The Proper Camera

A group of proper cameras

Proper: (adjective)  Adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; Fit; Suitable.

Introduction The march of technology has had a dramatic impact on our understanding of the concept of a camera. The rise and rise of the smartphone threatens the very survival of the camera as an independent entity. Sales of compact cameras have collapsed over the last few years. Mirrorless cameras of various kinds had an initial burst of sales but appear to have lost momentum in the marketplace. Yet we are informed DSLR sales especially at the upper price/quality end of the spectrum are doing quite well. What is going on ?

Historical notes  Until quite recently, any person who wished to make a photograph would need to use a camera. This is a device with a specific, defined purpose, namely to make photographs and having no other function. Nowadays it appears the great majority of photographs are made with smart phones. These are multifunction devices which are primarily aimed at communication.

Smart Phone-vs-Camera  It seems to me that the principal difference between these two types of device is the issue of engagement. 

A camera requires the user to engage with the device by hand, eye and brain in the considered process of making a photo. Making photos with a camera is not an afterthought to the events of a day's outing, it is one of the events.  The process is deliberative. By way of contrast, the process of making a photo with a smart phone is usually opportunistic. One does not usually set forth bearing a smartphone with the explicit intent of making photos.

A pair of mirrorless proper cameras

The Proper Camera  What are the characteristics of a camera with which the thoughtful user will be able to engage in the deliberative process of making photos ?

Having had the opportunity to use almost every kind of camera ever invented over the last 60 years I propose the following as desirable attributes of the Proper Camera.

* Responsiveness: Performance.  The device powers up promptly. The shutter fires immediately the release button is pressed. The camera is ready for the next exposure immediately after each shot. Autofocus is swift and accurate in all lighting conditions. User inputs via buttons, dials etc produce an immediate and specific response. I recently read  a review of an otherwise well specified compact camera which was reported as having a 4 second shot to shot time with RAW capture. This is ridiculous. I could manage better shot to shot times in 1969 with an all manual, auto nothing Pentax Spotmatic using manual film advance.

* Responsiveness: Engagement. The camera rewards the user's training and experience with improved operation and better results. You need to read the instruction manual and practice using the device to get the best from it. Skill is required and when acquired leads to a sense of mastery by the user who takes control of the process of making photos.   Many camera makers appear not to fully grasp the psychological importance of this issue, as evidenced by their continuing promotion of cameras which are fully automated, allegedly requiring very little skill from the user.

* Built in viewfinder.  The Australian publication "Camera, film and digital for photographers" recently featured an editorial by Paul Burrows in which he wrote "....It leaves me quite incredulous that any camera designer can seriously come up with something that's aimed at experienced shooters which doesn't have a built in finder and doesn't have any means of fitting an external one. What are they thinking ?"

I agree with Mr Burrows and would add that I think any device which wants to be taken seriously as a camera and seeks to offer the user a reason for stepping up from a smartphone, must absolutely have a built in viewfinder. I know full well that some members of user forums say they don't care about the viewfinder but sooner or later they will encounter a situation where it does matter ( bright sun, long lens, low light, need to concentrate on the subject) and then they will wish they had that viewfinder.

* Handle. Many cameras produced these days have no handle making them more difficult to hold securely than needs be. Style should follow function, not the reverse.

* Built in flash unit. Although low powered these can be very handy for filling in shadows particularly with backlit subjects.

* Ability to mount an accessory flash unit. This facility may not be used by many photographers but is mighty handy when required.

* Zoom lens (in a fixed lens camera) or availability of zoom lens(es) for an interchangeable lens camera. I spent most of my life in photography using single focal length lenses because for many years nothing else was available. But now zoom lenses of excellent quality are readily available at attractive prices I see no excuse for a camera which does not offer the versatility of a zoom lens.

* Image Quality. This needs to be substantially better than anything available in even the most advanced smartphone.

Proper cameras don't need the hump top style. This one with flat top style meets most of my criteria for a proper camera. There is a built in EVF behind the alpha symbol. The main complaint I have read about the NEX cameras is of a needlessly convoluted menu system.

Unimportant things

Many modern devices marketed as cameras come festooned with a multitude of features which have little if anything to do with the process of making photographs. So numerous are these that one sometimes wonders if there is a real camera buried under the gimmicks. They include such things as scene modes, art filters, geotagging, Wi-Fi, i-Function, motion snapshot mode, best moment capture mode, etcetera.....etcetera.... there appears to be no end to them. 

In this list of unimportant things I would also include touch screen controls about which I have written elsewhere on this blog and which I regard as useless on a hand held camera especially while eye level viewing.

This one might qualify as a proper camera if the maker  had provided it with a decent handle. Many users deal with the problem by fitting an aftermarket handle but why should they have to ?

Half baked cameras  In recent times these have been proliferating like weeds on a tennis court, desecrating the field of play and in my view likely to diminish buyer confidence in the entire camera industry. These are cameras which are missing one or several of the features of a proper camera listed above. I hesitate to mention any specific models as there are so many. In my half baked category I include all models lacking a built in viewfinder, integral handle, built in flash and availability of a zoom lens. I include all models which are sluggish in operation or so difficult to configure the task is hardly worth while. My top, or should be that be bottom,  award for most half baked camera would have to go to the Sony RX1. This camera is not necessarily worse than many others but it is equally and egregiously lacking in essential features yet costs more than most fully featured DSLR or MILC  cameras with a good quality lens.  Fitting  a full frame sensor and good quality lens into such a small package may be a technological achievement of which the Sony engineers are proud, but it would absolutely irritate the heck out of me if I had to use the thing regularly. It does not meet my criteria for a proper camera.

Back to the question   In the introduction to this little opinion piece I asked the question, "What is going on?"  In essence, why is the DSLR  the only camera type still selling well and holding or increasing market share when some people, including me, predicted that the Mirrorless ILC would now be ascendant ?

The answer, it seems to me, is simple. The DSLR is the only camera type almost all the examples of which meet my criteria for a proper camera  (Some pro level DSLR's lack a built in flash unit). The buyer of a DSLR knows they are getting an eye level viewfinder, handle, (mostly) responsive performance, decent image quality and availability of zoom lenses. The DSLR is a proper camera just as the film SLR was a proper camera for years before digital capture was invented.

Implications for the rest  I think that the camera industry as a whole is facing challenges as never before in history. I suspect the fallout will be

* A further reduction in total numbers of cameras sold each year.

* Continuing disenchantment by consumers for half baked cameras.

* Failure and/or amalgamation of several existing camera manufacturers.

* Failure of the entire Mirrorless ILC enterprise unless the makers of these cameras stop producing half baked models and step up to challenge DSLR's with fully featured proper cameras.  There is some sign this is beginning to happen but much more needs to be done.

* Now here's a thought from the left wing. If sensor manufacturers continue to improve the performance of small chips we may soon see a 1/1.7" (diagonal 9.36mm) sensor with a DXO Mark score above 70. At that point it will be possible for manufacturers to make a camera having very good to excellent image quality, with fixed, non removable superzoom lens covering a diagonal angle of view of, say, 85 (wide) to 6 (telephoto)  degrees. Given good performance and EVF quality such a camera would render interchangeable lens systems redundant for the majority of camera users. Imagine that.