Whereas with the D3100 I frame the image I want, turn a plastic wheel to set the aperture I want, press and hold another button whilst turning a plastic and then trying to read the tiny numbers in the viewfinder for the settings, then press the shutter button slightly for it to focus where it thinks I want it to focus, if not I then move the AF point to where I want it to focus, it then focuses again, I then fully press the rest of the shutter button and all I get is a noise when the mirror flaps around, then everything lights up like a Christmas tree celebrating that its taken a photo - quick quick you must see it lol
I guess I have shot with so many cameras over the ages, that a different set of controls is just something to learn. With the D700, I have no problem swapping fully-manual AI-S, D—with aperture ring, and G—lenses without. It has the shutter speed on the thumb-wheel and the aperture in front for the index finger. Since like most shooters, I go with aperture priority, I rarely need to use the shutter speed wheel. I use manual for long exposures like fireworks or lightning, and that presents no problem either.
I know you can disable the rear screen and turn off the AF but the lens for the D3100 doesn't have any way to change the aperture it all has to be done with the inbuilt motor so I can't shoot it properly manual with the kit lens and even with a manual focus lens I still have to scroll the plastic wheel to change the shutter speed.
With G-lenses, apertures are all controlled from the body of the camera. On the X100 and X-Pro1, they are controlled via traditional aperture-ring controls. I have no preference for either. With the traditional controls of the Fuji cameras, there is the advantage of being able to assess the camera settings in a glance. Aperture, shutter speed and exposure compensation all can be seen on the top of the camera without turning it on. On the other hand, the D700 has a screen on top of the camera that shows the complete state of the camera upon turning it on. Both methods work fine. If I remember correctly, the D3100 is too small for such a window. Of course, it is aimed at entry-level buyers with an emphasis on automatic functions.
The option of liveview is ok I guess, it does detract from the actual shooting though, perhaps good for landscapes as it can be used like the large format ground glass screen. I don't know why DSLRs have to be so much more bulky than SLRs, just change the film back for a digital sensor and put the electronics to process the image and card holds where the 35mm canister and the take up spool used to be.
LiveView is very awkward on the Nikon, but highly integral with the Fuji cameras. I find myself instinctively swapping among the LCD, and OVF/EVF of the hybrid viewfinders. For people photography, the LCD's wide viewing angle lets me drop the camera below the line of sight so I can maintain eye contact with my subject. An occasional glance will assure me the subject is still in the frame. Without the camera growing out of my face, people relax and I can chronicle life as it is lived, not life as it is posed.
I won't be purchasing many lenses and I won't be upgrading the DSLR bodies either, im not worried that the Canon 5D mark 24 has come out. I feel that some of the more modern DSLRs are like some of the newer cars vs the older models, they have basically added loads more features onto it which makes them slower and more complicated and less of a joy than the original model. I prefer simple cameras, almost as if you have just framed a shot with your hands, not too worried if its for 39 AF points with 12 cross types lol it kinda gets in the way of simple shooting.
Having shot with digital cameras for more than a dozen years, and been very much involved with the evolution of digital cameras, I perceive the direct opposite. My first camera was almost totally menu driven. My current cameras are far more efficiently organized. The D700 was a major breakthrough, opening up the night. With it, I could photograph under circumstances there were unimaginable a day before. It profoundly impacted my way of photographing, and in turn my photographs. The price of its versatility is its complexity. The manual is over 440 pages long. I had no expectation of simple shooting, however, once learned, it is a very easy camera to use in the field.
I might add, that I plan to keep these cameras indefinitely. Each completely fulfills its role in my kit, and needs no further improvement. It is not that I reject further technology, but these three cameras are near perfect in their assigned jobs. Within the next year, I will add a super-wide lens to the X-Pro kit, but nothing else is lacking. The widest Fujinon lens I have is equivalent to 28mm, while I have always made use of much wider lenses. A lot of my best work has been done with focal lengths between 14mm and 18mm. The Fuji cameras both have a panorama function, with in-camera stitching which I use a lot.
Since the D700 was shipped, great sums of research and development funds were channeled into sensor technology by the whole industry. My compact X100 has a custom sensor matched to the lens for superior performance, and the X-Pro1 has a sensor with entirely new technology—that left software behind for the time being. Two light, discreet cameras capable of matching or exceeding the quality of the D700 at any given ISO setting.
Their DNA goes back to the classic compact rangefinders with the X100, and the Contax G2 with the X-Pro1. They have little in common with a dSLR, and those who try to force them to shoot as a dSLR find they fight back all the way. These are the first of their kind, and I have had to wait through the whole history of digital cameras for them to arrive. They directly replace film cameras I owned and are used in precisely the same way. However, the photographs they empower me to take go way beyond the capability of their predecessors.
R&D is not being spent upon "planned obsolescence" where some trim is moved about and a "New and Improved" sticker is slapped on. These are actual improvements that empower photographers to capture that which was impossible with earlier cameras. Being digital devices, they too adhere to Gordon Moore's "Law" to a great extent. Just as computers continue to become more powerful without increasing in cost, so do cameras. I can photograph what was impossible, and make it look easy.
im still saving up for a photo scanner though lol
Certainly one of the best purchases I ever made. All my legacy film is now accessible for any purpose. However, I use it constantly for many other things. If I need to quote a passage of text, OCR does my typing as well as I could, but in a fraction of the time—spell checking and proofreading is still needed. It has also become my copy machine. It has let me restore portfolio shots that had seriously begun to fade. Applications for it are endless. It gets almost daily use even after more than a half-dozen years.
im still saving up for a photo scanner though lol
