« A Strange Twist on the Limited Edition | Main | Presentation, Presentation, Presentation »

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Comments

Three days after your Simple Cameras essay, DPR publishes its review of the Fujifilm XM-1. Listed on the Conclusions page under "Cons" (numbers 4 through 7 out of eight):

- No electronic level
- Camera cannot be controlled via Wi-Fi
- Moiré, rolling shutter can be an issue in videos
- Lacks HDR, panorama features

I'm surely not the only one thinking this s***^ is expensive! Getting into the new, new ^ Olympus, is $2,500! That lens is a big 'un too. So's the body, only a smidgen smaller (1 mm, 3mm and 3 mm in all dimensions) than the Pentax K-5II. The smaller Canon DSLR's are measurably smaller too. Remind me again what was the point of m4/3?

And why do I keep thinking the Fuji stuff is a bunch of nostalgia-laden fru fru?

Can anyone other than an owl see through the Canon G's viewfinder? Can anyone actually find the viewfinder? Do you have to be 60 to own it?

Sony/Zeiss is sooo lost. Bigger is not better, fellas. And the um lens-like thingie is NOT the next big thing. Take that to the bank.


^ stuff

^ newer than the new one last year. Or maybe I'm thinking of the vast Pen collection, dunno, lost track.Reminds me of boy groups, can't tell 'em apart but know deep down it's not a hologram but several discrete objects. Also see NEXes, or rather, see on see 'em all.

[So...haven't had your morning coffee yet? ;-) --Mike]

(And I wonder...how close does the Sony A3000 come to the "simple camera"?)

IMO the "Simple Camera" should in no way be synonymous with "poor quality". Everything about it should be top-notch, including the viewfinder (yes, it should have one), be it optical or electronic, the view screen, the sensor, the firmware and the lens.

According to Kirk Tuck's blog of 09/10/13, the A3000 does not make the grade (I trust his opinion).

I would love it if one of the makers would take you up on your offer to design such a camera, I know it would be good. I hope you will keep after them about it.

As Clayton suggests, 'simple' must be the first epithet that springs to mind when describing your simple camera.
And even the second one should not, in any circumstances, be 'crappy'...
http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/sony-exercises-their-right-to-build.html

"I'm surely not the only one thinking this s***^ is expensive! Getting into the new, new ^ Olympus, is $2,500! That lens is a big 'un too."

It's possible you don't understand.

First, the E-M1 is for people who have four-thirds lenses already, and have been disappointed that there have been no new bodies for them for years. 4/3 lenses on prior m4/3 bodies with adapters are slow to agonizingly slow to focus. Adding Phase Detect AF to the sensor, the circuitry to operate it and an included adapter all have added size, weight and and more than a few $ to the cost.

Second, the 12-40/2.8 lens is a premium lens for those who need speed and/or constant aperture. I don't think it's either necessary or desirable for most m4/3 users. I have a small menagerie of m4/3 bodies and lenses, and can see no reason to have this lens for my use.

An E-M5 will give you the same images, as will the smaller E-P5. The 12-50 is an excellent lens, with dedicated 43 mm Macro Mode. The 14-150 is almost as good a lens, and far better than the old 4/3 18-180.

An E-M5 or E-P5 with one of these lenses is an excellent kit, far smaller, lighter and less expensive than E-M1 with 12-40/2.8

If you need the remote control from a tablet/phone or the other added features listed here,
they will show up in a successor body for m4/3 lenses only soon enough, probably named E-M6.

Be careful of accepting anyone's advice about cameras. As an example, the aforementioned Sony. I read Kirk's report and it doesn't sound very exciting. But I have to take into consideration the various points of disagreement I have with Kirk when it comes to equipment and approaches to photography. He loves EVFs. I really, really dislike them. He specializes in portraiture. I'm bored to death with portraits, especially studio portraits. He prefers longer lenses. I do my best pictures with wide to normal lenses and seldom use anything longer. He works a lot with flash units. I can't remember the last time I used a flash for anything.

This particular Sony doesn't appeal to me (the EVF alone is enough for me to discount it). But others may like the concept and price and not be turned off by the points Kirk mentioned. Not sure if it qualifies as a "simple" camera or not but it may qualify as a more than acceptable camera for some photographers.

The comments to this entry are closed.