[Yassarian]

Wait you want a fully manual camera with auto focus? Toughest camera ever made but weather sealing optional? Seems like what you really want is a paradox...

Anyway such a thing does exist - go buy a Nikon D810, switch it to manual mode, and don't buy a flash. Let's see, it's got a shutter, an aperture, got a top notch sensor, minimalist menu (electrical-taped over), got an on/off switch, got a central focus setting, absolutely solid, 30+mp, even have weather sealing.

You can electrical-tape all the other buttons if their presence somehow detracts you from able to take good photos...

Manufacturers try hard to cater to everyone, because it costs a lot of money to develop/test/market a product, and they want the widest audience possible for their investment. I like having a lot of options, just like most people I use probably less than 20% of all available options. However having the other options there really doesn't bother me... I have never used any of the jpg settings - but it's not like i'm screaming bloody murder that they being there is somehow a distraction to me...

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??

[normhead]

Sure, I'll go for one, I paid $157 for my SV, same functionality, same price... I'll buy two for sure.

[mrNewt]

Sure, I'll go for one, I paid $157 for my SV, same functionality, same price... I'll buy two for sure.

[Clavius]

Wait you want a fully manual camera with auto focus? Toughest camera ever made but weather sealing optional? Seems like what you really want is a paradox...

Anyway such a thing does exist - go buy a Nikon D810, switch it to manual mode, and don't buy a flash. Let's see, it's got a shutter, an aperture, got a top notch sensor, minimalist menu (electrical-taped over), got an on/off switch, got a central focus setting, absolutely solid, 30+mp, even have weather sealing.

You can electrical-tape all the other buttons if their presence somehow detracts you from able to take good photos...

Manufacturers try hard to cater to everyone, because it costs a lot of money to develop/test/market a product, and they want the widest audience possible for their investment. I like having a lot of options, just like most people I use probably less than 20% of all available options. However having the other options there really doesn't bother me... I have never used any of the jpg settings - but it's not like i'm screaming bloody murder that they being there is somehow a distraction to me...

What if a car-salesman tells you to just ducttape over the built-in navigation controls when you ask him for a car without it? Are we really this far brainwashed by the camera manufacturers? No wonder smartphones are the most popular cameras.

[Yassarian]

What if a car-salesman tells you to just ducttape over the built-in navigation controls when you ask him for a car without it? Are we really this far brainwashed by the camera manufacturers? No wonder smartphones are the most popular cameras.

You are assuming a fully-integrated piece of electronics is akin to a car with interchangeable, removable, and customizable parts. The thing is, most people do not mind having the extra options. For the 3 people who absolutely cannot stand having options and refuse to work around it (i.e., just ignore them) - cameras *are* available, but they will be expensive because the manufacturer somehow has to make money back off of the custom camera that appeals to a very limited set of audiences. e.g., Nikon Df. (of course the camera is expensive for some other marketing reason as well, but any time you do a new camera design you incur lots of costs that you want to recoup in sales, and if the projected sales is very low due to limited appeal, then the price will be higher even if the feature list is not that many).

After all, most of this stuff is just a firmware upgrade away, so it doesn't really "cost" much for the maker to add more features, if adding these 20 features will just appeal to 3% more people, it probably still a worthwhile effort. *REMOVING* features, on the other hand, holds far less appeal. So, manufactures don't do it.

[normhead]

What if a car-salesman tells you to just ducttape over the built-in navigation controls when you ask him for a car without it? Are we really this far brainwashed by the camera manufacturers? No wonder smartphones are the most popular cameras.

I think smartphones might be the most popular cameras because they are the most portable, they have incredible depth of field, and they fit in your pocket (back to #1). Despite the fact that forum FF users go on and on about narrow DoF, the vast majority of users don't give two hoots for it, as witnessed by their choice of camera.

What sells the most cameras?
Multi function - it still does useful things when you're not using it as a camera.
Fits in your pocket - preferably with no bulge. We didn't pay for skinny jeans so you could see the camera.
Small sensor... (no need to focus).
Takes good selfies...

Who these DSLR people think they are I have no idea, but using the most popular gear isn't part of the plan.

[Clavius]

You are assuming a fully-integrated piece of electronics is akin to a car with interchangeable, removable, and customizable parts.

Yes I do. And I do that because also fully integrated pieces of electronics vary in price based on their features. Smartphones get cheaper when they have less features and more expensive when they have more. Why is that not possible in camera-land? (Of course it is possible, but they sure do like you to believe it's not.)

The thing is, most people do not mind having the extra options.

I didn't want navigation in my car because the ridiculous premium would move it beyond my budget. Moreover, I've got better navigation on my smartphone for free. Why pay to have everything double?

For the 3 people who absolutely cannot stand having options and refuse to work around it (i.e., just ignore them) - cameras *are* available, but they will be expensive because the manufacturer somehow has to make money back off of the custom camera that appeals to a very limited set of audiences. e.g., Nikon Df. (of course the camera is expensive for some other marketing reason as well, but any time you do a new camera design you incur lots of costs that you want to recoup in sales, and if the projected sales is very low due to limited appeal, then the price will be higher even if the feature list is not that many).

After all, most of this stuff is just a firmware upgrade away, so it doesn't really "cost" much for the maker to add more features, if adding these 20 features will just appeal to 3% more people, it probably still a worthwhile effort. *REMOVING* features, on the other hand, holds far less appeal. So, manufactures don't do it.

But why does that only happen with cameras? Smartphones get cheaper when they have less features... (Because there are no Chinese camera brands to shake the current kartels yet.)

I think it DOES have an appeal to manufacturers. Without certain features cameras can be made smaller and/or cheaper. That does limit itself to hardware features though. It could enable manufacturers to sell to more people for who those cameras would normally be out of reach.

[mrNewt]

Yes I do. And I do that because also fully integrated pieces of electronics vary in price based on their features. Smartphones get cheaper when they have less features and more expensive when they have more. Why is that not possible in camera-land? (Of course it is possible, but they sure do like you to believe it's not.)



I didn't want navigation in my car because the ridiculous premium would move it beyond my budget. Moreover, I've got better navigation on my smartphone for free. Why pay to have everything double?




But why does that only happen with cameras? Smartphones get cheaper when they have less features... (Because there are no Chinese camera brands to shake the current kartels yet.)

I think it DOES have an appeal to manufacturers. Without certain features cameras can be made smaller and/or cheaper. That does limit itself to hardware features though. It could enable manufacturers to sell to more people for who those cameras would normally be out of reach.

Of course they could really have cameras with different trim options as we have for the cars but...

Problem is costs I think... is not financial feasible for a camera manufacturer to have different trims of the same camera (and maintain them based on their options) when that camera specifically doesn't sell very well to begin with or costs are already low (not to forget that cameras are loosing their values very fast).
Cameras can be considered as a nice thing to have but not essential like a car. And people will rather save money by buying a car with a basic trim rather than buy a camera (unless Photography is what brings money in your house).

It might make sense to have different trim levels for cameras when they reach in prices above $10000k, where professionals are depended on them and they will like to have a camera built and dedicated to their specific type of photography/videography.

Cameras like K-3, A7 and so on, are not worth to have in different trims because the company will loose money trying to provide all those different trims. Is better to offer 1 trim level with everything they can put on and let the user use what they want and customize it to their needs.

[eyeswideshut]

Of course they could really have cameras with different trim options as we have for the cars but...

Problem is costs I think... is not financial feasible for a camera manufacturer to have different trims of the same camera (and maintain them based on their options) when that camera specifically doesn't sell very well to begin with or costs are already low (not to forget that cameras are loosing their values very fast).
Cameras can be considered as a nice thing to have but not essential like a car. And people will rather save money by buying a car with a basic trim rather than buy a camera (unless Photography is what brings money in your house).

It might make sense to have different trim levels for cameras when they reach in prices above $10000k, where professionals are depended on them and they will like to have a camera built and dedicated to their specific type of photography/videography.

Cameras like K-3, A7 and so on, are not worth to have in different trims because the company will loose money trying to provide all those different trims. Is better to offer 1 trim level with everything they can put on and let the user use what they want and customize it to their needs.

You know, I read this sort of thing again and again but it just ain't true. Right now Panasonic is releasing the GF7 and people scratch their heads trying to devine the differences between the GM1, GM5, GF7 and I may forget a model or two. Panasonic is taking a basic mount/sensor combination and squeezes it until even the last person on earth will find his el dorado within m43.

And of course those are not the $10k cameras you speak of.

[mrNewt]

You know, I read this sort of thing again and again but it just ain't true. Right now Panasonic is releasing the GF7 and people scratch their heads trying to devine the differences between the GM1, GM5, GF7 and I may forget a model or two. Panasonic is taking a basic mount/sensor combination and squeezes it until even the last person on earth will find his el dorado within m43.

And of course those are not the $10k cameras you speak of.

Were they all released in the same day and sold as one camera with upgrades to it? I kind of doubt that...
They are different models, not different trims of the same model. If anything, keeping the same car example... one is a Civic released in 2006... the other one is still a Civic released in 2010... and so on.

Now if they are the same and they have the same options with no actual improvement to them, that is completely different story. That's the camera manufacturer trying to sell you the same old goose but with a different color. In the end is still the same camera with no trim level for it.

[eyeswideshut]

Were they all released in the same day and sold as one camera with upgrades to it? I kind of doubt that...
They are different models, not different trims of the same model. If anything, keeping the same car example... one is a Civic released in 2006... the other one is still a Civic released in 2010... and so on.

Now if they are the same and they have the same options with no actual improvement to them, that is completely different story. That's the camera manufacturer trying to sell you the same old goose but with a different color. In the end is still the same camera with no trim level for it.

I didn't know that release of all models on the same day was a requirement. But my point stands - they are all basically the same cameras with a bell added here and a whistle added there.
In the context of this discussion it meansd that a manufacturer may very well decide to offer a back to basics model piggy backing on the technology used in the more full featured versions.
After all we are talking about Pentax, makers of the redoubtable K1000 - a camera not know for the fullness of it's feature set ;-)

[mrNewt]

I think you are confusing trim levels on a model with different year models...

Trim levels are what you would call different options/upgrades for a certain model of a specific year. So yes, it has to be the same model, not a different one from a different year.

Currently, as far as I know no camera manufacturer offers trim levels for any of their camera - same model camera, released in a specific x year.
Upgrades done every year or every other year is not a trim level... is a different model of the same camera with some upgrades to it.

[johnmflores]

I didn't know that release of all models on the same day was a requirement. But my point stands - they are all basically the same cameras with a bell added here and a whistle added there.
In the context of this discussion it meansd that a manufacturer may very well decide to offer a back to basics model piggy backing on the technology used in the more full featured versions.
After all we are talking about Pentax, makers of the redoubtable K1000 - a camera not know for the fullness of it's feature set ;-)

How close does the Nikon DF get?

[bdery]

What if a car-salesman tells you to just ducttape over the built-in navigation controls when you ask him for a car without it? Are we really this far brainwashed by the camera manufacturers? No wonder smartphones are the most popular cameras.

You're mixing a lot of stuff together in these sentences.

Nobody is brainwashed that I know of.

Car navigation units are options that probably cost more than a good DSLR, and car volumes are much larger than DSLR volumes, I'm sure. So it makes sense to have more options.

smartphones are popular because they're always with you. They are tools to take pictures, not make pictures. And I fail to see why it's relevant to your wishes. You seem to want a camera with less features at a lower price. Why would a camera manufacturer design such a camera?

I think it DOES have an appeal to manufacturers. Without certain features cameras can be made smaller and/or cheaper.

That is already being made. The K-50 has less features than the K-3 for instance. But I'm pretty darn sure that camera companies are not, as a whole, run by clueless fools who don't understand their market. What you are wishing for is amazingly marginal by all accounts, otherwise it wuold exist.

[Yassarian]

Yes I do. And I do that because also fully integrated pieces of electronics vary in price based on their features. Smartphones get cheaper when they have less features and more expensive when they have more. Why is that not possible in camera-land? (Of course it is possible, but they sure do like you to believe it's not.)

Of course it is possible, what you may not realize is that adding a feature to a camera is more or less a firmware update, so the cost is *minimal* as opposed a low-end vs. high-end cell phone (*EVERYTHING* different from processor to screen to feature set), or adding a new trim to a car (lots of hardware difference). So the question becomes, lets say you can sell this camera that does this 100 things for $1000, but lets say you want to *deactivate* these 80 things, and only sell this camera that can do 20 things - how much do you think you can sell this camera for?

Well, since it's just a firmware change to deactivate these things, you'd still sell this camera for about $1000 because everything else is more or less fixed cost. OK maybe you can sell it for a *little* bit less because you only need 3 guys for customer support vs. 10 guys... But the hardware itself isn't very different, all your fixed costs are still the same, you are basically selling a crippled camera for... not much less.

Maybe you'd want that, but I'm sure most people do not, that's why camera makers do not make such cameras - niche not large enough.