simple dslr

Marc Sabatella · 12-27-2011, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by pichur

I had no clue the extra menu items did not add cost, but without them it would. Just figured less features lower price.

Most things in the menus aren't "features" but are simply "settings". And the existing image processing algorithms all are written to use those settings. Rewriting the menu to remove those settings, and rewriting the algorithm to not allow you to make those settings, is extra work that isn't needed if you simply reuse the existing menu structure and algorithms from a previous camera, which is exactly what is normally done (with tweaks, of course).

Quote:

Obviously, as was posted, the features become a selling point somewhere along the line.

Precisely, which is another reason that stripping out features that the vast majority of users consider necessary would drive the cost up. A camera without those features would sell in only miniscule quantities, and hence would be less likely to ever recoup its design and upfront manufacturing costs.

Quote:

I do not understand programming or electronic hardware, but do understand that one less bolt or screw means a penny less in the price.

Not necessarily, but indeed, for extra add on features that most can do without, that becomes true for cameras as well. This is one reason the K-5 costs more than the K-r. But consider, what if you wanted to buy a one inch 10-23 screw instead of a 10-24? That's one less thread - should be cheaper, right? No. It's a non-standard size, and would be much *more* expensive as manufacturers would be less likely to ever sell these in enough quantity to recover the cost of retooling their production lines. These types of factors are often far more important than the the cost of the features or threads themselves.

TaoMaas · 12-27-2011, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by noblepa

Its already been shown that a dslr without SR is a non-starter.

LOL You might want to call Canon and Nikon and let them know. They think they're selling quite a few DSLRs without SR built in.

**boriscleto** · 12-27-2011, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

LOL You might want to call Canon and Nikon and let them know. They think they're selling quite a few DSLRs without SR built in.

They sell them with VR lenses. If Pentax were to eliminate SR they would have to release a new set of IS lenses.

Philoslothical · 12-27-2011, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

They sell them with VR lenses. If Pentax were to eliminate SR they would have to release a new set of IS lenses.

Please no! One of the reasons I bought into Pentax is not having to buy unnecessary technology (and unnecessary failure points) over and over again. Canikon have a hellova scam going with that.

**TomB_tx** · 12-27-2011, 05:22 PM

With all this talk about "must have" features, consider the Leica M9. Full-frame (24x36), no SR, no autofocus, all manual lenses with aperture rings, simple center-weighted metering system, 60 yr-old optical viewfinder/rangefinder for focusing, old fashioned shutter speed dial (with a single A setting as well). At $7K for the body they are selling all they can make. Also selling all the lenses they can make (1-yr backlog, so they are doubling production capacity).
Why does a dSLR have to be more complex?

**boriscleto** · 12-27-2011, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by TomB_tx

With all this talk about "must have" features, consider the Leica M9. Full-frame (24x36), no SR, no autofocus, all manual lenses with aperture rings, simple center-weighted metering system, 60 yr-old optical viewfinder/rangefinder for focusing, old fashioned shutter speed dial (with a single A setting as well). At $7K for the body they are selling all they can make. Also selling all the lenses they can make (1-yr backlog, so they are doubling production capacity).
Why does a dSLR have to be more complex?

Leica can sell them because it says Leica on the front of the camera.

pichur · 12-27-2011, 06:29 PM

After talking with many younger folks at work, they agree a simple dslr would not go well in the market since the slr format is for more serious photographers, and the serious picture taker desires to have the capability to create photos in the camera as well as on the computer. They all agreed the menu driven format on all the cameras are a pain in the *ss. Most of them admitted to not using them, even on their point and shoots! I guess it is a matter of selling bells and whistles to people who want them, but don't use them.

None the less, I want things to be simple. Give me manual controls with AE I can use without taking an eye off the viewfinder and can easily locate and operate by touch. Ditch the lcd screen(s) and make it k mount compatible. So when does the Kr replacement come due?

Too bad the Leica is priced into the stratosphere, cause I would likely own one.

**TomB_tx** · 12-27-2011, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by pichur

Too bad the Leica is priced into the stratosphere, cause I would likely own one.

Yeah, I totally blew my retirement bonus on one, because it was the ONLY digital camera made that operates just like my film cameras do. I still shoot film alot, so keeping controls the same makes that simple.
I would have bought it if it said Voigtlander and was made in Japan, but they only make film bodies that use the Leica mount.
But all the new lenses I've bought are Japanese made (Voigtlander & Zeiss) that fit the Leica body.
I agree a lot of image-snobs buy Leica to show off, but a number of pros tired of lugging FF dSLRs bought the M9 also.
I've used a mix of SLR and Rangefinder for 40 years, depending on the situation, but the M9 is the first digital to meet my wishes.

johnmflores · 12-27-2011, 07:08 PM

Not all cameras (and not all photographers by extension) want feature upon feature upon feature. There are those who crave simplicity and "purity". Some just want something different, something that changes the way they interact with and view the world.

There's no reason that a stripped-down dSLR, properly priced and properly marketed, can't tap into this vein of interest and visual exploration.

RioRico · 12-27-2011, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

There's no reason that a stripped-down dSLR, properly priced and properly marketed, can't tap into this vein of interest and visual exploration.

I suspect dSLR makers have conducted market research and reached a different conclusion.

I'm sorry -- I put this desire for a simple dSLR in the same category as water-witching, cold fusion, and steam-powered motorcycles. If these were commercially viable, some ~~greedy capitalist pigs~~ insightful entrepreneurs would be busy exploiting them.

I can think of a cheaper and easier camera design: an ILC P&S. The gimmick: a C- or CS- or D-mount, to use existing small-format lenses. The P&S chassis could be bare-bones. The firmware could support just basic functions. An existing low-end fixed-lens design (like my old Sakar / Digital Concepts) would be easily tweaked.

Why doesn't such exist? Because bean-counters probably figure there's no market. Oh bother.

**TomB_tx** · 12-27-2011, 07:37 PM

I agree - market research aims for either the greatest market segment, or a niche that fits a smaller maker's strengths. Leica is now tiny, and catered to us older photographers who still prefer film, and direct control of aperture, speed, and focus. The have announced plans for significant growth, and that likely will be by applying the Leica brand to more gadgety and popular forms.
I'm not sure what market sgment Ricoh will push Pentax towards, but not likely to be a retro pro SLR that us old folks would like. Yet... Ricoh already has a Leica M-mount body solution to attract users of manual Leica lenses, and the major criticism (other then not FF) has been lack of an eye-level finder. Perhaps a GXR eye-level body could add a K-mount with manual aperture linkage... (Dream on)

Mike Cash · 12-27-2011, 08:59 PM

I don't find the thought of a K1000D appealing at all. Give me a Spotmatic ESIID instead: open aperture metering and shooting. I'd settle for a plain old Spotmatic with stop-down metering and open aperture shooting.

For that matter, just give an aperture pin actuator adapter to drop in the K-5. Setting up a mode for it is a firmware tweak and the thing could be powered and triggered from the SDM contacts that I otherwise have no use for.

bjake · 12-28-2011, 12:54 AM

On my KX the only main settings used are auto pict,tv,av and m.Only use center focus and metering.Most of the menu items are left to default but find some quite useful.If all the settings that I don't use were left out the 180 or so page manual could probably be cut down to 30-40.If a camera with a sensor the quality of the KX were offered with no automatic functions but with a usable viewfinder it would suit me fine but don't think many cameras would be sold.
Jake

**TER-OR** · 12-28-2011, 01:00 PM

Every so often the concept of a drop-in Digital Film cartridge shows up. (I apologize if someone already mentioned this)
Digital Film Concept Could Resurrect Dead Film Cameras | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Feasibility? Maybe. Usefulness? Fair. Demand? Low (I suspect).

RioRico · 12-28-2011, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by TER-OR

Feasibility? Maybe. Usefulness? Fair. Demand? Low (I suspect).

More like: Demand? Pretty high. Usefulness? Pretty high. Feasibility? Zilch. (Else it would have been produced in at least small quantities.)

Interface is the problem. Interfacing a drop-in digifilm cart for ONE line of camera bodies would be do-able. For multiple body types, no. How is the cart to know when to power-up and activate? How is it to draw power? How are its settings to be controlled? The innards of 135/FF cameras are too varied for any consistent interfacing.

And a 135/FF model wouldn't work in 135/HF, 135/SQ, and 135/WA bodies. What, I can't digitize my Pen-FT, my Dial35, my Robot? I can't drop it into a 120 cam for sprocket-hole panos? Feh.

Interface might be more possible with APS film bodies. But with that failed format, demand WOULD be zilch. To meet demand, it's 135/FF or nothing -- and 135/FF isn't do-able. Oh bother.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Just a few hopefully simple ones	Seanex	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	17	02-08-2011 04:40 PM
entry-level DSLR v. professional/high end DSLR	r00t_b33r	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	11-25-2010 06:43 PM
IR Simple	dbh	Pentax News and Rumors	2	09-20-2010 11:12 AM
Architecture Simple geometry	mba1971	Photo Critique	5	06-21-2010 06:06 AM
People Simple portrait	muhozol	Post Your Photos!	5	01-11-2010 09:18 AM

12-27-2011, 02:33 PM	#46
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by pichur I had no clue the extra menu items did not add cost, but without them it would. Just figured less features lower price. Most things in the menus aren't "features" but are simply "settings". And the existing image processing algorithms all are written to use those settings. Rewriting the menu to remove those settings, and rewriting the algorithm to not allow you to make those settings, is extra work that isn't needed if you simply reuse the existing menu structure and algorithms from a previous camera, which is exactly what is normally done (with tweaks, of course). Quote: Obviously, as was posted, the features become a selling point somewhere along the line. Precisely, which is another reason that stripping out features that the vast majority of users consider necessary would drive the cost up. A camera without those features would sell in only miniscule quantities, and hence would be less likely to ever recoup its design and upfront manufacturing costs. Quote: I do not understand programming or electronic hardware, but do understand that one less bolt or screw means a penny less in the price. Not necessarily, but indeed, for extra add on features that most can do without, that becomes true for cameras as well. This is one reason the K-5 costs more than the K-r. But consider, what if you wanted to buy a one inch 10-23 screw instead of a 10-24? That's one less thread - should be cheaper, right? No. It's a non-standard size, and would be much more expensive as manufacturers would be less likely to ever sell these in enough quantity to recover the cost of retooling their production lines. These types of factors are often far more important than the the cost of the features or threads themselves.

12-27-2011, 03:49 PM	#47
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by noblepa Its already been shown that a dslr without SR is a non-starter. LOL You might want to call Canon and Nikon and let them know. They think they're selling quite a few DSLRs without SR built in.

12-27-2011, 04:24 PM	#48
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by TaoMaas LOL You might want to call Canon and Nikon and let them know. They think they're selling quite a few DSLRs without SR built in. They sell them with VR lenses. If Pentax were to eliminate SR they would have to release a new set of IS lenses.

12-27-2011, 04:53 PM	#49
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	Originally posted by boriscleto They sell them with VR lenses. If Pentax were to eliminate SR they would have to release a new set of IS lenses. Please no! One of the reasons I bought into Pentax is not having to buy unnecessary technology (and unnecessary failure points) over and over again. Canikon have a hellova scam going with that.

12-27-2011, 05:22 PM	#50
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	With all this talk about "must have" features, consider the Leica M9. Full-frame (24x36), no SR, no autofocus, all manual lenses with aperture rings, simple center-weighted metering system, 60 yr-old optical viewfinder/rangefinder for focusing, old fashioned shutter speed dial (with a single A setting as well). At $7K for the body they are selling all they can make. Also selling all the lenses they can make (1-yr backlog, so they are doubling production capacity). Why does a dSLR have to be more complex?

12-27-2011, 05:43 PM	#51
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by TomB_tx With all this talk about "must have" features, consider the Leica M9. Full-frame (24x36), no SR, no autofocus, all manual lenses with aperture rings, simple center-weighted metering system, 60 yr-old optical viewfinder/rangefinder for focusing, old fashioned shutter speed dial (with a single A setting as well). At $7K for the body they are selling all they can make. Also selling all the lenses they can make (1-yr backlog, so they are doubling production capacity). Why does a dSLR have to be more complex? Leica can sell them because it says Leica on the front of the camera.

12-27-2011, 06:29 PM	#52
pichur Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 63 Original Poster	After talking with many younger folks at work, they agree a simple dslr would not go well in the market since the slr format is for more serious photographers, and the serious picture taker desires to have the capability to create photos in the camera as well as on the computer. They all agreed the menu driven format on all the cameras are a pain in the *ss. Most of them admitted to not using them, even on their point and shoots! I guess it is a matter of selling bells and whistles to people who want them, but don't use them. None the less, I want things to be simple. Give me manual controls with AE I can use without taking an eye off the viewfinder and can easily locate and operate by touch. Ditch the lcd screen(s) and make it k mount compatible. So when does the Kr replacement come due? Too bad the Leica is priced into the stratosphere, cause I would likely own one.

12-27-2011, 06:41 PM	#53
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	Originally posted by pichur Too bad the Leica is priced into the stratosphere, cause I would likely own one. Yeah, I totally blew my retirement bonus on one, because it was the ONLY digital camera made that operates just like my film cameras do. I still shoot film alot, so keeping controls the same makes that simple. I would have bought it if it said Voigtlander and was made in Japan, but they only make film bodies that use the Leica mount. But all the new lenses I've bought are Japanese made (Voigtlander & Zeiss) that fit the Leica body. I agree a lot of image-snobs buy Leica to show off, but a number of pros tired of lugging FF dSLRs bought the M9 also. I've used a mix of SLR and Rangefinder for 40 years, depending on the situation, but the M9 is the first digital to meet my wishes.

12-27-2011, 07:08 PM	#54
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Not all cameras (and not all photographers by extension) want feature upon feature upon feature. There are those who crave simplicity and "purity". Some just want something different, something that changes the way they interact with and view the world. There's no reason that a stripped-down dSLR, properly priced and properly marketed, can't tap into this vein of interest and visual exploration.

12-27-2011, 07:25 PM	#55
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by johnmflores There's no reason that a stripped-down dSLR, properly priced and properly marketed, can't tap into this vein of interest and visual exploration. I suspect dSLR makers have conducted market research and reached a different conclusion. I'm sorry -- I put this desire for a simple dSLR in the same category as water-witching, cold fusion, and steam-powered motorcycles. If these were commercially viable, some ~~greedy capitalist pigs~~ insightful entrepreneurs would be busy exploiting them. I can think of a cheaper and easier camera design: an ILC P&S. The gimmick: a C- or CS- or D-mount, to use existing small-format lenses. The P&S chassis could be bare-bones. The firmware could support just basic functions. An existing low-end fixed-lens design (like my old Sakar / Digital Concepts) would be easily tweaked. Why doesn't such exist? Because bean-counters probably figure there's no market. Oh bother.

12-27-2011, 07:37 PM	#56
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	I agree - market research aims for either the greatest market segment, or a niche that fits a smaller maker's strengths. Leica is now tiny, and catered to us older photographers who still prefer film, and direct control of aperture, speed, and focus. The have announced plans for significant growth, and that likely will be by applying the Leica brand to more gadgety and popular forms. I'm not sure what market sgment Ricoh will push Pentax towards, but not likely to be a retro pro SLR that us old folks would like. Yet... Ricoh already has a Leica M-mount body solution to attract users of manual Leica lenses, and the major criticism (other then not FF) has been lack of an eye-level finder. Perhaps a GXR eye-level body could add a K-mount with manual aperture linkage... (Dream on)

12-27-2011, 08:59 PM	#57
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I don't find the thought of a K1000D appealing at all. Give me a Spotmatic ESIID instead: open aperture metering and shooting. I'd settle for a plain old Spotmatic with stop-down metering and open aperture shooting. For that matter, just give an aperture pin actuator adapter to drop in the K-5. Setting up a mode for it is a firmware tweak and the thing could be powered and triggered from the SDM contacts that I otherwise have no use for.

12-28-2011, 12:54 AM	#58
bjake Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Eastern Kentucky Posts: 416	On my KX the only main settings used are auto pict,tv,av and m.Only use center focus and metering.Most of the menu items are left to default but find some quite useful.If all the settings that I don't use were left out the 180 or so page manual could probably be cut down to 30-40.If a camera with a sensor the quality of the KX were offered with no automatic functions but with a usable viewfinder it would suit me fine but don't think many cameras would be sold. Jake

12-28-2011, 01:00 PM	#59
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	Every so often the concept of a drop-in Digital Film cartridge shows up. (I apologize if someone already mentioned this) Digital Film Concept Could Resurrect Dead Film Cameras \| Gadget Lab \| Wired.com Feasibility? Maybe. Usefulness? Fair. Demand? Low (I suspect).

12-28-2011, 01:31 PM	#60
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by TER-OR Feasibility? Maybe. Usefulness? Fair. Demand? Low (I suspect). More like: Demand? Pretty high. Usefulness? Pretty high. Feasibility? Zilch. (Else it would have been produced in at least small quantities.) Interface is the problem. Interfacing a drop-in digifilm cart for ONE line of camera bodies would be do-able. For multiple body types, no. How is the cart to know when to power-up and activate? How is it to draw power? How are its settings to be controlled? The innards of 135/FF cameras are too varied for any consistent interfacing. And a 135/FF model wouldn't work in 135/HF, 135/SQ, and 135/WA bodies. What, I can't digitize my Pen-FT, my Dial35, my Robot? I can't drop it into a 120 cam for sprocket-hole panos? Feh. Interface might be more possible with APS film bodies. But with that failed format, demand WOULD be zilch. To meet demand, it's 135/FF or nothing -- and 135/FF isn't do-able. Oh bother.