[Mike Cash]

I have two medium format cameras which fit in my pocket, give fantastic quality and detail, and cost me somewhere around 70~80 bucks each. Why on earth would I want to pay $3800 for something like you propose?

Strip it down a bit more and make it essentially a K1000 or Spotmatic F with a digital back and you can sell me one. But it ought run no more than $300~400. Much of what you suggest for specs I wouldn't care to have.

What's the difference between what you suggest and the current (and coming soon) offerings from Pentax which justifies a price higher than Scandinavian taxes?

[stewart_photo]

Of 32 voters, only 9 (28%) did not like the concept, that means support from 23 (72%) if we disregard the price.

A majority, ... (snip)....

Results from a poll nicely worded to avoid the real questions. Obviously, I would consider any camera, just as I suspect most others would. But the real questions are whether anyone here (most owners of comparatively inexpensive cameras) would actually, honestly, buy either of the cameras mentioned.

After all, the more expensive LX is basically a K10D made of metal, selling at nearly eight times the price, with the rear screen separated and live-view added, and auto-focus, the flash, program modes (shutter priority, etc), and the flexibility provided by menus, removed.

Of course, asking the real questions might not have garnished the answers you obviously desire.

stewart

[Lowell Goudge]

Results from a poll nicely worded to avoid the real questions. ..........
Of course, asking the real questions might not have garnished the answers you obviously desire.

stewart

Isn't that the purpose of a poll, to generate something to give you the answer you want even though it is false.

I quote Williams and Holland's Law

"if enough data is collected, anything may be proven by statistical methods"

[ccallana]

Why not just make a sensor module in the shape of a 35mm film canister with the sensor hanging out behind the shutter that would just fit inside one of these old cameras? Obviously there would be no programablity, just capture. Seems like then you could have all the controls you want with the body you already have

[Lowell Goudge]

Why not just make a sensor module in the shape of a 35mm film canister with the sensor hanging out behind the shutter that would just fit inside one of these old cameras? Obviously there would be no programablity, just capture. Seems like then you could have all the controls you want with the body you already have

There used to be adds for something like this, but it never became commercial.

If it did, I would love one for my KX, my ricoh XR-2s, but mostly for my PZ-1

Ideally, what you would get would be a replacement back, that fit in place, and attached through the tripod socket.

For the PZ-1 it would add all the buttons and connections, and work just like a DSLR.

For the XR-2S it would connect to the contacts on the bottom, for shutter release etc, and power the electronics when metering is powered, and trigger the shutter when pressed all the way.

For the KX where nothing is available, it would essentually be be powered full time, and save the image when you wind the shutter, using a mechanical interlock.

I would expect that there would be a ton of noise due to the powered time.

[Kiss]

Of course, asking the real questions might not have garnished the answers you obviously desire.

The questions where made as short as possible, the point is to read the post where it is explained in detail and then answer the poll. The camera described is something like a digital version of the SLR cameras from late seveties. Not a cheapo plastic one, but really high quality insted, ment to be used manually with manual lenses. The same "think" behind it as a Leica M8, but SLR instead. Yes, it is niche camera, not ment for anyone or beginners. And since it is a niche, like the M8, the price will be high to be able to get profit from the small volume. I guess the same is true for the FA Limited lenses.

What i do not understand is why people get offensive by the idea and writes comments like this. What are you afraid of?

[Kiss]

Why not just make a sensor module in the shape of a 35mm film canister with the sensor hanging out behind the shutter that would just fit inside one of these old cameras? Obviously there would be no programablity, just capture. Seems like then you could have all the controls you want with the body you already have

A company named Silicon film had that idea back in 2000. They never managed to make any products until their money ran out. But they where anyway too early, sensors where too small at that time, making a terrible crop factor. I found their site at the wayback machine, a page from mars 2002 with a nice picture of ther e-film cartridge loaded in a camera:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020326103823/http://siliconfilm.com/

At that time 2000-2001 i also think their innovation posed a threat to Nikon and Canon that was well on their way developing DSLR cameras. If Silicon film had succeeded, with a reasonable crop sensor. I would not have bought my first DSLR.

[Kiss]

http://web.archive.org/web/20020326103823/http://siliconfilm.com/

BTW.
Today i think this is much more doable than it was back then. I followed most new around that e-film around 2001-2002, and as i understand they did really make some fully working prototypes. I think they had some patents too. But those patents is probably a reason why it cannot be done today, i remeber that some of the big guns bought the patens when Silicon film went bankrupt. So, maybe 2020 it can be done again, when the patents run out...

[Kiss]

What's the difference between what you suggest and the current (and coming soon) offerings from Pentax which justifies a price higher than Scandinavian taxes?

The same that justifies the even higher price of a Leica M8.

[d.bradley]

- the desire for a fully compatible M42 screw mount, which not even pentax K bodies offered in 1976 when they came out, and which is not a realistic expectation,

Why is this unrealistic? They are making $1500+ ultra high quality lenses for m42 mount...why not a body to use them? Zeiss, Voigtlander and Cosina are big players and an m42 body would mean they'd be selling more lenses.

If you consider that it is the cost of the camera that makes the pictures and not the quality, I would suggest going to CaNikon.

You can spend all you want there.

Oh come on. We're discussing a hypothetical camera here. I do NOT consider that camera cost is directly related to picture quality, nor do I appreciate the implication.

This is the first time someone has suggested to me that I leave pentax. No thanks, I don't think I'll switch systems, but perhaps I'll go find another forum.

[stewart_photo]

The questions where made as short as possible, ...(snip).... What i do not understand is why people get offensive by the idea and writes comments like this. What are you afraid of?

Since the word "buy" is shorter than "consider," the questions (would you buy...) would have been shorter. Regardless, neither offensive nor fear, just realistic - for the reasons given in my prior message, including limited feature set and high price resulting in very few buyers (why few own the esoteric Leica M8).

However, if there is any defensiveness involved, it may be due to your rejection of features many of us consider worthwhile, including auto-focus, menu options, built-in flash, program modes (shutter priority, etc), and so on. Or your attempts to define "high quality," with our cameras obviously falling short of that in your eyes. Or the elitist aspects of your message in defining a "quality" camera as one only "fully manual with manual lenses," "not aimed at beginners" "unless they really want to learn" - as in anything else is for beginners who can really only learn using a fully manual camera (the archaic nonsense so often spread by those promoting themselves as superior to others today).

But, enough said (not worth further comment). Your camera will not be built (certainly not by Pentax) simply because there is no substantial market for it. Instead, if trends remain the same, cameras in the foreseeable future will likely be even more featured ladened, not less.

stewart

[stewart_photo]

...(snip)... This is the first time someone has suggested to me that I leave pentax. ...(snip)

I don't think he made any such suggestion. He said "if you consider," then "I suggest." Since you've already said you don't consider that, there is no suggestion following which applies to you.

stewart

[KungPOW]

I think this esoteric little camera should ONLY work with limited lenses. The silver ones! The black ones look to modern and cause timeshift malfunctions.

Seriously, KISS, tell me what feature in the K10D would you consider useless? Why would you want to strip out features like the SCREEN!!!???. I have yet to find a feature on the K10D that is useless. Everytime I think I have located the "useless feature", I learn what it is for, and I am even more impressed by how well thought out the camera is. The K100D on the otherhand...it has a Scene Mode to shoot pets....Come on...useless feature. (To those that are offended that I am bashing their K100D, I am not. It is the best entry level camera on the market. It has every feature you need to learn, and to grow as a photographer. But no camera needs a pet mode!)

I you really want a trimmed down, you gotta know how to shoot, little sex machine of a camera, you need to show a little disipline when becoming a minimalist. You are close. But you need to take it further (farther?). No screen of any kind. No autofocus. No AE lock. Spot and centerweighted ok, but you only get a needle (K1000, Spotmatic style), Shoots Raw only. White balence is manual only. No hot shoe ( the original Spotmatic didn't have a hot shoe). No focus points.

But to sell, it would have to be sexy. You know, the kind on design and material combo that makes you want to steal it. Phillip Stark kind of style. You pick it up and you don't want to put it back down. I picture a raw titanium finish, no hand grip, wraped in very dark red leather. Kind of a 1930's deco style, but modern enough to make ipod rethink their style.

For controls, you get ISO dial, shutter speed dial, aperture is on lens, focus is on lens, white balence set button, shutter release and meter mode switch. It turns on when you remove the lens cap.

And I am serioius. Silver limited lenses only.

[benplaut]

Well... the RAW button is useless for people who shoot RAW anyway

[Kiss]

But to sell, it would have to be sexy. You know, the kind on design and material combo that makes you want to steal it. Phillip Stark kind of style. You pick it up and you don't want to put it back down. I picture a raw titanium finish, no hand grip, wraped in very dark red leather. Kind of a 1930's deco style, but modern enough to make ipod rethink their style.

For controls, you get ISO dial, shutter speed dial, aperture is on lens, focus is on lens, white balence set button, shutter release and meter mode switch. It turns on when you remove the lens cap.

That is quite close to what i want.

But i think it is better to have the on/off on the shutter spreed dial.