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."
