Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:06:24 + Steve Cottrell wrote: I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. Me neither ;-) I have, several times. But only with the 'Q'. It has a mode-dial that is NOT locked, and can easily be moved a notch when taking it from the bag or whatever. I think 'video' is right next to 'P' as well :( Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
P.J. Alling wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml Excellent article. Thanks for pointing it out since I almost never look at Luminous Landscape any more (that site used to be a daily must read before it became a kind of Robb Report for cameras). A lot of designers need to re-read Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things (I'm assuming most read it or were supposed to in school). I still find the control layout of my Sony A850 generally superior to that of my Pentax K5 for a lot of the reasons he discusses (though the Pentax lens release and DOF preview are much superior to Sony's). -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
It's not the simplicity itself that's at issue. It's the original UNIX creed, programs that do one thing well. I want a still camera that does still photography well, that's ergonomically suited to it. Something that takes good quality photographs printable up to a certain size. I don't care if the camera makes movies, really good movies require seeing in ways that I just don't see. Really good movies, unless they're good due to compelling subject matter, require planning that even Ansel Adams didn't need to do. As a still photographer, using what used to be called a minicam, I want a Camera that doesn't get in my way, but has all the necessary controls readily available to take still pictures. That should be control over the three parts parts of exposure, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed. Control over the meter with selectable spot averaging and the program. The ability to turn the anti shake system on or off quickly, as conditions warrant. In auto focus modes the ability to choose focus points quickly. I shoot raw so it's not quite so important that I change color balance quickly though it does help get good exposures. So that shouldn't be buried to deeply in a menu either. For tripod work getting into a true mirror lockup would be nice too. On the K20D Pentax got almost all of those things right. All the shooting controls are right there.Shutter and Aperture are controlled by two wheels, ISO press the OK button and turn the front wheel. Metering pattern is right there under the mode dial. SR a switch on the back of the camera. White balance on the quick menu. Change a focus point, in shooting mode right there on the four way controller. The only thing you need to take your cameras from your eye for is white balance. Tho only real deficiency is mirror lockup for tripod work. We can discuss the cameras deficiencies as a photographic tool at length, it has many and can be extremely frustrating, but it's control layout for the still photographer is better than almost any other camera I've had a chance to play with, (I say almost because I only got to handle a Nikon D3 for a very short period of time so that might be better), though I still liked the quick white balance setup on the *ist-D. On 10/27/2013 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
I really don't think you should be looking to the Unix world for simplicity and design cues. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the simplicity itself that's at issue. It's the original UNIX creed, programs that do one thing well. I want a still camera that does still photography well, that's ergonomically suited to it. Something that takes good quality photographs printable up to a certain size. I don't care if the camera makes movies, really good movies require seeing in ways that I just don't see. Really good movies, unless they're good due to compelling subject matter, require planning that even Ansel Adams didn't need to do. As a still photographer, using what used to be called a minicam, I want a Camera that doesn't get in my way, but has all the necessary controls readily available to take still pictures. That should be control over the three parts parts of exposure, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed. Control over the meter with selectable spot averaging and the program. The ability to turn the anti shake system on or off quickly, as conditions warrant. In auto focus modes the ability to choose focus points quickly. I shoot raw so it's not quite so important that I change color balance quickly though it does help get good exposures. So that shouldn't be buried to deeply in a menu either. For tripod work getting into a true mirror lockup would be nice too. On the K20D Pentax got almost all of those things right. All the shooting controls are right there.Shutter and Aperture are controlled by two wheels, ISO press the OK button and turn the front wheel. Metering pattern is right there under the mode dial. SR a switch on the back of the camera. White balance on the quick menu. Change a focus point, in shooting mode right there on the four way controller. The only thing you need to take your cameras from your eye for is white balance. Tho only real deficiency is mirror lockup for tripod work. We can discuss the cameras deficiencies as a photographic tool at length, it has many and can be extremely frustrating, but it's control layout for the still photographer is better than almost any other camera I've had a chance to play with, (I say almost because I only got to handle a Nikon D3 for a very short period of time so that might be better), though I still liked the quick white balance setup on the *ist-D. On 10/27/2013 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
I can say that I have had that experience, several times, with the E-PL2. Rather than going through the process of reprogramming the button - i.e., setting it so that accidental button-pushes would be less troublesome - I sold the camera. Why would anybody think of putting a big honking button right where the users thumb is going to fall when holding the camera for shooting? stan On Oct 27, 2013, at 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On 27/10/13, David Parsons, discombobulated, unleashed: I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. Me neither ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On 27/10/13, Joseph McAllister, discombobulated, unleashed: In that vein, movies, whilst watching the F-1 race in India this morning, I noticed that each of the team's row of engineers peering at LCD screens of the thousands of sensors on their drivers cars had a slot between the screens and the laptops on the bench through which a DSLR was sliding back and forth on dual rails, rotating to get different angles (don't think it changed vertical angle) as the race progressed. Very erie, with no one in sight at the controls. TV? Team records? Don't know, but it was not a movie or TV cameras. Not even a GoPro (God that guy must be so rich by now) Interesting! I watched the race (BBC coverage) and didnt see anything you describe. Any stills or video on the web of said gizmo? -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape conflated with Re: K-3 manual now available (PDF)
There are good situations for when the larger sensor in a DSLR or TTL-electronic camera, as well as the availability of the range of lenses they can use, makes sense for video work. At least at the price point I can afford in video cameras … Even professional movie makers choose DSLRs and TTL-electronic cameras for some purposes to save on equipment costs. There are other times when a DSLR or small TTL-electronic enable shots that could not be done with a pro video camera due to size, weight, etc. My sum-up of the LuLa article: Just another old git who wants the good old days to come back. ;-) I have plenty of simple cameras that address the basics, from the stone axe of my plain prism Nikon F up to and including my Leica M9. And I have a couple of very complex cameras. One of the most complex is my latest - the Olympus E-M1. It also has the best controls of any camera I've owned, and I can configure them to work *exactly* the way I want the camera to work, from fully manual with instant access to ISO, exposure time, aperture, and focus, to fully automated. I have no complaints about what manufacturers make. I applaud the diversity of design and ideas their products represent. I choose what I want to work with from that, and make what I choose do what I want it to. If it's too much trouble, I sell whatever it was and buy something else that does it more easily. To me, that's the only sane way to do things. Manufacturers don't make a product for 100 people, or even 1000. They never have, not for anything that costs under $10K anyway. You pick from what they make to suit your needs best, and adapt. A fresh pack of Impossible Color Protection film is in the SX-70 now. :-) G On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:30 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: … I am still baffled by the whole video thing and haven't been able to think of a single instance where I would want my DSLR to record video, much less sound. I have owned and used video cameras in the past, and if I wanted to shoot video again the last device I would consider for that purpose would be a DSLR. First choice would be a video camera. ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: It's not the simplicity itself that's at issue. It's the original UNIX creed, programs that do one thing well. With the ability to combine an arbitrary number of those small programs, each with their own menus of arguments, together, in as large and unmanagebly complex system as the user wants. I want a still camera that does still photography well, that's ergonomically suited to it. Something that takes good quality photographs printable up to a certain size. I don't care if the camera makes movies, really good movies require seeing in ways that I just don't see. Really good movies, unless they're good due to compelling subject matter, require planning that even Ansel Adams didn't need to do. As a still photographer, using what used to be called a minicam, I want a Camera that doesn't get in my way, but has all the necessary controls readily available to take still pictures. That should be control over the three parts parts of exposure, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed. Control over the meter with selectable spot averaging and the program. The ability to turn the anti shake system on or off quickly, as conditions warrant. In auto focus modes the ability to choose focus points quickly. I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. I shoot raw so it's not quite so important that I change color balance quickly though it does help get good exposures. So that shouldn't be buried to deeply in a menu either. For tripod work getting into a true mirror lockup would be nice too. On the K20D Pentax got almost all of those things right. All the shooting controls are right there.Shutter and Aperture are controlled by two wheels, ISO press the OK button and turn the front wheel. Metering pattern is right there under the mode dial. SR a switch on the back of the camera. White balance on the quick menu. Change a focus point, in shooting mode right there on the four way controller. The only thing you need to take your cameras from your eye for is white balance. And that is only as a convenience since you adjust that in post processing anyways. The problem is not complexity in function, but complexity in interface. As he said, the iPhone does a lot of things, but for many people the user interface is incredibly simple. One place that Pentax completely blew the UI was the FX button. It is a single button press to change to some particular mode, but pressing the button again doesn't bring you back to where you were. To get back to what you were doing, you have to navigate complicted menues. Even if you accidentally pressed the button and didn't really want to change modes. Tho only real deficiency is mirror lockup for tripod work. We can discuss the cameras deficiencies as a photographic tool at length, it has many and can be extremely frustrating, but it's control layout for the still photographer is better than almost any other camera I've had a chance to play with, (I say almost because I only got to handle a Nikon D3 for a very short period of time so that might be better), though I still liked the quick white balance setup on the *ist-D. On 10/27/2013 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: It's not the simplicity itself that's at issue. It's the original UNIX creed, programs that do one thing well. With the ability to combine an arbitrary number of those small programs, each with their own menus of arguments, together, in as large and unmanagebly complex system as the user wants. I want a still camera that does still photography well, that's ergonomically suited to it. Something that takes good quality photographs printable up to a certain size. I don't care if the camera makes movies, really good movies require seeing in ways that I just don't see. Really good movies, unless they're good due to compelling subject matter, require planning that even Ansel Adams didn't need to do. As a still photographer, using what used to be called a minicam, I want a Camera that doesn't get in my way, but has all the necessary controls readily available to take still pictures. That should be control over the three parts parts of exposure, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed. Control over the meter with selectable spot averaging and the program. The ability to turn the anti shake system on or off quickly, as conditions warrant. In auto focus modes the ability to choose focus points quickly. I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it that way? I shoot raw so it's not quite so important that I change color balance quickly though it does help get good exposures. So that shouldn't be buried to deeply in a menu either. For tripod work getting into a true mirror lockup would be nice too. On the K20D Pentax got almost all of those things right. All the shooting controls are right there.Shutter and Aperture are controlled by two wheels, ISO press the OK button and turn the front wheel. Metering pattern is right there under the mode dial. SR a switch on the back of the camera. White balance on the quick menu. Change a focus point, in shooting mode right there on the four way controller. The only thing you need to take your cameras from your eye for is white balance. And that is only as a convenience since you adjust that in post processing anyways. The problem is not complexity in function, but complexity in interface. As he said, the iPhone does a lot of things, but for many people the user interface is incredibly simple. One place that Pentax completely blew the UI was the FX button. It is a single button press to change to some particular mode, but pressing the button again doesn't bring you back to where you were. To get back to what you were doing, you have to navigate complicted menues. Even if you accidentally pressed the button and didn't really want to change modes. The K20D doesn't have an FX button so I can't complain about it. I suppose when I get a K-5/II/s or a K-3 I'll be able to complain about the FX button just like everyone else. Tho only real deficiency is mirror lockup for tripod work. We can discuss the cameras deficiencies as a photographic tool at length, it has many and can be extremely frustrating, but it's control layout for the still photographer is better than almost any other camera I've had a chance to play with, (I say almost because I only got to handle a Nikon D3 for a very short period of time so that might be better), though I still liked the quick white balance setup on the *ist-D. On 10/27/2013 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:50 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it that way? With the E-M1, the black and white point clipping points can be adjusted so you can calibrate it to reflect accurately what you need for raw capture. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
No problem Mark, scouring the internet so you don't have to. On 10/28/2013 9:37 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: P.J. Alling wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml Excellent article. Thanks for pointing it out since I almost never look at Luminous Landscape any more (that site used to be a daily must read before it became a kind of Robb Report for cameras). A lot of designers need to re-read Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things (I'm assuming most read it – or were supposed to – in school). I still find the control layout of my Sony A850 generally superior to that of my Pentax K5 for a lot of the reasons he discusses (though the Pentax lens release and DOF preview are much superior to Sony's). -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:50:31PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it that way? I believe that Leicas do. There is the ongoing problem that for any particular person, just about any bit of software will consist of 70% cruft of useless features that they never need. The problem is that it's a different 70% for each person. The same problem applies to government spending as well. The author of the LL article held Apple up as a paragon of clean simple design. I will say that in general Apple products work amazingly well, as long as what I want to do is something that the designers thought that somebody should want to do. Anything else? You're best off opening up a terminal window and writing a bash script. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
That's very true of complex computing devices. Even Windows when it was based on MS-DOS (and NT when it's UI wasn't tightly coupled it's DOS), there were things that were at best cumbersome if not impossible to do except from the command prompt. But that's still a side issue. There are only certain core functions that a camera needs to fulfill. In a still camera only one really, take and store still photos. Everything that helps that should be available, every thing that impedes that should be discouraged. Making movies with a still camera is a nice feature, but it if begins to impede the ability to take stills then it's counter productive. If a reviewer thinks that's a problem then they've missed the point of having a dedicated still camera. Hell I've got two printers currently set up, a laser printer for text documents and a wide carriage inkjet for photographs. They can both do each others job, but the laser prints only BW and relatively low resolution graphics, while the inkjet print quality is equal to the laser printer but tremendously more expensive per page. Should anyone be upset if each isn't as good at the others job? On 10/28/2013 5:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:50:31PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it that way? I believe that Leicas do. There is the ongoing problem that for any particular person, just about any bit of software will consist of 70% cruft of useless features that they never need. The problem is that it's a different 70% for each person. The same problem applies to government spending as well. The author of the LL article held Apple up as a paragon of clean simple design. I will say that in general Apple products work amazingly well, as long as what I want to do is something that the designers thought that somebody should want to do. Anything else? You're best off opening up a terminal window and writing a bash script. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
What is important to you isn't necessarily important to someone else. I am really having trouble figuring out what specific problem there is with video on a still camera. Don't use it. I don't use the video function on my K-5. I also don't use the TAv mode, but I don't complain that it takes up extra space on the dial, I simply ignore it. What, specifically, about video on your dSLR is inhibiting your taking still picture? On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: That's very true of complex computing devices. Even Windows when it was based on MS-DOS (and NT when it's UI wasn't tightly coupled it's DOS), there were things that were at best cumbersome if not impossible to do except from the command prompt. But that's still a side issue. There are only certain core functions that a camera needs to fulfill. In a still camera only one really, take and store still photos. Everything that helps that should be available, every thing that impedes that should be discouraged. Making movies with a still camera is a nice feature, but it if begins to impede the ability to take stills then it's counter productive. If a reviewer thinks that's a problem then they've missed the point of having a dedicated still camera. Hell I've got two printers currently set up, a laser printer for text documents and a wide carriage inkjet for photographs. They can both do each others job, but the laser prints only BW and relatively low resolution graphics, while the inkjet print quality is equal to the laser printer but tremendously more expensive per page. Should anyone be upset if each isn't as good at the others job? On 10/28/2013 5:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:50:31PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it that way? I believe that Leicas do. There is the ongoing problem that for any particular person, just about any bit of software will consist of 70% cruft of useless features that they never need. The problem is that it's a different 70% for each person. The same problem applies to government spending as well. The author of the LL article held Apple up as a paragon of clean simple design. I will say that in general Apple products work amazingly well, as long as what I want to do is something that the designers thought that somebody should want to do. Anything else? You're best off opening up a terminal window and writing a bash script. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
So what you're saying is that you're missing the point of a dedicated stills camera, or you're missing my point. There are a lot of things that are available even on the K20D that I don't ever use. However they also don't get in the way of things that I do use. From everything I know the only thing on the K-5 family of cameras that I really feel I need that's been done away with is the external SR switch. It was replaced, if you take an inventory of available controls with the dedicated Live View button. That is a valid tradeoff for a still camera. There are times that live view can be very useful and getting there on the K20D is kludgey at best. Especially if like me you check DOF in the viewfinder. However Pentax could have mitigated the loss of the dedicated SR switch by putting that functionality into the quick menu. As far as I know they didn't so now if you want to disable SR you have to go menu diving. I don't know how much the control interface changes on the K-3 were made to accommodate video recording, but I'll bet most of them were. I haven't actually handled the camera so I don't know. Once again I don't have anything against a DSLR having the capability of shooting a movie clip. But there are now two external controls dedicated to movie mode the red button which I suppose gives you instant ability to grab a quick movie clip and the movie still switch, which I guess dedicates the camera as a movie camera. There are also three user settings. So how about this, in the interests of complicating things. Give me the ability to program the new dedicated movie features to do something I think is important, say use the movie still switch to override SR so I can turn it on and off with a dedicated switch, and the red button to do something else I think is useful for still photography and save all the movie settings to one of the user settings, or forget about them completely as I am wont to do. On 10/28/2013 6:18 PM, David Parsons wrote: What is important to you isn't necessarily important to someone else. I am really having trouble figuring out what specific problem there is with video on a still camera. Don't use it. I don't use the video function on my K-5. I also don't use the TAv mode, but I don't complain that it takes up extra space on the dial, I simply ignore it. What, specifically, about video on your dSLR is inhibiting your taking still picture? On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: That's very true of complex computing devices. Even Windows when it was based on MS-DOS (and NT when it's UI wasn't tightly coupled it's DOS), there were things that were at best cumbersome if not impossible to do except from the command prompt. But that's still a side issue. There are only certain core functions that a camera needs to fulfill. In a still camera only one really, take and store still photos. Everything that helps that should be available, every thing that impedes that should be discouraged. Making movies with a still camera is a nice feature, but it if begins to impede the ability to take stills then it's counter productive. If a reviewer thinks that's a problem then they've missed the point of having a dedicated still camera. Hell I've got two printers currently set up, a laser printer for text documents and a wide carriage inkjet for photographs. They can both do each others job, but the laser prints only BW and relatively low resolution graphics, while the inkjet print quality is equal to the laser printer but tremendously more expensive per page. Should anyone be upset if each isn't as good at the others job? On 10/28/2013 5:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:50:31PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it that way? I believe that Leicas do. There is the ongoing problem that for any particular person, just about any bit of software will consist of 70% cruft of useless features that they never need. The problem is that it's a different 70% for each person. The same problem applies to government spending as well. The author of the LL article held Apple up as a paragon of clean simple design. I will say that in general Apple products work amazingly well, as long as what I want to do is something that the designers thought that somebody should want to do. Anything else? You're best off opening up a terminal window and writing a bash script. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
When things start becoming multifunction their use as a specialised thing suffers. Consider the Swiss Army knife, for example, or bicycle multitools - pretty good at a range of things, but not the best at any of them, and lacking the usability of the specialist thing. My bike multi tool has a couple of tire levers built in. Good if I have a flat while I'm out and about, but I never use it at home, I use a couple of Park TL5s, which are much better. Additionally, anything on a multifunction tool that you don't use is a waste, and you have a right to be annoyed at having to pay for it, and put up with the inevitable small inconveniences. Unfortunately the camera market, most of it, has a different view and likes long feature lists, so the manufacturers pander to them. B On 28 Oct 2013, at 22:18, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: What is important to you isn't necessarily important to someone else. I am really having trouble figuring out what specific problem there is with video on a still camera. Don't use it. I don't use the video function on my K-5. I also don't use the TAv mode, but I don't complain that it takes up extra space on the dial, I simply ignore it. What, specifically, about video on your dSLR is inhibiting your taking still picture? On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: That's very true of complex computing devices. Even Windows when it was based on MS-DOS (and NT when it's UI wasn't tightly coupled it's DOS), there were things that were at best cumbersome if not impossible to do except from the command prompt. But that's still a side issue. There are only certain core functions that a camera needs to fulfill. In a still camera only one really, take and store still photos. Everything that helps that should be available, every thing that impedes that should be discouraged. Making movies with a still camera is a nice feature, but it if begins to impede the ability to take stills then it's counter productive. If a reviewer thinks that's a problem then they've missed the point of having a dedicated still camera. Hell I've got two printers currently set up, a laser printer for text documents and a wide carriage inkjet for photographs. They can both do each others job, but the laser prints only BW and relatively low resolution graphics, while the inkjet print quality is equal to the laser printer but tremendously more expensive per page. Should anyone be upset if each isn't as good at the others job? On 10/28/2013 5:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:50:31PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:57:43AM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: I also want the camera to report to me what is happening at the raw file level, not the processed jpeg. I want to know just how close I am to clipping my whites and blacks. That would be nice, does /any/ current camera actually implement it that way? I believe that Leicas do. There is the ongoing problem that for any particular person, just about any bit of software will consist of 70% cruft of useless features that they never need. The problem is that it's a different 70% for each person. The same problem applies to government spending as well. The author of the LL article held Apple up as a paragon of clean simple design. I will say that in general Apple products work amazingly well, as long as what I want to do is something that the designers thought that somebody should want to do. Anything else? You're best off opening up a terminal window and writing a bash script. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
You obviously know little about the history of UNIX. Feature creep infected it early, but it doesn't change the original concept, and some versions remained true to that concept for a long time, not BSD unfortunately. It also doesn't change my point, though maybe it proves it. If I wanted to make movies I'd get camera designed for it. It's really nice that my, fill in the blank, DSLR, MILC, PS, whatever, can make pretty decent movies, but that's not why I bought it. Don't obscure the still photo abilities of a in this case this case DSLR to do something it's not designed to do. As I think I mentioned, a lot of reviewers were upset that the K-5 was kind of clunky at getting into video mode, and Ricoh, listened. But is that really a good thing for still photographers? On 10/28/2013 10:14 AM, David Parsons wrote: I really don't think you should be looking to the Unix world for simplicity and design cues. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the simplicity itself that's at issue. It's the original UNIX creed, programs that do one thing well. I want a still camera that does still photography well, that's ergonomically suited to it. Something that takes good quality photographs printable up to a certain size. I don't care if the camera makes movies, really good movies require seeing in ways that I just don't see. Really good movies, unless they're good due to compelling subject matter, require planning that even Ansel Adams didn't need to do. As a still photographer, using what used to be called a minicam, I want a Camera that doesn't get in my way, but has all the necessary controls readily available to take still pictures. That should be control over the three parts parts of exposure, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed. Control over the meter with selectable spot averaging and the program. The ability to turn the anti shake system on or off quickly, as conditions warrant. In auto focus modes the ability to choose focus points quickly. I shoot raw so it's not quite so important that I change color balance quickly though it does help get good exposures. So that shouldn't be buried to deeply in a menu either. For tripod work getting into a true mirror lockup would be nice too. On the K20D Pentax got almost all of those things right. All the shooting controls are right there.Shutter and Aperture are controlled by two wheels, ISO press the OK button and turn the front wheel. Metering pattern is right there under the mode dial. SR a switch on the back of the camera. White balance on the quick menu. Change a focus point, in shooting mode right there on the four way controller. The only thing you need to take your cameras from your eye for is white balance. Tho only real deficiency is mirror lockup for tripod work. We can discuss the cameras deficiencies as a photographic tool at length, it has many and can be extremely frustrating, but it's control layout for the still photographer is better than almost any other camera I've had a chance to play with, (I say almost because I only got to handle a Nikon D3 for a very short period of time so that might be better), though I still liked the quick white balance setup on the *ist-D. On 10/27/2013 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:15:27PM -0400, P.J. Alling wrote: You obviously know little about the history of UNIX. Feature creep infected it early, but it doesn't change the original concept, and some versions remained true to that concept for a long time, not BSD unfortunately. It also doesn't change my point, though maybe it proves it. If I wanted to make movies I'd get camera designed for it. It's really nice that my, fill in the blank, DSLR, MILC, PS, whatever, can make pretty decent movies, but that's not why I bought it. Don't obscure the still photo abilities of a in this case this case DSLR to do something it's not designed to do. As I think I mentioned, a lot of reviewers were upset that the K-5 was kind of clunky at getting into video mode, and Ricoh, listened. But is that really a good thing for still photographers? What is at issue here is not whether something is good for still photographers, and particularly whether it is good for still photographers that shoot in raw formats, and prefer to have control over what is happening. The only thing that really matters when these decisions are being made, is whether it is a good thing for Ricoh's bottom line. The vast majority of people buying cameras want something that is as easy to use as their camera phone, and as long as it delivers pictures that are better than their phone they are happy. Over the past week, I was gobsmacked by the number of people holding DSLRs out at arms length, taking pictures as if they were a PS or camera phone. These are the people that buy enough cameras to support the business so that a new K-3 is under $2,000 rather than over $8,000. By the way, even if you don't have any interest in shooting video, put a decent lens on your K-5, or even K-x, and play with the video feature for a few minutes. We have been conditioned over the years that the only time we see shallow depth of field on video, is in big professional productions. When I see my crappy, playing around, video with the FA77 something in the back of my brain is tricked into thinking that it was taken with a pro movie camera. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
Please don't lecture me about Unix or it's history. You tout Unix as an example of a utopian set of programs that are simple and good design, then go on to say that they suffer from the exact same thing you don't like about cameras. I'm curious why you put so much stock into what reviewers are saying, Does the product work for you? Are the video options actively hindering you taking pictures? If not, what's the big deal? On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously know little about the history of UNIX. Feature creep infected it early, but it doesn't change the original concept, and some versions remained true to that concept for a long time, not BSD unfortunately. It also doesn't change my point, though maybe it proves it. If I wanted to make movies I'd get camera designed for it. It's really nice that my, fill in the blank, DSLR, MILC, PS, whatever, can make pretty decent movies, but that's not why I bought it. Don't obscure the still photo abilities of a in this case this case DSLR to do something it's not designed to do. As I think I mentioned, a lot of reviewers were upset that the K-5 was kind of clunky at getting into video mode, and Ricoh, listened. But is that really a good thing for still photographers? On 10/28/2013 10:14 AM, David Parsons wrote: I really don't think you should be looking to the Unix world for simplicity and design cues. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the simplicity itself that's at issue. It's the original UNIX creed, programs that do one thing well. I want a still camera that does still photography well, that's ergonomically suited to it. Something that takes good quality photographs printable up to a certain size. I don't care if the camera makes movies, really good movies require seeing in ways that I just don't see. Really good movies, unless they're good due to compelling subject matter, require planning that even Ansel Adams didn't need to do. As a still photographer, using what used to be called a minicam, I want a Camera that doesn't get in my way, but has all the necessary controls readily available to take still pictures. That should be control over the three parts parts of exposure, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed. Control over the meter with selectable spot averaging and the program. The ability to turn the anti shake system on or off quickly, as conditions warrant. In auto focus modes the ability to choose focus points quickly. I shoot raw so it's not quite so important that I change color balance quickly though it does help get good exposures. So that shouldn't be buried to deeply in a menu either. For tripod work getting into a true mirror lockup would be nice too. On the K20D Pentax got almost all of those things right. All the shooting controls are right there.Shutter and Aperture are controlled by two wheels, ISO press the OK button and turn the front wheel. Metering pattern is right there under the mode dial. SR a switch on the back of the camera. White balance on the quick menu. Change a focus point, in shooting mode right there on the four way controller. The only thing you need to take your cameras from your eye for is white balance. Tho only real deficiency is mirror lockup for tripod work. We can discuss the cameras deficiencies as a photographic tool at length, it has many and can be extremely frustrating, but it's control layout for the still photographer is better than almost any other camera I've had a chance to play with, (I say almost because I only got to handle a Nikon D3 for a very short period of time so that might be better), though I still liked the quick white balance setup on the *ist-D. On 10/27/2013 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
I brought up the Unix credo as something to be emulated not Unix itself, which I thought I made perfectly clear. I'll cop to making a comment on your ahistorical attitude maybe. But lecturing you on UNIX? I wouldn't presume, I haven't worked on software to run under UNIX in 10 years. You attempted to deflect, and then decided to put words in my mouth. I thought this was a discussion of the UI on a camera? Is it that necessary that you win? Ok, you win. On 10/28/2013 8:54 PM, David Parsons wrote: Please don't lecture me about Unix or it's history. You tout Unix as an example of a utopian set of programs that are simple and good design, then go on to say that they suffer from the exact same thing you don't like about cameras. I'm curious why you put so much stock into what reviewers are saying, Does the product work for you? Are the video options actively hindering you taking pictures? If not, what's the big deal? On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: You obviously know little about the history of UNIX. Feature creep infected it early, but it doesn't change the original concept, and some versions remained true to that concept for a long time, not BSD unfortunately. It also doesn't change my point, though maybe it proves it. If I wanted to make movies I'd get camera designed for it. It's really nice that my, fill in the blank, DSLR, MILC, PS, whatever, can make pretty decent movies, but that's not why I bought it. Don't obscure the still photo abilities of a in this case this case DSLR to do something it's not designed to do. As I think I mentioned, a lot of reviewers were upset that the K-5 was kind of clunky at getting into video mode, and Ricoh, listened. But is that really a good thing for still photographers? On 10/28/2013 10:14 AM, David Parsons wrote: I really don't think you should be looking to the Unix world for simplicity and design cues. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:57 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: It's not the simplicity itself that's at issue. It's the original UNIX creed, programs that do one thing well. I want a still camera that does still photography well, that's ergonomically suited to it. Something that takes good quality photographs printable up to a certain size. I don't care if the camera makes movies, really good movies require seeing in ways that I just don't see. Really good movies, unless they're good due to compelling subject matter, require planning that even Ansel Adams didn't need to do. As a still photographer, using what used to be called a minicam, I want a Camera that doesn't get in my way, but has all the necessary controls readily available to take still pictures. That should be control over the three parts parts of exposure, ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed. Control over the meter with selectable spot averaging and the program. The ability to turn the anti shake system on or off quickly, as conditions warrant. In auto focus modes the ability to choose focus points quickly. I shoot raw so it's not quite so important that I change color balance quickly though it does help get good exposures. So that shouldn't be buried to deeply in a menu either. For tripod work getting into a true mirror lockup would be nice too. On the K20D Pentax got almost all of those things right. All the shooting controls are right there.Shutter and Aperture are controlled by two wheels, ISO press the OK button and turn the front wheel. Metering pattern is right there under the mode dial. SR a switch on the back of the camera. White balance on the quick menu. Change a focus point, in shooting mode right there on the four way controller. The only thing you need to take your cameras from your eye for is white balance. Tho only real deficiency is mirror lockup for tripod work. We can discuss the cameras deficiencies as a photographic tool at length, it has many and can be extremely frustrating, but it's control layout for the still photographer is better than almost any other camera I've had a chance to play with, (I say almost because I only got to handle a Nikon D3 for a very short period of time so that might be better), though I still liked the quick white balance setup on the *ist-D. On 10/27/2013 9:25 PM, David Parsons wrote: He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
P.J - you say: From everything I know the only thing on the K-5 family of cameras that I really feel I need that's been done away with is the external SR switch. It was replaced, if you take an inventory of available controls with the dedicated Live View button. There is an interesting feature on the K-5 that I recently discovered. Assume SR is turned on. Put the camera on a tripod and set the shutter release for Remote activation. Et voile, the SR is automagically turned off (and cannot be turned back on as long as you stay with a remote-release.) So, under the circumstance when you would be most likely to want the SR to be off, it is off, and without any menu diving. One person's feature is another's bug, of course, and this could be frustrating if for some reason you did need SR while using remote release (maybe an assistant rather than a tripod is holding the camera?) But still, I thought it was a clever bit of compensation for the loss of the SR switch. stan That is a valid tradeoff for a still camera. There are times that live view can be very useful and getting there on the K20D is kludgey at best. Especially if like me you check DOF in the viewfinder. However Pentax could have mitigated the loss of the dedicated SR switch by putting that functionality into the quick menu. As far as I know they didn't so now if you want to disable SR you have to go menu diving. On Oct 28, 2013, at 6:53 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: So what you're saying is that you're missing the point of a dedicated stills camera, or you're missing my point. There are a lot of things that are available even on the K20D that I don't ever use. However they also don't get in the way of things that I do use. From everything I know the only thing on the K-5 family of cameras that I really feel I need that's been done away with is the external SR switch. It was replaced, if you take an inventory of available controls with the dedicated Live View button. That is a valid tradeoff for a still camera. There are times that live view can be very useful and getting there on the K20D is kludgey at best. Especially if like me you check DOF in the viewfinder. However Pentax could have mitigated the loss of the dedicated SR switch by putting that functionality into the quick menu. As far as I know they didn't so now if you want to disable SR you have to go menu diving. I don't know how much the control interface changes on the K-3 were made to accommodate video recording, but I'll bet most of them were. I haven't actually handled the camera so I don't know. Once again I don't have anything against a DSLR having the capability of shooting a movie clip. But there are now two external controls dedicated to movie mode the red button which I suppose gives you instant ability to grab a quick movie clip and the movie still switch, which I guess dedicates the camera as a movie camera. There are also three user settings. So how about this, in the interests of complicating things. Give me the ability to program the new dedicated movie features to do something I think is important, say use the movie still switch to override SR so I can turn it on and off with a dedicated switch, and the red button to do something else I think is useful for still photography and save all the movie settings to one of the user settings, or forget about them completely as I am wont to do. On 10/28/2013 6:18 PM, David Parsons wrote: What is important to you isn't necessarily important to someone else. I am really having trouble figuring out what specific problem there is with video on a still camera. Don't use it. I don't use the video function on my K-5. I also don't use the TAv mode, but I don't complain that it takes up extra space on the dial, I simply ignore it. What, specifically, about video on your dSLR is inhibiting your taking still picture? On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:07 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: That's very true of complex computing devices. Even Windows when it was based on MS-DOS (and NT when it's UI wasn't tightly coupled it's DOS), there were things that were at best cumbersome if not impossible to do except from the command prompt. But that's still a side issue. There are only certain core functions that a camera needs to fulfill. In a still camera only one really, take and store still photos. Everything that helps that should be available, every thing that impedes that should be discouraged. Making movies with a still camera is a nice feature, but it if begins to impede the ability to take stills then it's counter productive. If a reviewer thinks that's a problem then they've missed the point of having a dedicated still camera. Hell I've got two printers currently set up, a laser printer for text documents and a wide carriage inkjet for photographs. They can both do each others job, but the
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape conflated with Re: K-3 manual now available (PDF)
You and Paul both make good points about the value of video within a DSLR. So, I will stipulate that video does have value to some. Do I care if it is included on my own camera? Not really, it doesn't bother me as long as its presence doesn't impede my use of the camera for still images (e.g., by making stills-related buttons smaller and harder to get to in order to have more room for video-related buttons.) I might mutter about sharing in the amortization of video functions which I don't need, but I can also imagine that the engineering to facilitate video has given me better Liveview, larger buffers with faster card-write speeds, etc. So, end of the day, I don't really care, but I remain baffled that all of the manufacturers obviously see value in including video capacity. I was, and still am, baffled by the popularity of crossover vehicles. My limitation of course; 80-90 years ago I might have been baffled by the proliferation of color films. Just change for the sake of change; mutter, mutter. . . In my ideal world, I would like to see video as an add-on option. If you want/need that function, pay $200-300 extra for the YT version of the body. But that ain't gonna happen since everybody is accustomed to seeing video as part of every camera's feature set. stan On Oct 28, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: There are good situations for when the larger sensor in a DSLR or TTL-electronic camera, as well as the availability of the range of lenses they can use, makes sense for video work. At least at the price point I can afford in video cameras … Even professional movie makers choose DSLRs and TTL-electronic cameras for some purposes to save on equipment costs. There are other times when a DSLR or small TTL-electronic enable shots that could not be done with a pro video camera due to size, weight, etc. My sum-up of the LuLa article: Just another old git who wants the good old days to come back. ;-) I have plenty of simple cameras that address the basics, from the stone axe of my plain prism Nikon F up to and including my Leica M9. And I have a couple of very complex cameras. One of the most complex is my latest - the Olympus E-M1. It also has the best controls of any camera I've owned, and I can configure them to work *exactly* the way I want the camera to work, from fully manual with instant access to ISO, exposure time, aperture, and focus, to fully automated. I have no complaints about what manufacturers make. I applaud the diversity of design and ideas their products represent. I choose what I want to work with from that, and make what I choose do what I want it to. If it's too much trouble, I sell whatever it was and buy something else that does it more easily. To me, that's the only sane way to do things. Manufacturers don't make a product for 100 people, or even 1000. They never have, not for anything that costs under $10K anyway. You pick from what they make to suit your needs best, and adapt. A fresh pack of Impossible Color Protection film is in the SX-70 now. :-) G On Oct 28, 2013, at 7:30 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: … I am still baffled by the whole video thing and haven't been able to think of a single instance where I would want my DSLR to record video, much less sound. I have owned and used video cameras in the past, and if I wanted to shoot video again the last device I would consider for that purpose would be a DSLR. First choice would be a video camera. ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
Quoting Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info: There is an interesting feature on the K-5 that I recently discovered. Assume SR is turned on. Put the camera on a tripod and set the shutter release for Remote activation. Et voile, the SR is automagically turned off (and cannot be turned back on as long as you stay with a remote-release.) So, under the circumstance when you would be most likely to want the SR to be off, it is off, and without any menu diving. Actually that's not a new feature. My K200D does the same thing and I'm pretty sure my *ist DS does too. It also turns off SR for the self timer mode without setting remote activation. -- Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
It turns off when the camera is on the tripod and you lock up the mirror... remote or no I found that out accidentally when I thought I had forgotten to switch it off. ann On 10/28/2013 23:14, Brian Walters wrote: Quoting Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info: There is an interesting feature on the K-5 that I recently discovered. Assume SR is turned on. Put the camera on a tripod and set the shutter release for Remote activation. Et voile, the SR is automagically turned off (and cannot be turned back on as long as you stay with a remote-release.) So, under the circumstance when you would be most likely to want the SR to be off, it is off, and without any menu diving. Actually that's not a new feature. My K200D does the same thing and I'm pretty sure my *ist DS does too. It also turns off SR for the self timer mode without setting remote activation. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
And I would have probably found out a lot sooner if I had used a tripod more often . . . stan On Oct 28, 2013, at 11:14 PM, Brian Walters wrote: Quoting Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info: There is an interesting feature on the K-5 that I recently discovered. Assume SR is turned on. Put the camera on a tripod and set the shutter release for Remote activation. Et voile, the SR is automagically turned off (and cannot be turned back on as long as you stay with a remote-release.) So, under the circumstance when you would be most likely to want the SR to be off, it is off, and without any menu diving. Actually that's not a new feature. My K200D does the same thing and I'm pretty sure my *ist DS does too. It also turns off SR for the self timer mode without setting remote activation. -- Cheers Brian -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
He should just use a film camera if he's that worried about simplicity and video creep. I can say that I've never accidentally turned on video on any camera I own. On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: An appeal for Divergence and Simplicity from the Luminous Landscape
In that vein, movies, whilst watching the F-1 race in India this morning, I noticed that each of the team's row of engineers peering at LCD screens of the thousands of sensors on their drivers cars had a slot between the screens and the laptops on the bench through which a DSLR was sliding back and forth on dual rails, rotating to get different angles (don't think it changed vertical angle) as the race progressed. Very erie, with no one in sight at the controls. TV? Team records? Don't know, but it was not a movie or TV cameras. Not even a GoPro (God that guy must be so rich by now) Joe! On Oct 27, 2013, at 17:39 , P.J. Alling wrote: Ruminating on the K-3 and the various reviews of the K-5 family of cameras where the reviewer took off points for clunky ways to get into video mode, (this was especially true of DPReview IIRC), I found myself wanting to scream in the guy's face. What is it about it being primarily a Still camera that you don't get? This little article from Luminous Landscape makes covers most of my arguments, without the Pending assault charges, though I think his plea for simplicity of control might go a bit too far in the other direction, and having a third dial dedicated entirely to ISO... Pushing a button and turning one of the e-dials isn't all that onerous as long as the button is in a convenient location. NO Pentax content in the essay but hell half of us don't use Pentax as our primary camera system anymore anyway. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
