Will There Ever Be a Super-Simple Digital Camera?

So I got to thinking the other day. I keep kvetching about the absurd complexity of dedicated cameras these days, something I certainly was thinking about as I was parsing the Fuji X-T4 and comparing it mentally to my X-T1. The X-T1 is purer, maybe. A little.

I've been working in the trenches, in daily contact with real, live photographers and photography enthusiasts, for a more than three decades now. (My first magazine article was published in 1988.) One thing that really surprises me is that throughout the entire era of digital cameras so far, the desire for a digital camera that's as simple and straightforward as a workmanlike film camera has never entirely gone away. It's been through different phases now (which I could describe), and it's muted now, but I still hear it. Even at this late date.

And even though it's never going to happen.

One of the reasons I want to shoot a little film again is—I admit it—that the cameras are different. No one is ever going to make a simple but high-quality digital camera that feels like a simple film camera. It doesn't fit the marketing needs or the commercial requirements of today's business models, or the customs in the culture now.

So what would a truly simple digital camera actually look like and how would it work?

Picture this
Imagine a full-frame digital SLR of ideally small size and heft (weight doesn't matter so much, but heft is important). It would take manual-focus lenses, of which there are maybe all of five—say a 21mm, 28mm, 40mm, 85mm, and a 100–200mm ƒ/4 zoom. You can see focus on the groundglass, but the only focus aid is a small red square in the center of the visual field that turns green when focus is achieved at that spot. There is nothing else in the image field of the viewfinder except what you're pointing the camera at. The viewfinder is big and clear and shows 96% or more of what the camera will record. There are only two metering patterns: averaged and spot, with the spot corresponding to the focus-indicator rectangle and engaged with an on-off button near the shutter release. When the spotmeter is on, the focus rectangle blinks*. On the left side of the viewfinder window (where the shutter speeds or apertures used to be on old SLRs) is an elongated histogram that responds to changes of the shooting controls.

And what are those? The only shooting controls are the shutter release, an aperture ring on the lenses detented in full and half stops, a shutter speed dial on the camera in full and half stops with an "A" setting, an ISO dial with only six ISOs in full stops (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200), and an exposure compensation dial (also in full and half stops). How it works: set the shutter speed to "A," and you're in aperture-priority mode (in which the camera will select intermediate shutter speeds); set both aperture and shutter speed to chosen values and you're in manual mode.

Other controls on the camera are a depth-of-field preview button, lens release button, and a small LCD with an exposures-remaining counter and a battery charge level indicator. There's only one card slot. There's no viewing screen. There's no flash or accommodation for flash. The camera will take pictures as quickly as you want but each exposure requires a separate shutter-button push. There's no viewing screen on the back of the camera. It records only raw—no JPEGs.

There are no menus. Well, maybe one. There's no video, no AF patterns, no Wi-Fi, no GPS, no rapid-fire mode, no film simulations, on and on.

Each file comes out of the camera marked only with the number of that shutter actuation. The camera is quiet but audible to the person with his or her head behind the eyepiece. But it's of high build quality, and the sensor quality and image quality are high.

That would be a simple digital camera.

What's the point? Instead of a camera that will do anything, that's for everyone and for any purpose, it would simply be intended to get completely out of the way so a photographer can see the world through it without distractions, and take pictures, at normal angles of view, one at a time. And so the photographer can be in complete control of every parameter at all times. And be assured of complete mastery of every control on the camera every time he or she picked up the camera.

Too much to ask?
Will anyone ever build an affordable digital camera like that, though? The answer is emphatic: no, never. It can't and won't happen.

There are two problems. First, it completely goes against the "kitchen sink" culture of camera design today. Although most camera makers would be technically competent to create such a thing, it would be so radical in the context of their corporate cultures that it would completely flummox the whole organization. They would literally not have a clue how to design or market it. No one would have any idea of what was important and what wasn't; no one would be competent conceptually to take a guiding hand with a device like I described. They'd have no basis on which to make decisions. Probably, no one in any of the companies would even understand the mission, even if they did have the pull to get it through all the committees and reviews, which no one would. The culture in camera companies, almost entirely (Leica is the sole exception), is to put every feature they can think of into every camera, and then respond as best they can when mavens suggest even more features. The result is always as many features and as much complexity as feasible.

I'm not saying that's wrong, either. All I'm suggesting is that it would be nice to have an alternative as well.

Consider the Nikon Dƒ. That was Nikon's attempt at making a simple retro camera! It was a strange ugly-duckling of a hybrid, like a modern house ham-handedly built by an amateur to look "Victorian." It wasn't a bad camera, actually. It just "did retro" startlingly badly. That's what camera companies perpetrate when they start out trying to make simple cameras.

The Nikon Dƒ was an attempt to make a digital FM3a. How'd they do?

Of course, all Nikon really wanted was to make a body for people who owned lots of old manual-focus lenses. In that, they did fine.

But there's a flip side: the other problem is that a simple camera like what I just described wouldn't sell. Customers wouldn't know what to make of it. It's true that carmakers build SUVs because people buy them, but it's also true that people buy SUVs because carmakers make them...and because other people buy them. It's not appreciated that fashions in product categories are cooperative efforts, not just the "demand" or the "supply" side inflecting the other side. They grow symbiotically, reinforced from both sides. As cameramakers have kitchen-sinked their products, consumers have been conditioned to look for and to ask for—to want, in short—the very things they're being provided with. We critique the products, but we do so only within the basic cultural assumptions under which the product is created and provided. Whenever I say I don't want a camera with video, people just look at me like I'm strange; first, why wouldn't you want it if you can get it for nothing? And second, a camera without video? That'd never sell. And third, just don't use it if you don't want to. In short, they don't even grasp the mindset of someone who would wish for simpler cameras. They don't get it.

When a product is too radically different, too out of step, too far from the average, the demand for it is slumbering or has withered. It hasn't been nurtured and brought along. It is not, for lack of a better term, understood. The offbeat product concept, when it is sprung on people unexpectedly, seems to come out of the blue. They don't know what to make of it.

There will never be any simple digital ILCs, at least as we conceive of ILCs now and as we have conceived of them since maybe 1959. It won't happen not because it can't but just because it won't. Sorry. If you want a camera similar to a digital Leica M6, Olympus OM-1, Pentax MX, or Nikon FM3a, the closest you could come would be...to get yourself a Leica M6, Olympus OM-1, Pentax MX, or Nikon FM3a!

Mike

*Why a spot-metering function on a super-simple camera? Only because when I came up with this I was conceiving of it as a "digital Spotmatic." :-D

P.S. Have a nice weekend! I'll be taking the day off tomorrow as usual. See you on Sunday.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Thanks to our old and new supporters on Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Terry: "If they ever were to make such a camera I would never buy it. You lost me and my astigmatic eyes at manual focus. The further I read the less appealing the whole thing sounded. I can fully imagine throwing the thing to its death out of frustration at its lack of capabilities. Sorry."

Mike replies: Well, couldn't you just buy a different camera then? Like, one of all the cameras currently made? There's no requirement that every camera be equally appealing to all people (although that's arguably one of the cultural assumptions now inside the corporations that make cameras—that if it doesn't appeal to everyone—or as many people as possible—then it's a no-go).

Bill Pearce (partial comment): "Photography has been hijacked by what we used to call 'advanced amateurs,' but I will now call 'technical hobbyists.' Folks fascinated by the technical aspects of the process, the lenses and the cameras. They live for complexity and are distant cousins of computer hobbyists. In my entire career I never wanted the sharpest lens ever; I was happy with decent sharpness. I never wanted to bracket my exposures in 1/3 stop increments much less even smaller."

[To see the full text of "partial" Featured Comments, see the full Comments section. —Ed.]

psu (partial comment): "We can wish and we can hope but the reality is that the forces against this kind of innovation are stronger than the forces that could push it forward."

cecelia: "I set up my OM-D E-M1 Mark II to be a simple camera. Aperture priority, fixed ISO 200, spot focusing, auto IS. I just have to decide my aperture, turn the exposure compensation dial as I see fit from the EVF, and set the AF spot location. Everything else is off or avoidable. I usually keep the screen hidden too. With a small prime, it reminds me of my old film camera experiences, but with the ability to verify I got the shot if necessary, and raw files for digital post-processing."

Cleber Figueiredo: "This is the camera of my dreams. I'm still hopeful that a small start-up will come out of the blue and put up a product such as this for sale."

Peter Wright (partial comment): "Now that the race to master the higher complexity and have the latest techno gizmo is beginning to fade, many are wanting basic, high-quality tools. As camera volumes decline into niche levels, and makers go looking for what might actually sell, I think you may indeed have a chance to get just what you are describing. (Five years out?)"

Jamie Pillers: "I'd buy that camera in an instant. I'd happily sell off all my Fuji 'kitchen sink' gear and replace it with your concept camera. And to the manufacturer of this camera: I don't need fast lenses. ƒ/2.8 lenses are fine. Maybe the 50mm-e could be an ƒ/1.4. Lenses should be smallish; not like the behemoths being forced on us today."

Jeff: "Other than cost, is there some reason you’ve omitted the Leica digital M cameras, notably the versions that either don’t have a back screen, have a real ISO dial and/or shoot monochrome? All manual, with 50+ year old native lenses if desired.

Mike replies: Other than cost, no, but cost is the reason. This is "economic parochialism," but I can't help myself.

hilm: "Well, Mike, you've come pretty close to describing the Leica M-D (Type 262). Your mythical camera has a couple more bells and whistles, like a histogram and a fancy-schmansy red-dot/green-dot focusing contraption, though."

Mike replies: Well the M-D Typ 262 has a coincident rangefinder patch! Not much different than what you call my "focusing contraption."  :-)

Samuel: "'No, never'? Already done: Point camera, press red button, look at photo! There's a good reason that Apple is a trillion dollar company with its ultra simple-to-use camera, the market dominating iPhone. (Plus lots of other companies that pirated Apple's inventions.)"

John Camp (partial comment): " The problem with cameras-as-computers is that the control system—the computer—is so flexible that you can do almost anything with it. [...] The most obvious current example of this IMHO is the iPhone 11 pro, one of which I have. All I want is snapshots. But what I'm getting, most of the time, is a series of shots, or movies, or the flash goes off when I don't want it to, because the controls are awkward and honestly, I haven't bothered to study them. All I want is a button and lens for snapshots, and the iPhone cameras are becoming just like other cameras, a mess of complications."

Henning Wulff: "As you know, Leica makes cameras that come very close to what you're asking. Unfortunately, the only SLR that meets many of your criteria is the S3, which is fairly small for a medium format, but still.... And the price is kinda like a Leica.

"After dallying with the movie thing, the M10 and M10M got rid of that. It's not an SLR, but it does a good job of being a digital M7, if not M6 or M2 or M4 (my favourite M). And the price is still ludicrous. On the other hand, since I've shot with Leicas now for just shy of 60 years, I have lenses and the cameras fit my hands and muscle memory like no others. So I'll sell some stuff and get an M10M, because no one else has made anything like it, and especially, no one has made anything as straightforward and simple. It's just too bad that you have to pay so much to get so little. [The M10 Monochrom body costs $8,295. —Ed.]

"If camera manufacturers are reading this, they may want to take note that they may add many features, offering them all at no additional cost, but I'm willing to pay a lot more to have a lot fewer features.

"I would write more on this topic, but I have to get back to reading the 'FRIEDMAN ARCHIVES GUIDE TO SONY’S A7R IV' (750 pages) and the 'A7R4 Manual' (698 pages) and figure out how to configure this camera to do approximately what I want. It's a decent camera and can produce wonderful images, but it's like Adobe Photoshop: capable of nearly anything, but you'll never live long enough to find out how."

Mark Berman: "This would be my dream camera. If it is not feasible, how about the idea of implementing into a regular camera the option of turning off any menu item at user's will effectively making it a Super-Simple Digital Camera? In this case there will be some unused controls but I could live with this."

Tom Judd: "You're right. It would never sell, partly because it's your camera and not mine. How about this: let me painfully go through the options on my camera, setting it up as I like. Some custom settings would be nice. Then give me a way to turn off all of the menu settings. If I sold the camera, or changed my mind, I could reactivate the horrible menus."

Ben Shugart: "Model number: MJ-TOP-DMD-Mark II?"

Mike replies: Made me chuckle. At least I'm consistent!

mark r in colorado: "I would give some serious thought to buying the camera you describe, but I agree that it's never going to happen. It would take some guts for a camera company to go against the feature-laden trend, and I don't think there's that much corporate bravery in declining markets. Ideally, I would want it to be monochrome also, an even smaller niche!"

Ricardo Silva Cordeiro (partial comment): "Even if the current cameras' complexity doesn't bother me at all, I would sure be very interested in your simple camera just for the experience of shooting with it."

Geoff Wittig: "I'm happy to use a complex digital mirrorless ILC with endless menus (currently an X-T3) as my 'walking around camera' because all that complexity can be ignored. I just use those delightful mechanical controls (aperture ring on the lens, shutter speed dial, ISO dial) and pretend it's a film camera. I leave it set for raw capture. I never dive into the menus. I have never shot a single frame of video. It's like a car that can do 150 MPH; I'll never use that capability. As long as all that useless complexity is out of sight and out of mind, I guess it's okay if the marketers feel compelled to include it. Too bad we have to pay for it, though."

Comments

[mark lacey]

I have a Nikon Df with a K screen from an FM3a and a 1.2x magnifying eyepiece which makes it easier to focus with than my F2A and still autofocusses perfectly. The screen has to be slightly modified but with my ai 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2 and 50mm f1.2 and with the dials I can forget the command wheels and regain control. Love it.

[Gord Millar]

Pentax Q? Perhaps a bigger sensor though.

[James]

What really needs to happen is that the camera firmware should become open source. That way, some enterprising hobbyist will make the firmware that will do all of that.

Ok, so there won't be a literal groundglas, but that can certainly be simulated in the software. Everything else can too, as long as the dials on top are flexible enough.

Regarding the Fujis. What I can't get over is how hard it is to get to exposure compensation on the X-H1. As long as the camera is mostly auto, that should be the primary control.

You know who really nailed the camera controls? Sigma. Of all camera manufacturers. On the Quattros. In P, the main command dial is exposure compensation. In A, it controls A. In S, it controls S. In M, the primary controls A, the secondary dial controls S. There is a clutch for manual focus on the lens.

If I were mostly a landscape photographer, I would be very happy with a pair of DP0 and DP2. I'm pretty happy to have the body attached to the lens, though, so that's that. I already have a DP2, so I am not too far!

As it is, my most important subject is a small child, and a Sigma Quattro simply will not keep up. Such is life.

[Martin Herrera]

Some have mentioned Leica. More specifically, they one I use, an M-D is from in my experience what comes closer to your which camera. It even does not have a display in the back. I love it. An analogue camera that records in a chip instead of film. But, with the exact simplified user experience.

[JimH]

These posts are very interesting. Analyzing them leads to some very interesting insights.
I'll bet everyone here would blame this complexity for cameras on the digital sensor part of the camera. But take a look at the Nikon F6, introduced in 2004. Practically every function offered in a digital camera, save those fixed by the choice of film instead of a digital sensor - resolution, ISP, white balance, image review - are available in the F6, which has pretty much the same clutter of switches, buttons and even a rear panel LCD we've come to expect on a DSLR. (Here's Ken Rockwell's page on the F6 - look for yourself: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f6.htm - compare to a D2: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2hs.htm) The F6 has a MENU button and will even store digital EXIM data on the exposure on film on a CF card!
The point is engineers had been using microprocessors in cameras for quite a while by then, learning how to control functions like shutters, aperture, focus, exposure, etc. Setting up the modes of a F6 looks pretty complicated. Blame the same camera designers for creating the complexity of today's cameras. But remember just because you have all those options, you do not have to use them all the time.

When we lived on the farm, I kept two Olympus E-P3s. One had a Panasonic 100-300 lens and was set up as my "critter cam." The other was set up for a Oly 12-50 with macro function that I used for everything else including close-ups of flowers and insects. All I had to do to get a photo was grab the right camera.

Look at the car analogy. Buy a new car and the manual runs to hundreds of pages. For most cars, you can program the look of the instrument panel, center display for car functions, how the doors lock/unlock, turn signals work, lights go on and off, etc. etc. etc. Many cars with a sporting nature allow you to program engine/transmission mapping, suspension, etc. for every driving mode from comfort to racetrack. If you are willing to take time, you can customize the car so it works to fit how you like to drive. But - and this is the analogy for cameras - you don't need to reprogram it every time you drive if you have it set up properly. Except when you drive on a track, maybe.

And Mike, we know you don't like SUVs, but you are single, still fairly young, and may not be carrying a lot of stuff all the time. But when you are a decade older like me, with a bad back to boot, the higher seating makes entry/exit easier. loading stuff you carry, even simple things like groceries, much easier. Having space for more people in a vehicle where entry/exit is easy and legroom is generous is appreciated. SUVs are practical for more people than sedans which is why they sell more, not the lemming mentality you allude to. Families still buy minivans too! And if you lived in the LA area with our notorious traffic, you would not be so enamored with a manual transmission. Both my kids, shifting aficionados, have abandoned manuals too.

As you like to say, "just sayin..."

[Dre Mar]

I’m holding out for a true MX replica. Until then the Panasonic LX-3 is still taking photographs.

[Matt]

People who complain at once about the expense of a Leica and about missing the good ol' days of film are practicing a particular type of innumeracy.

I got back into shooting rangefinders, first with a Fuji GW690 and then a Minolta CLE. They were cheap-ish, and I really liked using them. What I realized, though, after 6 months of shooting, was that I'd spent roughly $500 on film and chemistry _per month_. And I wasn't shooting for any clients (well, one wedding in that period, who requested film), most of that was just my personal shooting, street and documentary work. My bank was happy to give me a loan at a decent rate, and now I have an M10P and shoot as much as I want, for less than half of what I was paying when I was shooting film and schlepping to the lab twice a week.

So yeah, it's expensive. But it's still a lot cheaper than shooting film.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

Hi Mike, reading you loud & clear.
That’s how I tend to use my Nikon DSLRs; manual focus (AI-S lenses), shutter speed, aperture, ISO & spot metering, and RAW.
Not so sure about the histogram, only because I can’t visualise it.

One thought that might allow this to play out, and let everyone have what they want. Have the basic physical controls on the camera as you suggest, and then make all the digital controls, including image review, available via pairing with smart phone or tablet-like device. Therefore, someone can set the camera up however they like, including for absolute bare bones, and then shoot away.
It would require the camera companies opening up a lot of proprietary stuff, and outsourcing the device software to a company than knows what it’s doing, given camera makers have basically proven that they don’t. Add in IBIS and we’re done :)

[Matt Patey]

While waiting for such a pared down digital camera to appear on the market (and suppressing my lust after a Leica), I tried adapting the shooting process and configuration of the tools I already had in hand (Olympus E-M5, Nikon Coolpix A) to try and emulate the experience I was looking for.

As others have suggested already, part of the solution was to set and forget as many variables as possible: ISO, metering mode, colour (for JPEGs), aperture. The one thing I struggled with and wanted the most though was an interactive and enjoyable manual focusing experience. After many disappointing experiments I found that advice common amongst rangefinder shooters worked best for me: get to know your distances and let the deep DOF provided by small apertures work for you. This, combined with an optical viewfinder on my Coolpix A made for one of my favourite ways of shooting: I could forget all about the camera in hand and concentrate solely on what was in front of me. Some of my favourite photographs were made in this way.

I believe the not uncommon desire for a camera like the one you describe stems in part from the anxiety caused by the near infinite number of shooting possibilities offered by modern cameras. This isn't a trend limited to the photography world, either. Music software, for example, tends to offer similarly open ended experiences such that it's easy to get lost in the possibilities and land up with something mediocre, if anything at all.

By providing controls dedicated to essential photographic function, companies like Fuji seem to provide an economically sustainable product that also caters to the minimalists out there. But as my experience with the Coolpix A showed, I think one can get a similar experience by ignoring the myriad features offered in cameras on today's market. I suppose the remaining challenge is convincing the consumer that they ought to ignore the features they paid (dearly, in some cases) for, and concentrate instead on the bare essentials. Perhaps this isn't such a difficult proposition though if it's what you're looking for in the first place.

[dalvorius]

Hasselblad 907X... I only just noticed this was available. It's even more appealing than the X1D.

Ah to have the spare funds. This is quite possibly my dream camera.

[Roger Bradbury]

Mike,

At the moment, photographers who want a camera similar to the one you describe are typically using a 35mm SLR and a film scanner. This gives them the pared down control options you describe. I think this is the purer option for many.

I generally ignore many of the settings on my DSLRs, like many others here. But on my holidays last year I took an old Canon G9. It's as simple to use as my carefully set up main cameras, but that's because there are far fewer options.

Just knowing this is liberating. It allows me to concentrate on the shot, without the weight of options (even if I never use them) that are lurking in the back of my mind.

So I propose a different answer. An interchangeable lens camera with a stripped down interface that appeals to both us seasoned and grizzled experts, and the less experienced making the jump from a smartphone.

The menu would have one page. The controls would be as simple to use as possible. The mode dial would be cut to the minimum amount of options, but would include a full auto everything mode that would also control ISO, AF, and white balance.

You could set the mode to full auto, loan the camera to a complete beginner for a week, and all they'd have to do is point it in the right direction, allow it to focus, and press the release. On the other hand, there would be a manual exposure mode.

What we are both talking about here is simplicity of use, but full control when we need it. Then the mind can concentrate fully on the creation of a satisfying image.

Roger

[Bill Allen]

It sounds like you’re asking for a digital imaging module that can fit in the film slot on a classic SLR.

[Maynard Switzer]

The digital camera you wish for may never be made, but the folks at Fuji are listening to photographers complain about cameras getting to complex. The new Fuji X-T4 that is about to be released has all the video menue choices altogether & it is the first ILC that also has a switch on top of the camera that allows the photographer to completely grey out all video settings. You just turn the switch to either PHOTO or VIDEO & voila, no video settings appear. Since I have no desire to shoot video, problem solved. They are the first manufacturer to implement this type of feature.

[Luke]

Bill Pearce said: "Photography has been hijacked by what we used to call 'advanced amateurs,' but I will now call 'technical hobbyists.' Folks fascinated by the technical aspects of the process, the lenses and the cameras.

My goodness, that sounds just like the film hobbyists! They are fascinated by the arcane aspects of the many processes, all the mystical chemicals, entire Zone Systems built around exposure control, oriental (sic) papers, obsolete lenses, and on and on. They don't care about images at all, or they would shoot digital.

[Eric Rose]

I already have one. My Panasonic GX1, VC 35mm MF lens, camera set to A. I either use the EVF or the back screen for focusing. Super simple, super small.

[J Wilson]

Mike, I'd be a buyer for that system, but . . . . the days of photography being a learned discipline as we had to approach it in the film days are over.

Digital technology has displaced any learning curve for most people, it's 'point and shoot' whether it's and I-Phone or a D6. WE know better technology allows folks to make better bad pictures, but that doesn't seem to matter to them.

When Photoshop replaced The Kodak Master Photo Guide, it all changed.

[David Lee]

I was ready to take the plunge into an M10 a few months ago. I did all the mental gymnastics needed, like: “I already have some very nice lenses that I miss using”, “It will probably be the last camera I buy”, “It’s not really that expensive”. Finally I walked into Leica Gallery in Frankfurt to play with the camera a little bit. The deal breaker was the weight. I had my XPRO-2 with me and the difference is huge for a lazy guy like me. I pretty much set my Fujifilm as a basic camera and that’s it. That being said, I would love it if Fujifilm decided to make a body like you just described, but full frame and with an M mount....

[Jos Bunkens]

Hey
I fully agree with the need for simpler cameras.
But my simple camera will look different than yours.
Now you cannot expect that camera producers can develop and produce a whole arsenal of different types and remain a healthy company. Unless ... there is more cooperation.
Suppose we could 'force' manufacturers to all use the same lens mount (for a specific sensor size), then a company would be able to work in a niche more easily without having to worry about the survival of their system / lens mount. They don't even have to develop their own lenses; other companies can do that.
The camera market is shrinking. If one wants to preserve diversity, they must work together, instead of all, in addition to each other, making 'similar' things that are not compatible with each other.

The past has proven that it is possible, when all companies supported the same format for audio carriers (the CD).
The time has come for camera manufacturers to do the same and to develop one system. This will, on the contrary, benefit diversity.

(Google Translate)

[Jeff1000]

Hey Mike, it seems that you're confusing film photography with digital photography, analog with digital. Film photography is inherently simple: you're exposing a strip of celluloid to light and then exposing light sensitive paper to light through a negative. Digital is way more complex with more controls, algorithms, and so forth.

You can make film photography simple and still obtain great results; if you dumb down digital photography you end up with a cell phone camera.

I think if you want simplicity just shoot film. To wish for digital to be simple is like wishing that women thought more like men. It's just not the nature of the beast :-).

[Tim Bradshaw]

I used to agree that your simple digital camera (which is similar but not identical to mine) won't get made, but I no longer do.

It's interesting to compare software, which suffers from the same kind of feature-bloat that cameras do of course, leaving us all living with the vast incomprehensible horrors that result

Except that, well, not all software is like that. I'm writing this comment with a tool which is displaying the text of the comment on the screen, and that's all that's on the screen, unless I move the mouse, in which case a little indicator appears at the bottom of the screeen saying how many words I have written (560 words). I can choose the colour and size of the text, and the colour of the background. Apart from line-wrapping there is no automatic formatting at all.

This is a commercial product. I have another commercial product which is a fancier version of the same idea: it lets you maintain organised collections of text, including notes, and it supports a variety of markdown so you can add headings, *emphasize text*, add footnotes and so on. There is at least one other similar system to the one I use.

People are, I assume, making money selling these tools.

So, well, the standard argument is that the reason these tools exist is that the fixed costs of making software are very very low compared to the fixed costs of making hardware, so it's possible to serve a tiny market and make money when writing software, but hardware has to serve a very large market. The market for radically simple cameras is, by assumption, small.

I partly believe this, but only partly, because it's not actually true. For instance, I have a phone (not my main phone, OK) whose whole purpose is to, well, be a phone. It has buttons which let you dial numbers, make a call and so on, and a screen which will display who is calling you. It has contacts, and it can even do text messages. I also have a very beautiful latter-day recreation of an HP-42S: a calculator. Yes, inside there's a great mass of software which is emulating the HP-42S, but in terms of hardware it's just a calculator: it has buttons and a screen, and if you've used an HP calculator you know how it works.

These things are current products. In both cases they were designed for the relatively small market of people who want machines which do one thing, really well, and which are really nice to use. And they're not software, and they do include lots of fancy electronics, and they are not vastly expensive.

So it's clearly perfectly possible to make complex hardware which serves rather small markets, and to make money doing so.

And there is a market for radically simple digital cameras, and in due course some company is going to serve that market. The only reason it hasn't been served already is that the only company that has realised that this market exists is trapped in a world where they are not allowed to make a camera which is not hugely expensive because doing so would destroy large parts of their existing market, which is people who buy their cameras because they are so expensive.

[Dennis]

Cameras are like computers, software packages, cars, TVs, any other complicated gadget, in that each of us uses a fraction of their capabilities and we long for a version that offers just the fraction that we use. Your simple camera isn't my simple camera and rather than make 20 different simple cameras, manufacturers just make one that does it all.

The best solution I can think of is customizable firmware - you run software on a computer/tablet/phone that lets you decide what features to enable/disable, button/dial assignments and even available menu options, and it builds customized firmware you can put on your camera. One ugly part of this, to me, is that you either choose to not label dials/buttons or you label them with defaults, but either way, the user doesn't have an easy way to label buttons with the customized function.

[Barry Reid]

Sadly simplicity is usually either very cheap or very expensive. Like the Contax S2, essentially a yashica FX-3 super with a faster shutter and a spot meter at approx 7x the price.

In relative terms I would therefore imagine your camera coming out at roughly the same price as the (relatively) cheapest Leica M, so you may want to start saving!

[TC]

I've found that there's often a gap between what people say they want and what they actually want.

Not saying this is you of course! I simply suspect that a significant proportion of people who see themselves as the type of photographer who would appreciate such a camera would actually falter in their enthusiasm when presented with the prospect of actually working with one.

[Steve C]

There was an interview with Stefan Daniel at Leica late last year where he walked through the company's product line and explained how each was unique in the market.

The interviewer at one point asked, weren't other medium format cameras like the S? He responded something like yes, but none that are simple, they're all custom buttons and touch screens. The S is simple: four buttons.

Another statement (from Kaufman I think) addressed people lamenting the M systems lack of features. He said that people say they want a camera that has an EVF, that is good for video, that has every feature that they want. "That camera already exists!" he said, "Other companies make it."

Leica don't just understand simplicity, they understand that strong differentiation is their license to charge like they do.

[Graham]

“Mike replies: Other than cost, no, but cost is the reason. This is "economic parochialism," but I can't help myself.”

And how much would it cost for 5 years of film and developing to get the desired user experience with the film camera instead of a digital Leica?

[KOSTAS]

Dear Mike,
First of all it is great that I found your blog (not so great that this took me 10 years of reading for several hours daily...).
Your point of the camera getting out of the way is the main I keep from your post.
Like many others I suffer from G.A.S and I am trying everything from film cameras (leica R4 and a couple of Nikons) to mirrorless (Olympus) to Canon and Nikon FFs and SONY compact (RX100 line).
Your proposed simplicity is attainable by probably all of them if I dont overthink about the most efficient 'one to rull them all' setup.
Right now it seems that my OMD EM10 is making shooting transparent, be it with Oly glass or with Nikon glass.
In any case again I fully agree with your the camera getting out of photomaking's way.

[Stephen Scharf]

Ken Tanaka's right, this is not the first time this post has come up, and in fact, I seem to remember a very similar one last year or thereabouts.

But, anyhow, any Fuji X100 series camera is about as simple as it gets for a digital camera.

Which is what I said the last time this came up.

And, given that the X100 series is as close to the Decisive Moment Digital you waxed poetically about approximately 15 years ago, I've always been a bit surprised you never took to owning and using one.

Personally, I think the X100F is one of the 3 best cameras I've ever used, and...one of the simplest.

[Pak-Ming Wan]

I just bought (at great expense) a Leica M Monochrom typ 246. It is a pretty simple camera, which for the moment I'm really enjoying. Aperture Priority during the day then Manual with Auto-ISO at night (with usable high ISO photos) is really liberating.

The unit itself was secondhand, less than 1000 shutter actuations in the 2 years of its life. The previous owner struggled to take photos of his children apparently and went to Nikon.

Pak

[NancyP]

The idea to put a histogram in the viewfinder is interesting, but conflicts with the more important desire to have a nice big bright 100% field view - sayeth the dSLR user. I suppose that one could make this work in an electronic viewfinder by having a toggle switch: image OR histogram.

As for vintage manual lens use, I am pleased to be able to use my old AIS-Nikkor and M42 lenses via adapter on an ordinary Canon (6D) dSLR. I really miss the old split-prism focusing, though.

[Carl Garrard]

Mike you hit the nail on the head here, and you probably speak to a larger audience than you think. I've been blogging similar comments about camera design needing to appeal more specifically to stills or video shooters. While you may be right about companies not being brave enough to make such a camera, I think there might be a chance in desperation of the shrinking market to eventually listen to stills shooters. Likely a design would come from a smaller company first, but who knows. There is however a real demand out there for this kind of camera!