[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Just to add to the simple/complicated debate, the manual for my Olympus OM-2 Spot/Program (quite a complicated camera for its day) has 58 pages. The manual for my K-5 has 375. Currently, in other sectors of consumer goods, the trend is (thankfully) towards more simplified and user-friendly controls. Perhaps this might even creep into DSLRs, but I'm not holding my breath. It seems to me that a lot of the "extras" come from the need to process JPEGs in-camera. I never use them, though I understand that many photographers do. I might be old fashioned, but we never had JPEGs in the film days - it was all analogue raw! Part of the fun was finding the decent shots, and taking the trouble to print them. Now, of course, I use my computer, but for me post processing is a large part of the fun.

I doubt if we'll ever see a Raw-only camera, though.

[Kunzite]

...and that's the key issue, isn't it. I wouldn't mind a simplified body, either, if it was indeed done the right way, by taking away all the unnecessary gimmickry, and leaving only the essentials. I bet no seasoned photographer wouldn't mind that.

I wouldn't mind either a camera custom-designed for me, if it were cheaper. But, usually, custom-designed products aren't
Who decides what are "unnecessary gimmickry" and what necessary functionality? Please try to make a list of the "unnecessary gimmickry" everyone will agree with!

I'm against cameras becoming gadgets, however IMO most expensive features are those closely related to essential functions.

les24preludes, I would like to have a brand new Aston Martin, but I can't afford one. Should I ask Aston Martin to make a car with a "cut down design built to a price", stripped down of all "unnecessary gimmickry" seasoned drivers don't appreciate anyway? Maybe the Chinese could build a replica, and sell it for about half of what a Toyota would cost?

[les24preludes]

les24preludes, I would like to have a brand new Aston Martin, but I can't afford one. Should I ask Aston Martin to make a car with a "cut down design built to a price", stripped down of all "unnecessary gimmickry" seasoned drivers don't appreciate anyway? Maybe the Chinese could build a replica, and sell it for about half of what a Toyota would cost?

It exists: Ariel Motor Company

[Kunzite]

Take a look at this site: The New Aston Martin Vanquish
There's a "slight" difference between an Aston Martin and an Ariel Atom

[les24preludes]

Take a look at this site: The New Aston Martin Vanquish
There's a "slight" difference between an Aston Martin and an Ariel Atom

Only when it rains!

[Kunzite]

I'm sorry, but I'm specifically asking for full-frame cars! (and for less than 10.000 euro)

[EchoOscar]

I'm thinking of something like a Mac Mini. This was brilliantly successful. Small form factor, basic features, but has all the processing power.

That's a good example. I think I might be typing this message with my fourth Mac mini, so far. It was and is brilliantly successful, has a small form factor, pretty basic features, has just about enough processing power and....
...is quite expensive, rather than cheap. You can get a much mightier PC box for the same price.

A big, ugly, traditional mojo box is easy and simple to manufacture, and adding more cards, ports and thingies inside it is cheap. But try to make it as simple, small and elegant as the mini, without too many functional sacrifices, and the price is likely to go up, rather than down. The wannabe-minis of the Wintel world are either very limited in their functionality (barebones, Atom processors, etc.) or as pricy as the Mac mini.

Or go back in time to the Praktica bodies for M42. Solid and practical and did the job. Still working today, a lot of them.

This is a business model which, in the right circumstances, has worked many times.

I would love to have a new, fully manual and even mechanical body, just like my old Minolta SRT-100x, or as simple and rugged as the Pentax P30t which I still have, with a 35mm full frame sensor. I'd buy such a camera for the heck of it. Provided that I had enough money. However, I don't think too many people today would want such a thing, especially among the younger generations who haven't even seen a film SLR in action.

Besides, the Praktica bodies of a couple of decades back were inexpensive because they were old tech, as the company ended up on the "wrong" side of the iron curtain, and they didn't need to compete on a free market. Back in the heyday of the brand their models weren't really much cheaper than others of that same era. Praktica was in fact one of the innovators, rather than the undercutters of the pre-WW2 world. After Germany was reunified, the brand could no longer survive with its 'cheap and simple' product line.

In other words, I don't think it's really about a freely chosen business model. If those Prakticas or Pentax P30's had been digital, they would most certainly not had been full frame models. Back in the day it was much simpler, because everybody had a "full frame" body, and no one had to provide the light sensitive material. The users took care of that themselves.

But Pentax won't do it because it requires coming out of the intellectual bunker they've dug themselves into.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. I think Pentax has actually done better in the un-gimmickification front than Canikon or Sony, if ever so slightly, but anyway. Now that Pentax are owned by Ricoh, that kind of nice development might even get better. At least I'm hopeful.

Take the entry level DSLR models, for example. Hold each of them in your hands for a while, and you'll notice that the K-30 actually has less gimmickry inside it than the Canikon and Sony models, and it even comes weather sealed. Not bad at all, IMO.

The screen layout, the knobs, buttons, dials and bits are somewhat nicer than in some other brand models, without the multitude of super-auto-everythings. At least from the POV of a seasoned (weathered) photographer who's been accustomed to other brand models.
All in all, the Pentax models look and feel refreshingly less cluttered and gimmickified. The street-level pricing of their DSLR models doesn't seem to be much of a problem these days, either.

If Pentax did some day come up with a new full frame DSLR, I'd be tempted to choose one over the Canikons or Sony, but not because of a price difference, (which I doubt will even exist), but because of those aforementioned reasons.

[EchoOscar]

I wouldn't mind either a camera custom-designed for me, if it were cheaper. But, usually, custom-designed products aren't
Who decides what are "unnecessary gimmickry" and what necessary functionality? Please try to make a list of the "unnecessary gimmickry" everyone will agree with!

Well, there ya go.
That's why the easily intimidated marketing engineers in Japan, who often may not even use their products themselves, are stuffing their products with all the possible gimmickry they can think of, and then add some more, just to out-gimmick and outdo the competitors' models and their spec sheets. Adding the gimmickry is easy and cheap, anyway.

I think one form of comromise could be the notion that all those mostly software features were like smartphone/tablet apps, which users could then delete if they wanted. But that sort of customisation would inevitably lead to cameras that look and feel like the current Sony NEX models, or even worse. Ugh. Not my cup of tea, but that's probably what lies ahead of us, within a few years. Within the mainstream, anyway.

I'm against cameras becoming gadgets, however IMO most expensive features are those closely related to essential functions.

Indeed, and unfortunately people like us may already be the minority these days. Or at least that's how the easily intimidated marketing moguls in Japan are thinking.

Or, like I said earlier, for some strange reason people are not buying the least gadgety cameras that come from the smaller brands, but go for the mainstream marvels, even though they say they don't like the gimmicky gadgets.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Here's one innovation I'd like to see: say that a metered a scene needed a 1/30th second exposure, but let's imagine that one could expose over a period of time of one's own choosing (let's say 40 seconds), giving the effect of using a 10 stopper ND without the need to mount one. This might be achieved by the camera opening the lens and firing an electronic shutter of, for example, 1/10,000th of a second over the chosen period, until the total exposure added up to the equivalent of 1/30th - 333 times in this case (or more, depending on the responsiveness of the sensor under such conditions). That would blur water or streak clouds nicely - or avoid tourists moving about. A tripod would still be needed, of course. I know one can just mount a big stopper, but this system would give much more flexibility over the exposure time.

Or am I just being naive?

[EchoOscar]

I know one can just mount a big stopper,

Or fire up Photoshop.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Or fire up Photoshop.

I don't think I have enough time left to me to do that!

[Anvh]

Here's one innovation I'd like to see: say that a metered a scene needed a 1/30th second exposure, but let's imagine that one could expose over a period of time of one's own choosing (let's say 40 seconds), giving the effect of using a 10 stopper ND without the need to mount one. This might be achieved by the camera opening the lens and firing an electronic shutter of, for example, 1/10,000th of a second over the chosen period, until the total exposure added up to the equivalent of 1/30th - 333 times in this case (or more, depending on the responsiveness of the sensor under such conditions). That would blur water or streak clouds nicely - or avoid tourists moving about. A tripod would still be needed, of course. I know one can just mount a big stopper, but this system would give much more flexibility over the exposure time.

Or am I just being naive?

Pentax camera's can already do something like that but not with that many photos and the output is JPEG.

[jambjamb]

I don't need full frame. My photos are good enough on aps-c.

[EchoOscar]

BTW, what is a "Pentax full frame" and why is there a Pentax Full Frame section in this forum?
After all, there is already a section for Pentax film SLR's and other than those, there is no Pentax 'full frame' camera.

[ElJamoquio]

BTW, what is a "Pentax full frame" and why is there a Pentax Full Frame section in this forum?
After all, there is already a section for Pentax film SLR's and other than those, there is no Pentax 'full frame' camera.

It makes it easier to sort through the omni-present full-frame stuff.