[niels hansen]

Some time ago I advocated for simpler and cheaper cameras.. I was told that it meant more expensive cameras. I know nothing about costs in production so I stopped. Away from being complicated to understand and.use digital , there is an economical aspect:
My investments are K 30, broke down, didnot know the solution. -KP - CS5 - printers -5 lenses - PC exclusive for photo., about 37000 danish crowns( 6000 dollars)
When I look in the mirror I see an economical fool. For 2000 dollars I could have got my "dreamtool" in analouge and 4000 for paper etc
Digital has made me controle my colors and increased low light perforance., the AF precision is mediocre
There has never before been made so many snapshots as today but good photos are still rare. PP supports bad taste
Since 1960 I have made about 100 photos I am satisfied with. 15 of them are digital in spite of that the number og digital poses are bigger ( My mother and wife thinks that all the picures of the grandchildren are masterpieces)
The last half year it is Spotmatic that has given me the focus controle back, even if I miss a splitfield

[c.a.m]

Are cameras getting too boring = sophisticated?

Interesting topic.

As cameras have evolved over the years, they've introduced numerous useful features, such as accurate autofocus and sophisticated exposure control. Digital technology has enabled new capabilities, such as high image quality in relatively low light settings and viewing speed and ease.

In my own case, I tend to favour the process of making pictures and the enjoyment of photography over the pure technicalities and hardware sophistication. Nonetheless, I'm a technical guy and appreciate the advancements.

Like you, I went fishing as a youth, with my Dad and brother. Sometimes, my line would snag, I'd lose a fish, or bites would come hours apart. Still, I look back fondly on those days, even though we sometimes returned with an empty bucket. Similarly, I enjoy my photo outings and the challenge of looking for interesting subjects, unusual compositions, or momentary lighting. I'm happy and interested, even if my keeper folder remains unpopulated.

- Craig

[ThorSanchez]

No, not boring at all. They just step up the level of expectations and results. 50 years ago I'm guessing even a pro sports photographer was happy with any keepers he'd get from the action in a game. Today they can focus on getting great results, exactly at the key moments, expecting to be able to manipulate the tools to get dramatically better results.

I look forward to the K-3 III because I'll have a better chance of getting that key moment where my kid does something cool. Today I'll go to one of their soccer games and there's probably a better-than-even chance that when they're doing a step over or a volley or whatever, it's going to be out of focus. When the sun goes down I know my K-3 II starts to get dicey at ISO 6400, unusable not too far above that. The new camera will be multiple stops better than that, and I'll get good results where mediocre or even nothing usable used to be the expectation.

We're living in a awesome age of great tools that you can use to get great results. I have no desire to use the technology of 10, or 20 or 40 years ago to get worse photographs.

[nicolpa47]

As long as cameras are beautifully built, ergonomically sound, capable tools, and fun to use - as Pentax cameras usually are - I don't find them boring at all. The K-3 III has got me stoked up unlike anything since the original K-3.

And even with the latest & greatest tools in their hands, enough people still manage to take utterly uncompelling images, which tells me that the moron behind the camera still matters. Does it matter for my estimation of a photograph how much skill and effort went into it? Well, up to a point yes, but the history of great photography is full of examples where someone just happened to be somewhere at the right time and simply nailed the shot - which you stand better chances of accomplishing with that particular readiness, presence of mind, instinct, whatever that only deep experience and skill will bring. If modern technology helps me to bring home images that I could only dream of when I started my photographic journey back in 1983, I genuinely appreciate that.

Wholeheartedly agree with this. The "nutter who presses the shutter" is the one who sees a shot, decides there is a shot to take, frames it, inserts creativity, controls the camera and any related effects, and times, where necessary, the shutter press. Cameras can make that process easier or more difficult - the design should not "get in the way", and operators should be able to become familiar with the controls without too great a learning curve. So far, for me, Pentax has achieved that.

The K-3iii is a further advance and has additional options, but the same basic design standards appear to have been continued or evolved. Evolution, not revolution.

What I do think more complicated(looking) cameras can do, though, is put people off even starting a photographic journey beyond the mobile phone.

Colin

[savoche]

The natural direction is that soon AI and faultless AF and exposures etc., will render the blob of organic material holding the camera to be all but irrelevant. Camera technologies just make what used to be a difficult task that much easier.

But why would you want the task to be difficult? I can't see how it would be a good thing if only engineers are able to take pictures. The hardest part still remains: to capture good content.

At times I enjoy the slow process of using manual lenses and manual settings. But at other times I want technically good images without having to spend too much time on the technical side of photography. E.g. on holiday I want to just concentrate on composition, perspective, framing, click, then back to reality.

[ThorSanchez]

But why would you want the task to be difficult? I can't see how it would be a good thing if only engineers are able to take pictures. The hardest part still remains: to capture good content.

At times I enjoy the slow process of using manual lenses and manual settings. But at other times I want technically good images without having to spend too much time on the technical side of photography. E.g. on holiday I want to just concentrate on composition, perspective, framing, click, then back to reality.

I think that there are a lot of people who spent years and years honing their skills on the relatively primitive tools of years ago, and it's somewhere between frustrating and "too easy" to get those results today.

But I'd focus on the fact that the bar has gone up. You still have to spend time and gain experience to get great results. You have to keep up, you have to continue learning your tools. Great just has a different meaning today. Used to be an in focus photo of Cal Ripken batting was great. Now it's an in-focus photo of Mike Trout hitting that 7th inning home run, captured at the moment the ball was striking the bat, with nearly noise-free shadows pulled two stops.

[jersey]

As long as camera will not find subject and compose shot on its own, I do not think that they are boring. I mean - in film time you set up the triangle, shot and gave film to lab where technician was doing rest for you. Now part of job that was don by lab technician (or lab itself in later times when automatic hit) is relegated to both camera and you if you are doing post.


You want digital more in "old good ways"? Shoot JPEG and do not modify the result. Set up colour setting (like film emulation etc), set up triangle and that's it. You will have your film camera in digital world. The only thing you will be missing is manual focus but without split screen, rasters etc manual focus on modern DSLR is just pain in the ass. So sorry, only AF for you :P

Then just send JPEGs to printing, select "edit if possible" if there is option in the printing service and there you are. If you are wanting to take it to extreme then disable overview in camera, do not watch and/or select images from camera, just send everything you shot to printing. There will be even the economic incentive to carefully choose what you shot and what not and how you do it.

Hmm, now that I think about it it is not that bad idea

[BarryE]

I think that there are a lot of people who spent years and years honing their skills on the relatively primitive tools of years ago, and it's somewhere between frustrating and "too easy" to get those results today.

.

That made me smile as I was waiting for that point. It's true too.

Personally, I've gone through cycles of being up with the curve and way behind it, often because of choice. My first few commissions were when I was at uni. Big gap and now I'm turning 60. I pick up a few now and again. Never been a big thing for me the photo money thing. So yes, I suppose I do see modern gear making things easy. So my reaction? It's not to try and compete, but rather I'm finding I'm going in the opposite direction and saying the technically perfect image is not for me - rather I'm seeking something that personally I respond (emote?) to.

Maybe this is a photo development cycle to firstly chase technology, only then to reign back in ...

[ChristianRock]

I don't care if people are bored with cameras. Even with my K-3, I tend to shoot in manual mode or at least in AV mode with my predetermined ISO range. All I care about is shutter speed-ISO-aperture and as long as I'm in control of those, I don't use anything else. I don't remember ever using burst mode...
I'd love to get me a K-3III with its majestic viewfinder and guess what, when I finally get one I'll still be shooting it mostly in Manual mode and caring only for the basic 3 exposure settings...

Lens technology on the other hand has me quite excited. I love my 70s and 80s lenses but I also love the work they put into making the DA*16-50 or the DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited. And now I picked up an HD DA 18-50mm which has a (somewhat) quite motor, is WR and the coatings are really, really good. And I get to put it on my blue K-S1 for a really small package that I took to a wedding last weekend and nobody paid attention to it - it looks like a small bridge camera with the lens retracted. And did I mention the HD coatings are really good? I love the colors, the delicate rendering and the flare resistance, along with well controlled aberrations.

I can't wait to put my hands on an HD DA 21 Limited - on comparisons I made, I think it renders quite a bit better than the older SMC version, which a lot of people already like.

So no, newer isn't boring to me at all - despite me not making use of most of what it can offer...

[Alex645]

Why do some people get so excited that at each release, cameras get more sophisticated? Does anyone else actually feel a little negative about it?
Just wondering if I'm alone with this mindset ...

No you're not alone. The excitement comes from tangible improvement such as better AF, better low light performance, swivel screens, etc.

What is hard to swallow is that when a camera has less tech like the Nikon Df with no video or the Leica Monochrom for monochromatic images only, instead of paying less, its priced high as a specialty item.

But the photographic market is for the masses which caters to the 'anyone can do it' and 'create memories'. Any niche market needs a loyal and active customer base.

As a teacher seeing students overloaded with screen time due to distance learning, my B&W film class enrollment (analog in person, on campus) has seen enrollment triple. The obstacle are parents not seeing the value of investing in any technology that is not more advance.

[BarryE]

I don't care if people are bored with cameras. Even with my K-3, I tend to shoot in manual mode or at least in AV mode with my predetermined ISO range. All I care about is shutter speed-ISO-aperture and as long as I'm in control of those, I don't use anything else. I don't remember ever using burst mode...
I'd love to get me a K-3III with its majestic viewfinder and guess what, when I finally get one I'll still be shooting it mostly in Manual mode and caring only for the basic 3 exposure settings...

Lens technology on the other hand has me quite excited. I love my 70s and 80s lenses but I also love the work they put into making the DA*16-50 or the DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited. And now I picked up an HD DA 18-50mm which has a (somewhat) quite motor, is WR and the coatings are really, really good. And I get to put it on my blue K-S1 for a really small package that I took to a wedding last weekend and nobody paid attention to it - it looks like a small bridge camera with the lens retracted. And did I mention the HD coatings are really good? I love the colors, the delicate rendering and the flare resistance, along with well controlled aberrations.

I can't wait to put my hands on an HD DA 21 Limited - on comparisons I made, I think it renders quite a bit better than the older SMC version, which a lot of people already like.

So no, newer isn't boring to me at all - despite me not making use of most of what it can offer...

Yup, I agree about lens technologies. It will be very interesting to see how the HD coatings behave on the FA Limiteds. Camera tech advancement is where the yawning starts.

[c.a.m]

As a teacher seeing students overloaded with screen time due to distance learning, my B&W film class enrollment (analog in person, on campus) has seen enrollment triple. The obstacle are parents not seeing the value of investing in any technology that is not more advance.

And yet, 'low-tech' B&W film photography fosters patience, care, self-reliance, methodical process, and learning from errors, amongst other valuable life attributes I'm sure you could name.


- Craig

[dms]

I do think much of the automation gets in the way, but I guess you can turn it off, but knowing it is there is not the same thing.

The other thing is being limited--with the camera/lens, writing a musical, developing a theory w/o the higher level math, whatever--can force you to be creative, and that can be much better than what one could do w/o the limitations.

[BarryE]

I do think much of the automation gets in the way, but I guess you can turn it off, but knowing it is there is not the same thing.

The other thing is being limited--with the camera/lens, writing a musical, developing a theory w/o the higher level math, whatever--can force you to be creative, and that can be much better than what one could do w/o the limitations.

Anyone tried drawing with a sharpened stick in oak gall ink? Beats a high tech ink pen. Serious point. There's something about spotting a suitable stick. Preparing it and dipping it in home made ink. OK, my skills are limited, but the simple pleasure remains with the pre-historic method. Similarly, making cutting tools out of flint. It's a truly basic skill - bashing (knapping) two rocks together to give a razor sharp edge that goes through most fabrics as well as steel (doesn't last that long), is another simple pleasure.

I do see this as being analogous to using high tech gear versus using more basic equipment that perhaps has a greater feeling of involvement.

[robgski]

There is nothing in the latest Pentax camera that prevents one from using entirely manual settings.