Poll - Basic but high end ME or LX-D Limited

Kiss · 02-15-2008, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by stewart_photo

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.

Sadly, that is also what i think will happen. Sadly for me, but not for you. About the market i do not agree, i think the market is a lot bigger than the niche the M8 lives in, but still only a niche of the total.

But if it anyway surfaces something like it, i also agree that it probably wont be Pentax making it since they are competing in the same mainstream with Nikon and Canon. Maybe some Russian or Chinese maker like Zenit, Phenix or Seagull will do it, probably using the K-mount. But on the other hand, Kenko (also Hoya owned) did announce a new 35mm camera, made in China by Phenix..

I would also be very happy, and fully satisfied with something like the e-film (that was not cheap either), but i do not think that will happen due to bought up patents.

Mike Cash · 02-15-2008, 06:34 AM

I just don't understand the thinking behind specifying all sorts of modern developments/embellishments and then limiting to aperture-priority on the "budget" model. Just to make it resemble the ME? Why not go ahead and put other modes in while you're at it?

Seriously, though, I would love to see a modern functional equivalent of some of those cameras in digital versions. Something simple and minimal....and correspondingly priced.

**Lowell Goudge** · 02-15-2008, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

I just don't understand the thinking behind specifying all sorts of modern developments/embellishments and then limiting to aperture-priority on the "budget" model. Just to make it resemble the ME? Why not go ahead and put other modes in while you're at it?

Seriously, though, I would love to see a modern functional equivalent of some of those cameras in digital versions. Something simple and minimal....and correspondingly priced.

Mike

one of the first sensible comments I have seen.

Note, to put a DSLR together requires a processor or more, I think even my PZ-1 had 4 of them.

Once you go to the trouble of putting an image processor, a focusing processor, and then the metering and general camera control, all the additional modes cost very little to add.

I would be in full favor of stepping back a notch, having full K mount compatibility, and metering off the sensor, during exposure, options for TTL and P-TTL flash, but why give up the modes that are useful, such as Tv, Av, Sv, User, full program, and manual.

On the K10D all the modes are really good, and with the exception that it would be nice to have the option for independant ISO and WB in each mode, as opposed the present situation where except for user, you have the same WB adjustment on all modes.

The point is, the stripped down mode used to be for entry level, i.e. manual metering only, etc...

NoOw the entry level is aimed at a different market, those who want to use the camera without knowing fully what they are doing, so you have landscape mode, action mode etc... and high end cameras delete these modes because they assume the purchaser knows what he is doing.

Additionally, the high end user is more likely to want faster frame rates longer life shutter, etc. therefore a really good pro model (LX-D perhaps) might be a go, but it would not be a digital version of the LX, but an entirely new camera with the new features of other pro models and the price set accordingly.

Kiss · 02-16-2008, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

Seriously, though, I would love to see a modern functional equivalent of some of those cameras in digital versions. Something simple and minimal....and correspondingly priced.

Of course, no one wants to pay more than neccesary. That goes for me too, if there was a camera like a digital ME or Chinon CE-4 or whatever camera from that time. It does not hurt to pay less if it is possible.

But since it is a niche we are talking about, even a camera that cannot be bought for any price today. I chose the price accordingly. There is a reason to why a Leica M8 goes for 5K, and people are still buying it. I am also convinced that the market for a "M8 but SLR" is a lot bigger, even if the price is the same as the M8 price.

View Poll Results: Would you consider to buy the described camera in the post?
I would consider the ME-D	10	22.73%
I would consider the LX-D	11	25.00%
Like it but price to high	24	54.55%
No i want full auto camera	9	20.45%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Poll - $2500 low end FF or Hi-spec APS-C? - Please read initial post before voting	Richard Day	Pentax News and Rumors	126	02-15-2010 03:08 PM
A higher high-end from Pentax? Please?	Dubious Drewski	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	11-05-2009 01:11 PM
Powerful High-end color correction software	wildman	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	05-22-2009 08:10 AM
high end raw converters	Gooshin	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	03-01-2008 08:59 AM
High end commercial print source	SCGushue	Photographic Technique	6	03-15-2007 09:26 AM

02-15-2008, 03:00 AM	#31
Kiss Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 36 Original Poster	Originally posted by stewart_photo 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. Sadly, that is also what i think will happen. Sadly for me, but not for you. About the market i do not agree, i think the market is a lot bigger than the niche the M8 lives in, but still only a niche of the total. But if it anyway surfaces something like it, i also agree that it probably wont be Pentax making it since they are competing in the same mainstream with Nikon and Canon. Maybe some Russian or Chinese maker like Zenit, Phenix or Seagull will do it, probably using the K-mount. But on the other hand, Kenko (also Hoya owned) did announce a new 35mm camera, made in China by Phenix.. I would also be very happy, and fully satisfied with something like the e-film (that was not cheap either), but i do not think that will happen due to bought up patents.

02-15-2008, 06:34 AM	#32
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	I just don't understand the thinking behind specifying all sorts of modern developments/embellishments and then limiting to aperture-priority on the "budget" model. Just to make it resemble the ME? Why not go ahead and put other modes in while you're at it? Seriously, though, I would love to see a modern functional equivalent of some of those cameras in digital versions. Something simple and minimal....and correspondingly priced.

02-15-2008, 06:59 AM	#33
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by Mike Cash I just don't understand the thinking behind specifying all sorts of modern developments/embellishments and then limiting to aperture-priority on the "budget" model. Just to make it resemble the ME? Why not go ahead and put other modes in while you're at it? Seriously, though, I would love to see a modern functional equivalent of some of those cameras in digital versions. Something simple and minimal....and correspondingly priced. Mike one of the first sensible comments I have seen. Note, to put a DSLR together requires a processor or more, I think even my PZ-1 had 4 of them. Once you go to the trouble of putting an image processor, a focusing processor, and then the metering and general camera control, all the additional modes cost very little to add. I would be in full favor of stepping back a notch, having full K mount compatibility, and metering off the sensor, during exposure, options for TTL and P-TTL flash, but why give up the modes that are useful, such as Tv, Av, Sv, User, full program, and manual. On the K10D all the modes are really good, and with the exception that it would be nice to have the option for independant ISO and WB in each mode, as opposed the present situation where except for user, you have the same WB adjustment on all modes. The point is, the stripped down mode used to be for entry level, i.e. manual metering only, etc... NoOw the entry level is aimed at a different market, those who want to use the camera without knowing fully what they are doing, so you have landscape mode, action mode etc... and high end cameras delete these modes because they assume the purchaser knows what he is doing. Additionally, the high end user is more likely to want faster frame rates longer life shutter, etc. therefore a really good pro model (LX-D perhaps) might be a go, but it would not be a digital version of the LX, but an entirely new camera with the new features of other pro models and the price set accordingly.

02-16-2008, 11:06 AM	#34
Kiss Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 36 Original Poster	Originally posted by Mike Cash Seriously, though, I would love to see a modern functional equivalent of some of those cameras in digital versions. Something simple and minimal....and correspondingly priced. Of course, no one wants to pay more than neccesary. That goes for me too, if there was a camera like a digital ME or Chinon CE-4 or whatever camera from that time. It does not hurt to pay less if it is possible. But since it is a niche we are talking about, even a camera that cannot be bought for any price today. I chose the price accordingly. There is a reason to why a Leica M8 goes for 5K, and people are still buying it. I am also convinced that the market for a "M8 but SLR" is a lot bigger, even if the price is the same as the M8 price.