Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 7, 2003, 10:15 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 292
Default feel the force Luke

does it seem that too many people buy digicams based on features and price without mush thought on feel of the actual camera? or is it just me?
To most amateur and pro photographers alike, taking the photo is as important as having the photo. But i seldom hear anyone ask if a camera feels right, or balances well! The only questions usually are rez, zoom and firmware.
Do you think some of this aspect has been lost to the byers? is it because digicams are still snobbed by film shooters, or has the internet purchasing attributed to this all? Maybe all of the above?
geof is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 7, 2003, 1:14 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,050
Default

Good point, I never considered handling. To be honest it woudn't have swayed me either way. I'd manage somehow.
steve6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2003, 3:32 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Many people are pc buyers and IT aware, but are not photographers. There is a tendency to consider how many pixels a cam has, how much memory, what media cards etc, etc.

Of course, there's not a lot of point to this if you're still reading the manual and miss the shot, or don't know how to handle the 'photography' to get that special pic. in difficult circumstances! So cam ergonomics is usually low on the features list to begin with.

This is also a technologically driven market in a relatively infant stage, where MegaPixels and speed etc do give differences. Conversely, film stock and processing matured so most cams with reasonable optics would turn out a decent 6x4 print. Therefore digicam buyers are looking at these things, because they're getting better each year.

However, when a standard affordable 'generic' digicam becomes 6-10 Mpix with consistent colorimetry, speed rating, and auto point and shoot features, I think we will see a shift in general consumer cam differentiation towards shape, size, colour and useability features. Of course there will always be the specialist 'Pro' cams.

Until then, we have many new techno aware consumers trying photography for the first time (sometimes making mistakes!) and enjoying the learning process, which will eventually sow seeds for a greater interest in the creative side of photography.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2003, 3:57 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6
Default

It is funny that you would pose this question. I was just talking to someone about this very thing. I just bought a Canon G-2. The other guy I was talking to mentioned how heavy it was. i told him after many years of shooting with my Canon A-1 weight was not too big a problem and the other dig cams felt sort of odd. I did mention that the lighter cams may (or may not) fit in to a pocket better and be more portable but I just "felt" better with the weight of the G-2. There were other cams (S-40 for instance ) that I liked but the G-2 is what I bought.
So it comes down to personal preference I guess. Some like the lightweight and others like more substance. Wasn't one difference between the G-1 and the G-2 the addition of a better grip?

I think you are right though. This is still a new development (groan) in photography and we'll see what really happens. I think most people buy the camera they can afford that does what they want. Extras are just that...extras and if you can sell them you do. Just because a "feature" is there or not ; does it mean you will use it? Who knows unless it is there?

I can compensate for a poor white balance "feature" but if I have the option I'll probably use it and the photo will be have a better start than if I manipulate it later... or will it?!!
Stampmasker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2003, 4:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

One of the reasons I bought my Oly C3000, then the C4040 is the way that it looks and feels. I looked and test the C5050 and it also had a great feel. I like a digital camera that has the feel and look of a 35mm camera. The small increase of size in the C5050 was a good improvement over the C4040.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2003, 4:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Stampmasker...white balance has always been an issue with electronic cameras. Provide more white headroom, then sensitivity and low light noise becomes a problem of limited dynamic range (compared to film)

I wish digicam makers would include white 'zebra' or peak white clip warning in their viewfinders, like pro TV cams.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2003, 4:14 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 292
Default

I guess the biggest difference between film cams and digicams is that film cams all have the standard that they work with the exact same medium: film is film and it does not differ from camera to camera. So if a canon is better than a nikon or vice versa its not in its ability to use a better medium, but use that same one better!

Still though, pc digicam byers not withstanding, i believ photographers would appreciate the tool for its feel as well.
Thats why i still like using the leica m6, some times more so than my beautiful T90.
geof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2003, 5:03 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

Well, I looked at the camera features/issues before the technological issues, things like the focal length, available ISO, ability for external flash, manual focus, EVF, etc.

I never looked at things like what type of memory card it took, or if I needed a card reader or USB cable.

The only technical issue I did look at was the number of MP, just to see if it was enough for my needs.

But there are things you learn over time after having used it for a while that you didn't think of when in the store. For instance, I'm left handed, and digital cameras being designed by people who are forced to be right handed have no consideration towards south-paws...i.e. there's no left side to the camera body to hang on to, the viewfinder is place so that only the right-eyed can use it comfortably, etc. As well, having an EVF is a negative without the ability to attach an eyecup to the camera.

It's like people who design digital cameras have never held a real camera in their life...they base their design on what ever other idiot is making. Most of the digital camera makers also have an optical camera division, which makes it odd why the digital divisions don't learn from the optical division how to make a proper camera.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2003, 6:43 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 506
Default

YOur comments for the most part are only true on a majority of the consumer based cameras but try out a canon EoS or any of the other digital SLR $4000+ cameras and your views will change.
Gregersonsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2003, 9:15 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 292
Default

Quote:
YOur comments for the most part are only true on a majority of the consumer based cameras but try out a canon EoS or any of the other digital SLR $4000+ cameras and your views will change.
:twisted: Gregersonsalvage you just proved my point: the satisfactory cameras out there were film ones, transformed to digital :twisted:

Mike Peat, you're right: the digital depts should pay more attention to the wealth of operating knowledge accumulatedby their photo counterparts.
geof is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:43 PM.