[nanok]

I voted when hell freezes over, because my eyes are old and decrepit. My idea of back to basics camera would be one that skips the scene modes and green mode, and just has M, Tv, Av, Tav, and B modes. Oh, and all of the AF lenses should have Quick Shift focus adjustment.

ahem. so that's just "pentax", more precisely k10d, k20d, k-7. or am i missing something?

ps: i was born with "aberrant" (though correctable) eyesight. so that's no excuse :P

[nanok]

very interesting ideas here (including the people against, thanks for taking the time).

lowell: very good points, i forgot to mention the k-m coupling adn ttl flash (trying to keep it short)
kit: that could work too. but it is usually more marketable (and costs as little in r&d and such) if you pretty much just strip down something you have, change the design slightly maybe, and add some minor software and mayeb mechanical features for the package to make sense.

again: we are not discussing if pentax should make it, if it would sell, etc. we're discussing if you would buy it, provided it was here. and we're not talkign about just a body either, but lenses too. anyway, the financial analysis is pointless: pentax can sell the body for _free_, bundled with a selection of lenses, if they so desire, they don't need to make money on the body, they dont' need to make money on any of this really, keep in mind they have other cameras and lenses and such, if this would be a small niche, small enough that it wouldn't be self-sustaining, it neednt make money on it's own. do you think full frame is self sustaining? and yeah, seeling it as a limited body might be another option (asking twice, instead of 50%, wth), and yes it can be a cult following rather than a hit, it really doesn't matter, as long as it works. but for now, the question is simple: would you go out and buy, or not.

[RonHendriks1966]

do you think full frame is self sustaining?

No I don't think that market is self sustaining. That's why Pentax (due to demands from Hoya shareholders) can't market a full frame at the time to my opnion.

[tiltman]

No AF in the world are quicker than my eyes (and hands). So yes, a simple full MF weatherproof cam with a top-notch CCD are welcome, with an all manual lens series.

But due to a smaller market that won't happen, most people seem to find it hard to focus manually. Focusing screens not suitable for MF and poorly calibrated MF in most cameras dont exacly encourage the use of MF in the general public.

[rhodopsin]

Hmmm, I think Canon tried something similar when they produced the 5D1 with the same sensor as in their pro model but with reduced features. They've been kicking themselves ever since imho. It was just too good, but had little profit margin. They will never make that mistake again. 5D1 users however have benefited enormously!

[pacerr]

Which of the earlier film bodies would you like to have if the digital sensor could be transplanted into it with no other functional changes? Lets assume the SD card, electronics and necessary batteries would fit in the space used by the film cassette and reel (which actually consumes a fairly large volume).

I could be quite happy with an MX or LX and a coupl'a Limited primes and the older M-type lenses. Direct access to ISO, aperture, DOF and shutter speed and using a moving dot/match needle exposure system with a great viewfinder. Or perhaps even a ZX-M body with better build quality.

I would miss instant review and the histogram but at least you wouldn't have to wait to get the film back, just download it to a storage device/viewer.

H2

[RioRico]

Which of the earlier film bodies would you like to have if the digital sensor could be transplanted into it with no other functional changes? Lets assume the SD card, electronics and necessary batteries would fit in the space used by the film cassette and reel (which actually consumes a fairly large volume).

First choices: My 1930 KW Patent-Etui or 1910 Kodak Monitor 6x9's, of course. A 6x9cm sensor would KICK A$$ TILL THE COWS COME HOME, yup. Their unlinked VFs won't do, and an EVF might not fit, so just bluetooth the video to VR goggles.

Second choices: My 1934 Kodak Retina I or 1954 Voigtlander Vito II 135 folders. Closed dimensions: 12.5cm long, 7.5cm high, 4.5cm deep -- minuscule. Like the 6x9's, they'll need redesigned shutter-lens mounts, but that's no big problem.

Third choice: The Olympus Pen-FT half-frame (135/HF) SLR, with a body not much larger than my second-choice folders. Its HF format is the same frame size as an APS-C sensor, so the transfiguration is straightforward. Runners-up: OM-1, XA.

[nosnoop]

Which of the earlier film bodies would you like to have if the digital sensor could be transplanted into it with no other functional changes? Lets assume the SD card, electronics and necessary batteries would fit in the space used by the film cassette and reel (which actually consumes a fairly large volume).

This sounds very much like the Silicon Film project back in 2001:




Unfortunately, it remained vaporware for many years and the idea died well before any chance of making it to the market.

[glasbak]

Which of the earlier film bodies would you like to have if the digital sensor could be transplanted into it with no other functional changes? Lets assume the SD card, electronics and necessary batteries would fit in the space used by the film cassette and reel (which actually consumes a fairly large volume).

This is an old picture, but it shows what I want (and will never get) :



This would of course not qualify for a basic camera, so I cannot vote.

[8540tomg]

Interesting idea. I would be more interested if Pentax made their current DSLRs even more backwards compatible. I don’t understand all the technical issues but I have often wondered why they gave us the Green Button for use with older screw mount, K and M series lenses. Is there any reason, other than marketing, why a simple center weighted metering mode could not be included as a default in M (manual mode) on the K10, K20 and K7 cameras? An auto exposure system such as that found in the old LX would be a great feature to have for use with these old legacy lenses. I wouldn’t want to give up AF by any means but this would be a great feature to have in a future camera body. I would far rather have this feature than the video or live view options. It is a feature I would be willing to pay for.

Tom G

[Canada_Rockies]

Interesting idea. I would be more interested if Pentax made their current DSLRs even more backwards compatible. I don’t understand all the technical issues but I have often wondered why they gave us the Green Button for use with older screw mount, K and M series lenses. Is there any reason, other than marketing, why a simple center weighted metering mode could not be included as a default in M (manual mode) on the K10, K20 and K7 cameras? An auto exposure system such as that found in the old LX would be a great feature to have for use with these old legacy lenses. I wouldn’t want to give up AF by any means but this would be a great feature to have in a future camera body. I would far rather have this feature than the video or live view options. It is a feature I would be willing to pay for.

Tom G

Hi, Tom. I think Pentax are brilliant by crippling the mount, but making the lens still completely functional. I use two M lenses, and they work just fine, but there is always that little tiny "damn, forgot to change the exposure again" for a frame or two after the light changes to drive me towards a new DA lens to replace my oldies but goodies. When I have the money, I'll buy a longer DA* lens. It might be a couple of years or even several years, but it will happen.

Maybe when I get the money together I will be able to buy the new DA* 400/4 that I think would be a real grabber - not as heavy as a 400/2.8, but one stop faster than my 400/5.6, DA glass, weather resistant, DSLR coatings ... it is only to drool.

That is just the opposite effect than Minolta and Canon have had on their users by making older lenses completely incompatible when introduce a new and improved system. I have a friend who had a complete Minolta manual focus system comparable to my Pentax system. It had a replacement cost of about $6,000, as did my Pentax system at the time. He was livid when Maxxum happened and his entire kit became instantly obsolete. What happened when his Minolta body packed it in?

Pentax have kept me as a purchaser of their equipment by not forcing me to jump to a new model, but making it just that little bit less convenient to use the old lenses even though they still work just fine, and even meter through the lens.

[Aristophanes]

That is just the opposite effect than Minolta and Canon have had on their users by making older lenses completely incompatible when introduce a new and improved system. I have a friend who had a complete Minolta manual focus system comparable to my Pentax system. It had a replacement cost of about $6,000, as did my Pentax system at the time. He was livid when Maxxum happened and his entire kit became instantly obsolete. What happened when his Minolta body packed it in?

I have a fairly complete Minolta MD system. The AF systemic change did not seemingly hurt Canon or Minolta. In fact, they took off. Both companies were big enough and focused in their approach to weather the storm of MF displeasure. This is not the case with Pentax now.

Whichever way, the old MF lenses were never going to be able to AF, so to take advantage of the newer bodies he'd still be spending a big chunk of the $6,000 to get there. The dumb part was making the whole mount incompatible, but their sales data showed otherwise.

When a Minolta body packed it in, I simply bought a replacement for an exceedingly low price. In fact, shooting film with MF bodies and lenses actually became cheaper! Now the MC/MD lenses can be used on M43 mount with an adapter, with exceptional results.

In fact, it is likely that most of the mirrorless cameras will be able to take old Minolta glass with an adapter. My MD 24/2.8 is probably worth more now than when I first bought it, even factoring in inflation. And it never stopped being a superb film lens.

[8540tomg]

Hi, Tom. I think Pentax are brilliant by crippling the mount, but making the lens still completely functional. I use two M lenses, and they work just fine, but there is always that little tiny "damn, forgot to change the exposure again" for a frame or two after the light changes to drive me towards a new DA lens to replace my oldies but goodies. When I have the money, I'll buy a longer DA* lens. It might be a couple of years or even several years, but it will happen.

Maybe when I get the money together I will be able to buy the new DA* 400/4 that I think would be a real grabber - not as heavy as a 400/2.8, but one stop faster than my 400/5.6, DA glass, weather resistant, DSLR coatings ... it is only to drool.

That is just the opposite effect than Minolta and Canon have had on their users by making older lenses completely incompatible when introduce a new and improved system. I have a friend who had a complete Minolta manual focus system comparable to my Pentax system. It had a replacement cost of about $6,000, as did my Pentax system at the time. He was livid when Maxxum happened and his entire kit became instantly obsolete. What happened when his Minolta body packed it in?

Pentax have kept me as a purchaser of their equipment by not forcing me to jump to a new model, but making it just that little bit less convenient to use the old lenses even though they still work just fine, and even meter through the lens.

Hey Albert,

I didn't know there was a new DA* 400/4. That would be a sweet lens to have.

I agree with you for the most part. Like yourself, I stayed with Pentax when I went digital because I could still use the dozen or so legacy lenses you see in my signature. Pentax is to be commended for that policy. After all, there is enough junk in the landfill now.

That being said I would like to get the same degree of functionality I get from my A series lenses with my M and K series. I think this should be technically possible but suspect Pentax would rather sell me a new lens. What a great selling feature this would be for a next generation Pentax camera. I suspect many Pentax users, such as you and myself, would continue to use their legacy glass but would also purchase new lenses as well. This has been true in my case. I already have the DA* 16~50 and DA 70/4 limited in addition to my legacy glass. I’m considering the DA* 300/4 and DA*50-135. AF is a compelling feature and much more convenient.

Returning to the original post, back to basics, I doubt there would be much of a market for a simple manual focus A type digital camera. This is a little too basic to have any marketing legs. A camera which permitted us to have A type metering with legacy K, M and screwmount lenses which also features AF just might.

I do think that Pentax could differentiate themselves from the pack in a marketing manner by going green and playing up this aspect of their products more. Let Canon and Nikon be the bad boys who abuse their customers by forcing them to buy new lenses all the time and plug the landfill with their obsolete refuse. I know this will never happen but a digital LX with AF, which permitted the maximum amount of functionality with legacy glass, is something I would like to see. Glasbak’s digital LX above is on the right track but it would have to have AF as well.


Tom G

[Canada_Rockies]

Hey Albert,

I didn't know there was a new DA* 400/4. That would be a sweet lens to have.

There isn't - it's my personal dream lens. I think quite a few Pentax wildlife photographers would save their pennies for one, though.

I agree with you for the most part. Like yourself, I stayed with Pentax when I went digital because I could still use the dozen or so legacy lenses you see in my signature. Pentax is to be commended for that policy. After all, there is enough junk in the landfill now.

That's very true. What a waste of high quality goods.

That being said I would like to get the same degree of functionality I get from my A series lenses with my M and K series. I think this should be technically possible but suspect Pentax would rather sell me a new lens. What a great selling feature this would be for a next generation Pentax camera. I suspect many Pentax users, such as you and myself, would continue to use their legacy glass but would also purchase new lenses as well. This has been true in my case. I already have the DA* 16~50 and DA 70/4 limited in addition to my legacy glass. I’m considering the DA* 300/4 and DA*50-135. AF is a compelling feature and much more convenient.

I'm not as sold on AF as some. Because it was still under warranty I had my 50-135 repaired when the SDM failed, but if it fails again, I'll just use it as a manual focus lens. The optics are just too good to let it go because I have to focus myself.

Returning to the original post, back to basics, I doubt there would be much of a market for a simple manual focus A type digital camera. This is a little too basic to have any marketing legs. A camera which permitted us to have A type metering with legacy K, M and screwmount lenses which also features AF just might.

I don't think the market share would be there. It would end up much more expensive than the long run bodies. Personally, I would not pay more for a camera that was as specified in the original post. If I want MF, I just turn the switch, and I do turn it quite often. I also use manual exposure often enough that my preferred settings are on the USER on the mode dial.

I do think that Pentax could differentiate themselves from the pack in a marketing manner by going green and playing up this aspect of their products more. Let Canon and Nikon be the bad boys who abuse their customers by forcing them to but new lenses all the time and plug the landfill with their obsolete refuse. I know this will never happen but a digital LX with AF, which permitted the maximum amount of functionality with legacy glass, is something I would like to see. Glasbak’s digital LX above is on the right track but it would have to have AF as well.


Tom G

+1 on Pentax playing up this aspect in their advertising. It would be something that would make Pentax stand out from the rest of the marketing crowd who introduce new and exotic features every year, just because ...

[noahpurdy]

I would bite if it was the following:

1. Full-frame.
2. An LX styled body.
3. Leica like build quality.

That said it would still have to be regelated to a secondary system for me because I absolutely need AF for half of my paid jobs (Event coverage).

But then again if that's what you want why not just buy a Leica?