Who thinks DSLR / Mirrorles and equipment is complicated

[Overread]

The R6MII is certainly way more complex than the 400D I started with. It's also less easily picked up because these days you don't get a physical manual you can carry with you and instead have to print it off/read it online. When I started that 400D manual lived in my camera bag next to the camera as I learned how to use it.

Now there are more things in modern cameras, some of them are just more of the same kind of thing. So there are way more automatic JPEG editing functions, though annoyingly Canon has never put them under one menu "JEPG editing" or such in the camera and calls them all fancy names so that can be less intuitive as to if you need them or not.

Certainly if it was your first camera you'd have to spend a good chunk of time learning something like an R6MII - the core functions of exposure are the same, but the bells and whistles around it are indeed far more complicated and numerous to learn. Of course there's also a LOT more teaching resources out there - youtube, websites, forums, even reddit and facebook. So there are a lot of learning opportunities.


For me the big complication is honestly areas like the AF systems and this isn't anything new. Even when the 7D came out the more fine-tuned AF systems are more complicated to work out and even with many of the guide videos there's a sense that no one really "gets" what some of the sliders do in real-world terms. They just mess with them until they find something that kind of works. I feel like its one area Canon (and others) could improve on a lot with more detailed information or a different presentation of the setup.



So I'd say there's a wealth of general information that will get most people through the hurdles of handling and setting up a more advanced camera; but as soon as you want to dip a little further it gets harder to find the information.

 

[Brentor]

If you use the basic functionality then most cameras are dead-easy. But there are introduced frustrations on account of some things that are (presumably) designed to make your life easier.

My biggest frustration with switching to my latest camera has been the fully-articulated screen in conjunction with 'tap to focus' feature. When folding the screen away, it's almost impossible not to touch it. When you touch it, it automatically assigns a focus point to the place it was touched. So next time you come to use it, the focus point is invariably in one of the corners.

I've not yet worked out how to turn off just the 'tap to focus' feature without turning off the entire functionality of the screen. But some of that is useful in the quick menu.

One solution is to turn the camera off before shutting the screen, the other option has been to learn where the button is to re-assign the focus point to the centre.

I have a similar problem. I disable touch and drag and also set one of the options in the multi function lock to be the touch screen. I'm not sure you can completely turn off the touchscreen on Canons. It seems to be a common problem. Recentralling the AF point is easy, but I would rather not have to do it.

 

[Earl]

I have Canon, my wife has Nikon often I can't help her with stuff as I have no clue or desire to learn Nikon, this can also apply to PC vs Mac.

As I have been using Canon and PC for decades I know my way around and CBA to learn stuff for gear I don't own/use.

That keeps it as simple as it can be for me LOL, but learning never ends and I have plenty more to do just with my stuff.

I don't think they are over-complicated on the whole, it's the initial knowing what settings do and how to set things to what you are trying to accomplish that can be a bit overwhelming.

Regardless of anything tech-wise, being in the right place at the right time and getting the framing right is much harder to do I feel.

 

[SteveatVTK]

Auto ISO, eye focus, putting exposure compensation on the control ring, and exposure simulation - what's not to like.
Edit: plus custom settings and adding menu favourites to your shortcut menu.

 

[redhed17]

It depends by what things you class as complicated. If it is Aperture, Shutter, ISO and Manual, they are photography specific rather than a type of camera specific, and should be the basics everyone should know imho. Film, DSLR, Mirrorless, the basics of exposure work the same. Some company's name things differently, seemingly just to be different, I'm looking at you Canon, Av! Tv!, really! M, A, S, P and a Auto word or icon for Auto, and then if you have something different make it easy and useful to take up space on the mode dial.

I think the good thing about digital, is that you can normally make a change, take a picture and see the effect of that change, or not. Fortunately most people don't need to know how to change everything on their camera and get good pictures, and ignorance is bliss. But if you don't know what you don't know, how do you know what useful things you are missing out on!

If you are buying a camera with a lot of features, but not using them, maybe question whether you needed such a fully featured camera.

For a few years I was teaching photography classes, and regularly seeing a lot of different brands, and different types of camera, from the most basic compact camera to the almost top of the range, it helped having a good knowledge of my own cameras, and being able to transpose or convert the way one camera or brand does things, to the way another brand does something. Not everyone needs to know everything, but again, some of the things these cameras can do are amazing, and just digging a little deeper could help improve ones photography a lot.

About 10 years ago I was out with a few photographers, one of whom was making a living from photography, and there was a subject that was either very light or very dark compared to its surrounding, and the pro photographer was taking multiple pictures, making changes, but not quite getting the exposure right of the subject, so I said why not just use the spot meter on the subject, and I was surprised when he said he had not used it before, and did not know how. Even after this though, he didn't seem interested in learning how this small thing could have helped him then, and obviously help going forward. He seemed to be of the mind of what he was doing was working for him, and he was making a living from it, but it seemed very closed minded.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I find the instruction manuals to be very complicated, but the cameras are very simple. But then I started my journey with simple film cameras and learned the very simple physics that were (and still are) essential. Back then it was even simpler than it is today, there was no exposure triangle because although in theory ISO could be changed by using a different film or by developing it differently, the reality was that quality suffered so much by doing so that we very rarely did it, leaving just the simple reciprocal relationship between aperture and shutter speed to learn.

I think that 'pro' cameras tend to be far easier to use than beginner ones, with separate dials for shutter speed and lens aperture, and a separate control for ISO. With beginner cameras it can involve going into menus and sub-menus, and a lot of people need to carry around the instruction manual, or look it up on the phone - the people who have the least experience tend to have the most difficult-to-use cameras

As for the instruction manuals, once we strip out all of the safety instructions, multiple duplications and other nonsense, we're often left with poor translation and it becomes obvious that the best way of learning is to play with it - there's zero downside to that.

I got volunteered to fit a new toilet seat for an elderly neighbour a few days ago, the instructions were totally unintelligible and took up both sides of an A3 sheet of paper. I gave up and just fitted it, camera instructions are normally just as bad.

 

[droj]

If any camera adjustments might be needed, I keep a 2lb club hammer & a large stilsons to hand - they usually do the trick between them. They're also very quick. Trouble is, they're a bit weighty to carry. I use a backpack.

Instructions - phooey!

 

[Jammy Dodger]

I had a stroke 3 years ago - up to that point cameras couldn't be complicated enough!

Seriously, I cry now because I don't understand them and I can't learn them; hence film & Leica

 

[droj]

film & Leica

The miraculous basics! The articulate root!

 

[vintageman]

I frequently know what I want the camera to be set to but struggle to find the right place in the menu

 

[droj]

I frequently know what I want the camera to be set to but struggle to find the right place in the menu

Exactly!

 

[redhed17]

I frequently know what I want the camera to be set to but struggle to find the right place in the menu

What kind of settings are you trying to set, and with which camera(s)?

 

[vintageman]

Focusing and exposure modes panasonic Lumix G9 and TZ95

 

[MrDrizz]

Maybe not complicated but packed with features 99% of photographers will never use.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

So would you prefer not to get the owners manual where you can look up any function? Would you rather have some crazy undocumented system like instagram or chatgpt where you pretty much need to figure it all out yourself from some random youtube videos? Now that's what I bloody hate that goes against all anti-social media in the first instance.

 

[dcash29]

The R6MII is certainly way more complex than the 400D I started with. It's also less easily picked up because these days you don't get a physical manual you can carry with you and instead have to print it off/read it online. When I started that 400D manual lived in my camera bag next to the camera as I learned how to use it.

Now there are more things in modern cameras, some of them are just more of the same kind of thing. So there are way more automatic JPEG editing functions, though annoyingly Canon has never put them under one menu "JEPG editing" or such in the camera and calls them all fancy names so that can be less intuitive as to if you need them or not.

Certainly if it was your first camera you'd have to spend a good chunk of time learning something like an R6MII - the core functions of exposure are the same, but the bells and whistles around it are indeed far more complicated and numerous to learn. Of course there's also a LOT more teaching resources out there - youtube, websites, forums, even reddit and facebook. So there are a lot of learning opportunities.


For me the big complication is honestly areas like the AF systems and this isn't anything new. Even when the 7D came out the more fine-tuned AF systems are more complicated to work out and even with many of the guide videos there's a sense that no one really "gets" what some of the sliders do in real-world terms. They just mess with them until they find something that kind of works. I feel like its one area Canon (and others) could improve on a lot with more detailed information or a different presentation of the setup.



So I'd say there's a wealth of general information that will get most people through the hurdles of handling and setting up a more advanced camera; but as soon as you want to dip a little further it gets harder to find the information.

So would you prefer not to get the owners manual where you can look up any function? Would you rather have some crazy undocumented system like instagram or chatgpt where you pretty much need to figure it all out yourself from some random youtube videos? Now that's what I bloody hate that goes against all anti-social media in the first instance.

Ive never read a manual for anything before using it, only flicked to the odd page if needed and I don't understand people that sit and read cover to cover before using a product. However, one is preferable just incase you get stuck if you're out and about, though nowadays they can be downloaded on the phone, but I still think there should still be provision from the manufacturer to provide one. That said, it would be a lot thicker than my 10mm thick Eos film camera.

 

[Rodinal]

If like I did - I had no option, at the time but to learn the bones of the beast from the ground up and once learned and practised regularly those processes remain with you for as long as you wield a camera.
OK some people don't want to learn, that is there prerogative, but when there is a subject out of the normal it becomes instinctive what to do to get around it, instead of having to resort to looking it up in a manual (if they provide one).

The discussion about how many pages there are in an instruction manual is nothing new. I have an elderly, but fully functioning Nikon Film scanner which has just been serviced and given a clean bill of health to carry on for at least another 18 years. They did not provide a manual, but a CD with all the ins and outs. I got fed up with having to look at the CD on the computer to refer a salient point, so I printed it all off onto sheets of A4. That took me about 3 days to do and used over half a box of 250 sheets of paper. It eventually became 2nd nature what to do and I cannot remember the last time I had to look something up to see how it worked. Plus at least the font is large enough to read without a magnifying glass.

 

[Rodinal]

All of us.

I only went from Medium format to an AF SLR a very short time before I bought a digital SLR. I could happily shoot a full manual camera tomorrow, but I can’t see the point in shooting film, or indeed shooting in modes thatmean I’m more likely to miss a shot.

I am unlikely to miss a shot - landscapes don't tend to move very quickly

Now that's what I bloody hate that goes against all anti-social media in the first instance.

I like that term it expresses my feelings entirely and it has caused so much tension, hate, and grief it would have almost been better better if it had not been invented.

 

[Nostromo]

I think at the end of the day, it's still all about aperture, exposure and ISO. Yes modern cameras have features that previous cameras didn't, but these are only used if you need them, that's when you look into h how that feature works and how you just it. Such as the focus bracketing (stacking) feature.

 

[Phil V]

I am unlikely to miss a shot - landscapes don't tend to move very quickly

But we’re all intelligent adults and we can appreciate that others needs may be different surely?

 

[Rodinal]

Isn't this why "beginner' cameras exist. The ones with one dial, lots of help screens and full auto options. Sure, they are a pain to do manual mode with. But they are cheap, easy to use and their tiny size makes people more likely to have a camera with them.

There has been a trend to make photography easier as time goes on. High ISO then auto-iso plus high dynamic ranges means you don't have to worry about exposure. Automatic focus, more focus points and then auto eye detection sort out the focussing. Increasing frames per second means you don't have to time a critical moment, just pick the best of the 30 frames you took in a burst. Wide aperture lenses mean you can blur the background so you don't need to worry about it. You pay for it and it all makes the camera more complicated outside full auto modes. It does make technically adequate pictures a lot easier without developing difficult skills.

Even they are a lot more complicated than they need be, The latest even middle of the range cameras will do more than Mr or Mrs average will ever use. As for tiny size if like me who happens to be male with rather large hands they are too small to handle and fiddle with the micro buttons.

I will pick you up on a point it does not make 'photography' easier it really means being able to take a picture easier! There is a world of difference. It has been said in the past 20 years more pictures have been taken than since the art of photography first appeared with Fox Talbot in the early 19th C, But that does not make them any better. It could be argued that the reverse is the case.

It is much the same with most things that have developed. For instance take furniture. When furniture was all hand made and crafted with care and skill learned over many years and possibly a greater proportion of that still exists today because it had style and was made to last, some pieces for many years even centuries. Then look at the mass produced veneer covered chipboard monstrosities that are actually a throw away design, intended to last for perhaps 10 years or less, I know which I would prefer.

Now back to cameras. Todays electronic marvels are incredible but how long are they used for because something now and even more marvellous appears in the shops. It is barely 25 years since Canon brought out their 1st digital (D30? was it). Quickly followed by Nikon with their D100. How many do you see still being used today or even EXIST! ....Probably because when a new model comes out, older ones a couple of generations into their dotage (possibly as little as 2 years) spares are no longer available.

I have a plethora of older cameras bought cheaply because no one else wanted them. Minoltas x 2 that first came to light around 1970-73 and a batch of Nikons of which the oldest, the FT3 Nikkormat or my Nikon F2a which are well over both well over 45 years old and working as well as they did when new. Plus a couple of younger AF bodies which still get brought out occasionally to stretch their legs. It is a throw away society alright, but buying a newer more complicated electronic marvel does not automatically make you a better photographer. It is in the mind, and what you see or visualise, not what you hold in your hands that sets you aside from a camera user of photographer.

 

[droj]

these days you don't get a physical manual you can carry with you

That's funny, all my various cameras have come with printed & bound manuals ... you must've chosen an unfortunate make. ;-)

 

[artyman]

I was at a function last night where someone wanted to play a track on the latest I-phone, needless to say it didn't have a 3.5mm jack like every other device in the world, Apple in their wisdom deeming it obsolete. They call this progress, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I was at a function last night where someone wanted to play a track on the latest I-phone, needless to say it didn't have a 3.5mm jack like every other device in the world, Apple in their wisdom deeming it obsolete. They call this progress, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

It just needed a Bluetooth speaker. Kit tends to be generational - it'll work with stuff it's designed for, but apple are trying to obsolete older stuff quickly.

 

[artyman]

It just needed a Bluetooth speaker.

Yeah, like one of those is going to fill a hall with sound

 

[ancient_mariner]

Yeah, like one of those is going to fill a hall with sound

It's not hard to arrange IF you know what you need. I don't disagree about the irritation, but BT connectivity it quite old now, and there's lots of receivers around that can plug into a pa.

 

[Phil V]

I was at a function last night where someone wanted to play a track on the latest I-phone, needless to say it didn't have a 3.5mm jack like every other device in the world, Apple in their wisdom deeming it obsolete. They call this progress, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

new Apple phones come with a USB c connection rather like every other current phone (at the request of the EU, the whole world has standardised). The jack socket became obsolete on most phones years ago, with a divergence of technologies (USB v Lightning). If you're in a room full of people who have jack sockets on their phones, you're in a room full of either very old people or unusually old phones. It's not just an Apple thing.

Most amplification nowadays has either WiFi, Bluetooth or USB inputs, or all 3. And even if it only has phono or jack connections, USBc, USB and indeed lightning or 'mini jack' connectors all have readily available phono or jack adaptor cables or connectors.

My HiFi Amp has Apple Airplay, DLNA, USB, Optical and Phono inputs, and it's a 10 years old product.

I understand where you're coming from with 'progress' but your example is borne out of ignorance of the tech rather than 'Apple in their wisdom'. The DJ at most functions is almost certainly connecting his laptop to the PA using the USB c on the laptop - so the same cable he's using would plug straight into the 'latest Iphone' and I'm slightly surprised that the DJ wouldn't have an adaptor for alternative devices.

 

[woof woof]

But we’re all intelligent adults and we can appreciate that others needs may be different surely?

Just on missing a non moving landscape shot.

I miss. Occasionally,

Or at least I sometimes take a shot and then realise it could have been better, slightly different framing, something in or out of the shot and there are the factors which we can't always control such as when someone or something comes into the frame or an insect flies past and ends up looking like a dust bunny etc. For all these reasons I often take two or maybe more pictures and often with slightly different framing to see which comes out best and which I prefer later.

 

[redhed17]

The latest even middle of the range cameras will do more than Mr or Mrs average will ever use.

Better to be over specified than underspecified. Most compact cameras were called point and shoots, but some could be a lot more than that.

As for tiny size if like me who happens to be male with rather large hands they are too small to handle and fiddle with the micro buttons.

I have a Sony RX100M7 and stubby fat fingers, but I am more than willing to work with the small buttons for what that camera can do, in such a small form factor. And once set up, with the most useful settings on the quick access function menu, making big changes are a few buttons away.

I will pick you up on a point it does not make 'photography' easier it means being able to take a picture easier! There is a world of difference. It has been said in the past 20 years more pictures have been taken than since the art of photography first appeared with Fox Talbot in the early 19th C, but that does not make them any better. It could be argued that the reverse is the case.

It could be said that the photographs that have lasted, and are seen, are the very good pics. AFAIK, there are not pics of someone's feet, nose, out of focus, whatever with various old cameras being revered.

Because of the current state of society, taking and sharing images is easy, many more people are taking pictures, and seeing other peoples pictures, so the ratio of very/good to average/bad images 'seen' has shifted to the mostly average/bad end, as some people show almost everything they take. No doubt if it were as easy to share images with film, you would have seen a lot more average/bad images. We all obviously saw our own average/bad pictures if no one else did. There is something to be said for medium being expensive, and the production either hard to do, or takes time for the prints to get done by someone else. It limited participation, slowed progression, and made people more considered because of the cost.

Now back to cameras. Todays electronic marvels are incredible but how long are they used for because something now and even more marvellous appears in the shops. It is barely 25 years since canon brought out their 1st digital (D30? was it) quickly followed by Nikon with their D100. How many do you see still being used today or even EXIST! ....Probably because when a new model comes out older ones a couple of generations older (possibly as little as 2 years) spares are no longer available.

Film and Digital cameras are two different things imho. Film cameras are built around, what was, a slow changing medium, where the effect of a new camera could have little to no effect on the image taken. An image taken on Fujicolor 100 film, at F8 and 200th/s would look the same regardless of the camera used, taking away focusing errors and different lenses. Big changes could come during the processing, but that has nothing to do with the camera.

Digital cameras have the medium, a sensor, and the processing (Jpeg) built into the camera, and that technology has changed dramatically over the years, to the point where that technology has arguably plateaued, and few could have any problems with the current base 24Mp sensor. And for many, lower megapixel cameras are, or have been good enough. Saying that, the brand of camera, and the sensor used, during the evolution of the sensors, could make a dramatic change to the technical 'quality' of the image captured.

There are no doubt some people still using the Canon D30 or Nikon D100. The limiting thing for longevity with most digital cameras will probably be the battery. Once the battery wears out, and replacements can't be sourced, that camera will effectively be useless.

The benefit of the medium being separate from the camera, and the cameras being relatively simple technology, meant they potentially have longevity. With film cameras, obsolescence will come when there is no more film produced. Then some of them will be pretty ornaments, which I would guess most of the ones that still exist are just that already.

I have a plethora of older cameras bought cheaply because no one else wanted them. Minoltas x 2 that first came to light around 1970-73 and a batch of Nikons of which the oldest, they FT3 Nikkormat or my Nikon F2a which are well over both well over 45 years old and working as well as they did when new. Plus a couple of younger AF bodies which still get brought out occasionally to stretch their legs. It is a throw away society alright but buying a newer more complicated electronic marvel does not automatically make you a better photographer. It is in the mind and what you see or visualise not what you hold in your hands that sets you aside from a camera user of photographer.

They will work until they don't, and the longer time goes on, the knowledge and ability to repair, will disappear. Then they will become part of the throwaway society. Though for most, they already have, which is why you can buy them so cheaply.

As for the technology not automatically making you a better photographer, I would say it can help you improve quicker, and some of the tech could enable you to get images you may not have as easily got, or been able to, with film. Advanced autofocus, high fps, ability to capture in low light could immediately improve the images you take, regardless of composition.

 

[Nod]

Soon to find out how complicated it is to set a bridge camera up how I want it...

Manual downloaded but not as comprehensive as I'd like - there might be another one deeper in Sony's site; I'll dig if I need to!

 

[Rodinal]

Most of the old mechanical cameras can be repaired, and in the case of the Nikon F2 models the age related failures of the light sensor in the metering heads is no longer a terminal problem because are being manufactured again by an independent engineer. Even they were not, if the meter turns it's toes up then you can use it without the built in meter. Simples! (well it is for someone who knows what they are doing!) My even older Nikkormat FT3 is in the same boat with the exception that the meters do tend to last longer and to retain their accuracy. Don't ask me why but they do.

As for them being cheaper they were a few years ago, the price of good working and presentable film cameras is really starting to climb. I also have a Nikon F6 which I bought about 10 years ago (When it was still in production) and paid around £600 from a dealer for it. On todays market, a F6 body only, in good condition will easily fetch over £1000 and that is before a dealer adds his bit on for his profit. Also Nikon still produce spares for that camera.

 

[ancient_mariner]

If you're in a room full of people who have jack sockets on their phones, you're in a room full of either very old people or unusually old phones.

Worth mentioning gently that 3.5mm jack sockets are still common on less expensive phones. i.e. https://www.mi.com/uk/product/poco-...0_1722097123_4a61400e65e813c561ca4f7795ca6742

 

[Phil V]

Worth mentioning gently that 3.5mm jack sockets are still common on less expensive phones. i.e. https://www.mi.com/uk/product/poco-...0_1722097123_4a61400e65e813c561ca4f7795ca6742

Not what I'd call 'common', but certainly still available.

Semantics though, I'd have to spread my net fairly wide before it started including a significant number of people with 3.5mm jacks on their phones. Certainly none of our kids,our siblings, their kids, or our colleagues, but if we go up a generation we'll find some (and I'm certainly not 'young', and the next generation up include people who are on the 2nd or 3rd mobile and might have had about £200 in top ups by now ).

 

[TimHughes]

Not what I'd call 'common', but certainly still available.

Semantics though, I'd have to spread my net fairly wide before it started including a significant number of people with 3.5mm jacks on their phones. Certainly none of our kids,our siblings, their kids, or our colleagues, but if we go up a generation we'll find some (and I'm certainly not 'young', and the next generation up include people who are on the 2nd or 3rd mobile and might have had about £200 in top ups by now ).

This made me chuckle. While I like to think I’m pretty up to date, it was only a few months ago that I changed phone and no longer have a 3.5mm jack. Time is flying so fast.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Semantics though, I'd have to spread my net fairly wide before it started including a significant number of people with 3.5mm jacks on their phones. Certainly none of our kids,our siblings, their kids, or our colleagues, but if we go up a generation we'll find some (and I'm certainly not 'young', and the next generation up include people who are on the 2nd or 3rd mobile and might have had about £200 in top ups by now ).

Modern phones are far too complicated.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It seems appropriate to share this here:

 

[fujilover]

You dont need to know all 400 pages at once or ever to use the 5D MK 3.

I picked one up and could use it without taking the manual out of the packet, only needing to look at it for certain things.

The 1D series is considerably more complicated than the 5D MK 3.

 

[Phil V]

Modern phones are far too complicated.

Modern phones aren’t phones.

Whether they should be ‘just phones’ is a whole other discussion.

But my phone is 90% of all my computer use - soc media, research, shopping, messaging. 50% of my photography. 95% of my music, 100% of my gaming. Also tells me how my car is, Sat Nav, I can control my dishwasher and cooker with it (I don’t)

Would it be better if it was just a phone? What would I need adding? Messaging? Simple games? Camera? Browser? How much before I’m back here?

BTW the music player is the bit I couldn’t live without. I went from a hifi to a Walkman, to a car stereo as my most used music player - and here I am with my music collection in my pocket, and I can play it through a large amp and speakers, car stereo, headphones and Bluetooth/ HomePods so I have my music everywhere however I want.

So, in conclusion: if this was only a phone, I’d need a music player tomorrow to replace it. And I’d probably go out and buy a compact camera shortly too. But I wouldn’t buy a games machine and I already have a laptop.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Modern phones aren’t phones.

Whether they should be ‘just phones’ is a whole other discussion.

Indeed.

And just like a complicated modern camera you don't have to use, or even know about, all features unless you want/need to. Whereas a film camera can't even do movies.

 

[Rodinal]

Indeed.

And just like a complicated modern camera you don't have to use, or even know about, all features unless you want/need to. Whereas a film camera can't even do movies.

Who wants to? I have never heard it mentioned any where before.

Modern phones aren’t phones.

Whether they should be ‘just phones’ is a whole other discussion.

But my phone is 90% of all my computer use - soc media, research, shopping, messaging. 50% of my photography. 95% of my music, 100% of my gaming. Also tells me how my car is, Sat Nav, I can control my dishwasher and cooker with it (I don’t)

Would it be better if it was just a phone? What would I need adding? Messaging? Simple games? Camera? Browser? How much before I’m back here?

BTW the music player is the bit I couldn’t live without. I went from a hifi to a Walkman, to a car stereo as my most used music player - and here I am with my music collection in my pocket, and I can play it through a large amp and speakers, car stereo, headphones and Bluetooth/ HomePods so I have my music everywhere however I want.

So, in conclusion: if this was only a phone, I’d need a music player tomorrow to replace it. And I’d probably go out and buy a compact camera shortly too. But I wouldn’t buy a games machine and I already have a laptop.

I think you are muck stirring!