Iowa in 1995 and seeing an abandoned train station, formerly owned by the Rock Island railroad (which had gone out-of-business); the wind was blowing and the skies were dark, giving at best a shutter speed of 1/8, so I sat on the ground (to minimize effect of wind on me) turned myself into as stable a platform as I could ..... and took a picture (with the Super Program on the left of my signature photo) that was just fine under the then-current standards.

[pacerr]

Shootin' 'less than ASA 80' film DID build a set of habits that still persists today didn't it.

[CWRailman]

Shootin' 'less than ASA 80' film DID build a set of habits that still persists today didn't it.

Yes you did learn a bit about lighting etc when restricted to slower speed film. I always shot one of two films. Kodachrome 64 and Plus X which was 125 and I processed myself. I seldom varied. I still have two 100ft rolls of Plus X in the freezer and about a half dozen Kodachrome 36 exposure rolls. Except for the last two ME Supers, all my film cameras were manual everything and I appreciated having a built in light meter which I did not have on my 4x5 studio camera. As has been mentioned by several folks, I sometimes believe that all the choices provided by the current digital cameras get in the way of taking good images. As a result, photographers expect to make up for their mistakes or more accurately misjudgements in selection of photographic controls in the PP.

[GeneV]

Definitely not...the K1000 did no debut until 1976. That being said, half the non-photographers in my immediate family owned one in 1985. The allure was simplicity, relative ease of use, a decent normal lens, and relatively low price. Oh...and the photos were so much better than they were able to get with the simpler consumer cameras of the day.


Steve

OK, Steve, 39 years, rather than 40 years. Your family was different from mine. Most non-photographers I knew did not want to focus, let alone adjust exposure.