The costs of unneeded features

[aeturnum]

I can sympathize with being overwhelmed by the interfaces on modern digital cameras. Digital sensors introduce a whole host of new settings that need to be managed, in addition to traditional adjustments (ex: white balance, ISO, various processing options, capture quality, etc). There are also new flavors of older camera body features that you can manage (auto-focus modes, metering modes, shooting mode, etc...). Personally, I would love the ability to totally turn off features (remove from UI, re-assign buttons, etc), but I understand I am in the minority. I think that camera newbies suffer even more from feature overload than us veterans and I wouldn't be surprised to see "simple modes" for P/S/A/M modes appearing.

However, I totally disagree that this is a bad thing. Photomoof has it exactly right - those new features you dislike fuel improvements to the features you do like. You can't just "take out" features and get a cheaper camera in the end. That's not how engineering works . So, you make a camera that has many features that only some people want and in the end you reap the rewards of higher sales and lower price per unit.

[giellaleafapmu]

I think the correct answer was the first one: the wider the market the lower the price. Also, being a camera designer what would you leave out? Autofocus? Tethering capability? Waterproofing? Fast frame rate? there are so many needs that the best strategy is to cover as many of them to try to cover the widest market. Specialty cameras are usually very very expensive even when they are two piece of otherwise common technology put together, e.g a middle format lens on a stretched rangefinder body to make a panoramic camera.

GLF

[igi]

They're not just making cameras for you.

Could anybody follow me?

[daveleo]

Originally Posted by igi

They're not just making cameras for you.

Could anybody follow me?

So true . . . someone here should try to make up a list of "un-needed features" that we (and everyone else on the planet) can agree on. Then we can send it to Nikon, etc etc and have the one perfectly optimized camera design and stop all this bickering about cameras and lenses etc etc etc.

I'll start with a few of my un-needed features:
* Mechanical rangefinders on digital cameras
* "FF" sensors
* AF
* AE

(Please note that the above is simply sarcastic. It's not meant to be offensive, cranky or troolish. )

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by jschrader

Autofocus (no lenses)
Life view
Build-in flash (neither other flash, I think)
High frame sequence
Other exposure modes than aperture priority or manual (no lenses)

Maybe I have forgotten something, doesn't matter. My point is this:

What are the costs of these features?

AF = PDAF sensor array and some software + motor. Maybe $100-$200.

Live view = Free as LCD's come with the equivalent of a refresh rate.

Flash = maybe $30 for the whole assembly + software.

Frame rate = On a pro-level DSLR that pretty much accounts to durability of the shutter system, so maybe another $100 above and beyond something less durable.

Other exposure modes = Free to negligible. They are just software and click on a knob that would be there anyway.

There's probably more capital in writing up the tech specs and instruction manual, and warranty than anything else. Maybe another $200.

Just a guesstimate. But you asked. In the world of DSLRs so much of this tech, like AF, is a sunk cost with returns on the original investment regained decades ago.

I would cost more to make and market a camera without these features because it would have to compete for shelf space with a more full-featured system. Putting less in often does not translate into lower retail costs.

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by charjohncarter

You only need to know three basics in exposure photography: f stop, shutter speed, ISO (of course, you have to know how to integrate them). Way before digital: camera companies started to make these integration decisions for you, and in the process have maybe taken our eyes off the three basic variables of photography.

And all of those settings are available on the D700 without diving into a single menu.

Everyone has features that they don't use. The problem is that each of us has a different list of 'unnecessary features'. Perhaps Nikon could sell custom firmware that would turn off features that individuals don't want. So who would pay an additional $500 for that capability?

[bugmenot]

Originally Posted by RObert Budding

And all of those settings are available on the D700 without diving into a single menu.

Everyone has features that they don't use. The problem is that each of us has a different list on 'unnecessary features'. Perhaps Nikon could sell custom firmware that would turn off features that individuals don't want. So who would pay an additional $500 for that capability?

Agreed. They are apparently never going to please us all. Paying more to lose features ... how ... ironic.

What they end up doing is stuffing as much as they think is reasonable inside a camera body to have it sell. The recent exception to that being the Canon 6D, where Canon stripped as many features away as it deemed it could get away with.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by bugmenot

Agreed. They are apparently never going to please us all. Paying more to lose features ... how ... ironic.

Well, they already did exactly that (stripped models) for the NASA and for photo journalists back in hardware days...

[jschrader]

Seems I hit into a hornet's nest. If I insulted some people that was not my intention. I don't want to be cleverer, everybody shall use features of his/her camera that are helpful.

But apparently nobody noticed I put this in Philosophy of Photography, not in a technical category. My point is not if the menue of my camera is complicated; actually I used the D700 for years as I did and obviously, turning it back into a kind of 1980s DSLR worked well.

My point was only if someone agrees that being limited in what I can technically shoot may actually improve the results. Because I may be more focused on the kind of pictures I like.

To be honest I am not yet sure if that is so but I will try to find out.

[daveleo]

Originally Posted by jschrader

Seems I hit into a hornet's nest. If I insulted some people that was not my intention. I don't want to be cleverer, everybody shall use features of his/her camera that are helpful.

But apparently nobody noticed I put this in Philosophy of Photography, not in a technical category. My point is not if the menue of my camera is complicated; actually I used the D700 for years as I did and obviously, turning it back into a kind of 1980s DSLR worked well.

My point was only if someone agrees that being limited in what I can technically shoot may actually improve the results. Because I may be more focused on the kind of pictures I like.

To be honest I am not yet sure if that is so but I will try to find out.

I don't think you insulted anyone.

You started a very good discussion.

[froyd]

reminds me of the Haagen Dazs tagline: "What we leave out is as important as what we put in."

Not the best phrased ad, since it can be read in a negative way, but I think you get the point.

[giellaleafapmu]

Originally Posted by sevo

Well, they already did exactly that (stripped models) for the NASA and for photo journalists back in hardware days...

They still do: D800 - Low Pass Filter = D800e and the need to pay 300 dollars more to have it...

GLF

[Maximilian]

I think Sony's got it totally right now with their new cameras, where people who want extra functions can load them in there with apps and people who don't want the functions, don't have to have them. Personalization is the future!

But I also tend to think that some people just switch cameras too fast now, before they actually learn and become comfortable with a certain camera. I hate looking through manuals too, but if you pay attention, they are all quite fast to learn.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by jschrader

Seems I hit into a hornet's nest. If I insulted some people that was not my intention. I don't want to be cleverer, everybody shall use features of his/her camera that are helpful.

But apparently nobody noticed I put this in Philosophy of Photography, not in a technical category. My point is not if the menue of my camera is complicated; actually I used the D700 for years as I did and obviously, turning it back into a kind of 1980s DSLR worked well.

My point was only if someone agrees that being limited in what I can technically shoot may actually improve the results. Because I may be more focused on the kind of pictures I like.

To be honest I am not yet sure if that is so but I will try to find out.

I think you asked an interesting question, only problem is that some people see any point of view which is different from their own personal opinion as a direct slight against their character. Ignore the angry ones, if you want to get a very simple/limited camera, then go for it.

For some reason, I'm drawn to more basic cameras, like Leica M3, Fotoman 69, even my first digital was a Sigma DP-1. If that's what works for you, then that's all that matters.

[flip]

As far as I can tell, the only 'feature' everyone wanted was higher ISO performance. It's been that way for a century. Perhaps the other stuff was just added over time as purchase incentives while manufacturers worked to satisfy that real need.