Cameras We Don't Need

Paper Bark. Lumix GH3 with Lumix 14-140mm lens

 

The Future of Cameras,  Part 4 of a 4 part series

Many cameras on the market today are promoted as having characteristics which are of dubious relevance to the craft of good photography. In  no particular order here are some of my pet peeves:

* Really Small  One version of this is "We squeezed the biggest sensor into the smallest camera body"  As if smallness was an intrinsically virtuous attribute of a camera. Of course what usually happens is you get a teensy little thing with no handle, no viewfinder, no articulated monitor and a limited set of tiny, poorly designed controls.

But look !!  It scores 3500 line pairs per image height on the IQ comparometer widget measurbator thingy. 

Wow!! For people who want to spend the rest of their lives photographing test charts this camera is just the thing.

As it happens I have shown to my own satisfaction here  that it is possible to build decent ergonomics into a small camera. But very few actual small cameras on the market today are remotely close to ergonomic excellence.

* Retro Styling  Why ?  Have today's camera designers run out of ideas ?  Why do they think that shaping a modern electronic camera vaguely like someone's supposedly favourite camera from the 1980's is a good idea ?  The user interface requirements of a camera which has a huge monitor covering it's back side and several million combinations of  control module options are going to be rather different from those of  a 1980's film camera.

* Lots and Lots of Pixels  More is better, right ? Nonsense.  For the great majority of photographic purposes 8 megapixels does a fine job. Some professionals with specific requirements for very high image resolution will need and use lots more pixels but for most of us enough is enough.  I am getting from my 16Mpx Micro Four Thirds cameras about the same level of image information as I achieved with medium format film several years ago. More pixels per sensor demands better and therefore more expensive lenses, more in camera processing power and more computer power with little guarantee of detectably better picture quality in most circumstances.

* Larger sensorCamera makers seem to be rushing to produce full frame cameras at the moment, presumably in the hope of generating better per unit profit and presumably seeking to upsell existing customers to something "better". I think they are launching a kite which will not fly well. Professionals  may need the amount of information contained in a full frame image but they are using full frame already.

* Touch ScreensYes, I know, some people say they love their touch screens. I don't get it. I have done an ergonomic analysis of trying to operate a camera while looking through the viewfinder and it just doesn't work for me. My anatomy is the same as anyone else's.

* Funky Features  Modern cameras are often loaded to the gills with these in numbers beyond counting.  Art filters, Motion Picture Snapshot Mode (or some such), Best Shot Mode (as if the camera could figure out better than you which is the best shot of a sequence).......and  on and on....... Some of these cameras are burdened with slower shot to shot times than I could manage in 1969 with an all manual film camera.  They would serve their users better by putting the camera's processing power to more effective purpose.

* Digital SLR cameras  This is a bit unfair to DSLR's as there is nothing wrong with them as a camera type. They are just a manifestation of 20th century technology and we are now well into the 21st century. Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras [MILC]  have less parts and the parts which they do have are more amenable to mass production (ie. electronic vs optical/mechanical). Therefore they are inherently less expensive to make. They are lighter and more compact. They have many desirable features relating to operation and the user interface.  When they have resolved the issue of follow focus on fast moving subjects  (some of them are almost there)  I believe it will be game over for the DSLR.  Soon.

* Cameras without an EVF   If a camera does have a viewfinder the operator has the choice to use it or not, depending on the circumstances. But if the camera lacks a viewfinder that choice is lost. Smartphones lack viewfinders. The presence of a viewfinder  needs to be one of the defining characteristics of a camera.

* Cameras without an ergonomic handle and thumb support  Ergonomic shaping is another feature by which cameras need to distinguish themselves from smartphones. Ergonomic excellence should be a feature of every camera but so many of them are dismally awful.

Summary  I think most of the camera types and models on the market today will or should disappear from the photographic universe. Us consumers need less models and less different types of camera, probably from fewer manufacturers. We need cameras which are better  designed with excellent ergonomics. Cameras which are a pleasure to use.

The camera business is currently undergoing the greatest changes in history. Making the transition from film to digital was difficult enough but a minor event compared to the present situation.

The challenge to established cameras comes from three disruptive innovations. One, the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera comes from within the industry.  The other two are from outside the camera industry. These are the photo capability of the smartphone and the internet.

It will be interesting to see which if any of the camera companies rises to these multiple challenges.  Apple Camera, anyone ?