[Unsane]

You are correct, I think, but in my view, it's all about nostalgia. You don't see any 20 year olds asking for the caveman camera I think some people feel that if only the camera felt like their old Spotmatic did, photography would be fun again! The sad thing is, if they ever got the camera just the way they want, I'll be willing to bet that it still wouldn't make them better photographers...

As a 22 year old male I have to admit that my favourite camera is my MX; I've always preferred simple things to over complicated things and this is definitly the case in my choice of camera as well. The fact that the MX is almost entirely mechanical is a huge bonus for me, as electronics never seem to last as well as clockwork. In the end, it all stems down to image quality and if I can get a beautiful photograph without the camera deciding everything for me then I'm happy.

There are improvements that digital has brought that I like; LCD's, Histograms and Shake Reduction are all exteremely useful, but I've never had use for multi-segment AF, Scene Modes, or anything WiFi or internet related (honestly, who wants WiFi and GPS in a camera? My phone doesn't have either and I constantly have to tell people that I actually want it that way and it's not just 'cos I'm a tight git who doesn't want to spend more than a tenner on a phone).

I think features are definitely a case of each to their own, it would just be nice if you could have a stripped down, bare bones kind of digital camera.

[philbaum]

There's no species on this planet that compares to humans and the diversity/complexity of the tools they develop. Its more than an intellectual development of tools for an end use - but it also becomes an emotional connection (and in many cases an art form).

So it is with cameras.

Automatic features, too often, have had the detrimental effect of separating the photographer from precise control of the process, thus contributing to less understanding of the process and sub-optimized photos. Such is the case with AF, automatic exposure controls, and automated flash. Often times a great boon, but also responsible for many crappy results.

What Canon, Nikon and Pentax have missed about the early mirrorless movement, is smaller, lighter tools with superb manual focus tools - i.e. magnified focus assist and focus peaking. These features have resonated with all too many photographers. The early Sony Nex was a really basic small tool, but with a relatively large sensor for its size - an aps sensor. Over time, the Nex has morphed to include many of the useful refinements in DSLRs such as improved autofocus, Viewfinders, and slowly - improved menus ergonomics.

Pentax's finest qualities have been products with a traditional connection to the photographer,e.g. less use of automated in-camera NR cooked into RAW, really good water resistance for photographers who take their cameras into primitive areas. Pentax needs to continually emphasize the photographer's control of the processes - and IMO, that means eventual incorporation of mirrorless attributes.

[Michael Barker]

I would not be surprised if there's a bunch of sensors out there that were thrown away in favour of a respin because of a bug in one feature or another that we do not use.

With the advent of 3D printing, economy of scale is shrinking. It is no longer necessary to make 1000 of something in order to make it for a reasonable price. With the proliferation of connected devices, finding out which features users actually use is becoming possible on a grand scale. With e-commerce, it's possible to find markets for arbitrary things. Put those together and you have the possibility for niche products that are economical because the customers see the entire product as being 100% valuable, and the product can be manufactured close to the market. Less money could be spent trying to convince potential customers to desire things they don't need, and finding customers at random for things that were easy to design. More money could be spent understanding customers' needs.

Now is the time for people to speak up and say what they really want.

Sure, I don't think it's reasonable to expect any maker will match what I want 100%, but if enough of us express what we want, someone may see a business case for something that hits most of the important points. If you think the population of this forum is too small, then go out and find this forum some more members! One way to do that might be to create an intersecting space that is common to forums that are otherwise about different vendors. I wonder if for example Nikonforums.com could be made to have areas in common with this forum.

[gord lucas]

I've done all of that stuff recommended since the beginning - camera on M, everything disabled, never use the pop-up flash, central AF point only . . . . did that on my K100D, my Kx, my K10D, my Nikon D50, and my Canon Rebel T3i . . . . and will do it with my K3 when I get it.

Just seems so silly to have to buy all that crappola when a bare bones will do. I will, however, have to look into that Leica! Never had one!

I have lots of film cameras from sub-miniature to 4x5, and use them still regularly for B&W. As a matter of fact, here's a shot I took last month with a Konica Autoreflex, 50mm f3.5 Hexanon macro, 1/125th at f5.6, Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:25: "Lumber Kiln, River Road, Prince George."




I don't do digital conversions - B&W is on film, period. And I print these, and then scan the prints. The above is a 5x7 print on Arista Edu Grade 3, ferrotyped. And it looks great in real life. I use my DSLRs for color only. Yeah, I've got those converter programs, blah blah blah.

I just love the smell of Dektol in the morning!!!

[eyeswideshut]

You are correct, I think, but in my view, it's all about nostalgia. You don't see any 20 year olds asking for the caveman camera I think some people feel that if only the camera felt like their old Spotmatic did, photography would be fun again! The sad thing is, if they ever got the camera just the way they want, I'll be willing to bet that it still wouldn't make them better photographers...

You actually believe that? Just a nostalgic stroll down memory lane? A vain attempt to recapture youth? One last ditch effort to try and become better photographers? Boy, quite a bit of arrogance and condescension in that one sentence.

But let me try to explain it to you, it is very simple really:

Some photographers prefer to use 1) manual focus prime lenses on 2) a SLR at least some of the time. For those other times we all have other cameras, with bells and whistles and customizable buttons galore.

Now, like everyone else here who constantly demands more and better of (take your pick) dr/iso/mp/frame rates/af accuracy and whatnot, we too would like to be able to pursue our passion with the optimal tool. So what kind of camera would fit that bill?

Would it be APS-C? No. The viewfinder will be to small
Would it feature auto focus? Only if it is compatible with an OVF of 100% coverage an full 1x magnification like the MX/ME/LX in the past.
Would it have the current focusing screens? No. Bright prime lenses call for micro/split prism finders.
Would it need to be as large as current DSLRs? No. Form follows function and a stripped DSLR can be slimmer and more like the classic SLRs of the past - just the essential dedicated buttons and dials.

Ultimately the viewfinder is the crux. Since no DSLR currently has it, including Nikon's and Canon's top of the line models, I conclude that AF, dim zooms and optimal OVF are incomptible. Something has got to give. Personally I am not interested in yet another FF DSLR with a mediocre finder and good everything else.

Now what is so outlandish about this idea that you just cannot understand? Perhaps you are autofocus only. Perhaps you prefer zooms over primes. Perhaps, perhaps. But surely you can understand that others have preferences different from yours. So maybe now you see that it is not nostalgia, vanity or deceit that regularly leads some members here to say "I wish Pentax would make...the caveman cam"

As for the finer points of how such a camera should be made and what features it should comprise, people will naturally differ and some here have used that as evidence to suggest that such a camera cannot be made. I would point out, however, that in the Pentax FF discussions the 'gimme features or gimme death' crowd cannot even agree on DSLR or Mirrorless, K mount or New mount! Shall we take that as evidence that a full format Pentax camera can/will never be made ?

Always remember, the cavemancam would be ONE camera from Pentax but not the ONLY one. So I hope you will continue to find in Pentax what you are looking for.

Cheers

[cfraz]

You're right... However, a camera does get cheaper , and possibly smaller, when certain features are not included. The price (and size) difference between DSLRs and MILCS with the same sensors already shows that replacing a mirror, mirror mechanism, focussing screen, prism, VF optics, and all the manual human labour that goes into calibrating that all, and replacing it with an electronic viewfinder, that doesn't even need calibrating , results in much cheaper and smaller cameras. Whilst delivering the same, some say more, image quality.

One would certainly think so. But from what I see, MILCs are priced between somewhat higher to a whole lot higher than DSLRs with roughly similar capabilities.

Maybe a decent EVF is still quite pricey and the long-sunk development costs of DSLR mechanical and optical hardware drives the premium for MILCs.

[ChristianRock]

You actually believe that? Just a nostalgic stroll down memory lane?

Hey, it's just an opinion. If the hat doesn't fit, don't wear it, as we say in Brazil

A vain attempt to recapture youth?

You said that, not me.

One last ditch effort to try and become better photographers?

I didn't say that at all.

Boy, quite a bit of arrogance and condescension in that one sentence.Cheers

No, like I said, just an observation.

What is amusing to me is that you call me arrogant and condescendent, then go on to design a very, very, VERY specific camera that you want - it has to have 1x magnification/100% coverage (therefore no AF), it needs to have the type of viewfinder that you want, it needs to be small, it needs to be full frame, it needs this and that and so on. Oh and apparently it needs to be made by Pentax, too...

[kadajawi]

As for why WiFi and why GPS:
I like to geotag my photos, especially when traveling. Where have I taken which photo? Where have I been? I quite like to have a map with photos etc. Some will like that, others won't of course. Star tracking that was possible with the optional GPS unit would work too of course.

WiFi has several uses. From using it for sending the photos to your computer or perhaps to your editor, to synchronizing the photos at home automatically with your computer, to some very sophisticated tethering possibilities or using the phone as an external screen.

@gord lucas: The problem is that leaving those features away may have saved money in the 80s, but now most are basically free. Leaving them away may even cost more.

---------- Post added 22-01-15 at 23:38 ----------

@eyeswideshut: I can totally understand your interest in a bright MF viewfinder, and I'd like that too. I miss the one on my FM2.

The problem is people still want AF... What I can imagine is several options.

Imagine the switchable translucent mirror together with a sensor with on sensor PDAF sensors. That way AF is still possible, while they can also do a really bright viewfinder. A different focusing screen however is no problem.

Apart from that which omissions would lead to a smaller camera? If it has to have a mirror, the LCD makes a difference, and SR. Everything else no.

You can however make mirrorless cameras quite thin, and EVFs can be good for MF. It won't be a very traditional camera though...

[eyeswideshut]

Hey, it's just an opinion. If the hat doesn't fit, don't wear it, as we say in Brazil



You said that, not me.



I didn't say that at all.



No, like I said, just an observation.

What is amusing to me is that you call me arrogant and condescendent, then go on to design a very, very, VERY specific camera that you want - it has to have 1x magnification/100% coverage (therefore no AF), it needs to have the type of viewfinder that you want, it needs to be small, it needs to be full frame, it needs this and that and so on. Oh and apparently it needs to be made by Pentax, too...

If you reread your post you will find everything I pointed out was stated and/or implied by you. If you have trouble with your text I'll gladly assist with the exegesis.

But you seem not to have read beyond the opener or else why would you say that I get "very, very, VERY specific"? I explained to you why some find a Full Format DSLR with a large finder and split/micro prism useful even if that entails ditching autofocus. Truly, that is not very specific at all. Nothing arrogant about that either - unless you consider opinions other than your own in some measure arrogant. I should hope not. Finally, I never addressed the question why such a camera is not made, hence never wondered about it.

---------- Post added 23-01-15 at 00:11 ----------

As for why WiFi and why GPS:
I like to geotag my photos, especially when traveling. Where have I taken which photo? Where have I been? I quite like to have a map with photos etc. Some will like that, others won't of course. Star tracking that was possible with the optional GPS unit would work too of course.

WiFi has several uses. From using it for sending the photos to your computer or perhaps to your editor, to synchronizing the photos at home automatically with your computer, to some very sophisticated tethering possibilities or using the phone as an external screen.

@gord lucas: The problem is that leaving those features away may have saved money in the 80s, but now most are basically free. Leaving them away may even cost more.

---------- Post added 22-01-15 at 23:38 ----------

@eyeswideshut: I can totally understand your interest in a bright MF viewfinder, and I'd like that too. I miss the one on my FM2.

The problem is people still want AF... What I can imagine is several options.

Imagine the switchable translucent mirror together with a sensor with on sensor PDAF sensors. That way AF is still possible, while they can also do a really bright viewfinder. A different focusing screen however is no problem.

Apart from that which omissions would lead to a smaller camera? If it has to have a mirror, the LCD makes a difference, and SR. Everything else no.

You can however make mirrorless cameras quite thin, and EVFs can be good for MF. It won't be a very traditional camera though...

Agreed, people want AF (me too much of the time!) Fortunately 99.99% of all cameras feature that. A camera designed for the best MF experience would not and could not appeal to all. It is a niche product and would only be conceivable once Pentax had developed their basic ff uber K3 platform. The camera I outlined would piggy back on that "chassis"

The transluscent mirror idea (switchable or not) with on sensor pdaf/cdaf we have discussed in the past and if implemented with an interchangeable viewfinder might make for a very compelling product indeed.

Sizewise you forget the battery. Without the need to drive autofocus, without an evf and no (enabled) live view or even lcd (I think someone suggested wifi to use the smartphone?) you get to use a fairly small sized battery. Enable live view (and for you, video of course... ;-) and you'll have to live with shorter battery life. The form factor I would like to see is something like the Sony A7 sans grip plus mirror box. A grip could be optional.

[mohb]

even if that entails ditching autofocus. Truly, that is not very specific at all.

Surely ditching autofocus is very specific even if you dress it up as a by product of getting a brighter view finder.
PS when was the last non auto focus SLR made?

[cfraz]

Currently I find these prices:
A7R - €1800,-
D810 - €3199,-
(It would be more fair to compare it to the D800 instead, but that's discontinued.)

So, two cameras with the same sensors. One definitely a lot cheaper.

I should have read to the end of the thread before responding to your prior post, I see. I wouldn't have guessed the A7R and D810 would be in the same class regardless of sensor. Attributes I value in a camera are way different than what you value, and that's ok because that's what people are like.

And it is because of dissimilar preferences that threads like this one keep coming up. I think some are overlooking the influence of fixed cost and sales volume factors in the "why doesn't someone build a reduced feature-set lower cost camera" question.

[eyeswideshut]

Surely ditching autofocus is very specific even if you dress it up as a by product of getting a brighter view finder.
PS when was the last non auto focus SLR made?

I'm not sure I get your point. The choice between AF and large OVF is too specific? How so?

[kadajawi]

Surely ditching autofocus is very specific even if you dress it up as a by product of getting a brighter view finder.
PS when was the last non auto focus SLR made?

The Nikon FM2 was made until the 00s IIRC.

Functions that aren't used shouldn't consume battery...

[peterjcb]

What I want in a Pentax (or any other) flagship camera. A fully manual, match-needle DSLR of minimum 30MP, no modes, no flash, no frills - just a shutter, aperture, top-notch sensor, minimalist menu, on/off switch autofocus with only a central focussing dot, absolutely solid, a DSLR version of a Topcon RE Super or an Alpa. Don't care if it's a Cmos or full sensor. Just the most basic, beautiful, and toughest camera ever made. Weather sealing would be the icing on the cake.

Dream on, Gord, dream on.

Does ANYONE else out there even sympathize, or am I alone??

It looks like you want a K-3 ...you know that you don't need to use all the bells & whistles on it. It does meet quite a few of your requirements.

I recently wanted to get back to basics myself and picked up a Pentax K1000 35mm film camera body. It takes K mount lenses which was a big plus because I didn't need to buy any lenses.
It teaches you to think about taking photos as you only have 24 or 36 exposures on the roll and it will cost you money every time you click the shutter.
It's also kind of cool to take it out for the day and be the only one in the crowd using a film camera.....

[Michael Barker]

Interesting point that in many cases mirrorless cameras in some ways do manual focus better than DSLRs. But there's probably a lot of crossover between the group who prefer manual focus and the group who prefer an optical viewfinder.

I'm one of those. Photography for me is partly an experience that I enjoy, and partly a way to pursue self expression and artistic creation. The optical viewfinder helps with the former, and the former helps with the latter. Manual focus directly pertains to both.

If I have to switch from looking at the world around me to looking at a tiny TV screen showing a camera's automatic interpretation of what's around me, I can feel that as a psychological hiccup. So far, I haven't found an electronic finder that matches my perception in as satisfying a way as the optical finders do, so with an OVF, the experience is more smooth.

The process of focusing is also more smooth with manual. You frame the photo absolutely precisely by aiming the camera. Then you choose the plane of focus (autofocus systems have no such concept in their interface). You may choose the plane of focus based on any criteria you wish; you don't have to pick one of 8 or 15 focus points, or recompose.

When we photograph, part of us is mentally travelling through the photo. I would rather travel smoothly, through a natural looking space, than jumping around by the AF system's algorithm in a white-balanced, contrast adjusted video. Each to his own! It's true that this can be the less stimulating route, and not always the most efficient route to best results, but to me the preference is clear.

I did use mirrorless for a while, when I decided to prioritize the size of the camera and lens combo very highly (I had an NX200 with 30mm f/2). Later, I decided that reliability and the creative experience were more important, and switched back to Pentax.