[zen3d]

Sounds like you want a Nikon Df, except made by Pentax.

[troika]

I could take or leave any video capabilities.

[wildman]

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Leonardo da Vinci (?)

[Frosty66]

An excellent idea, a digital MX ! I would definately buy one !

[photoptimist]

I could put the proposal another way:

How much of what goes into a modern dSLR is bloat and what could a great camera cost and look like without it?

If consumers buy millions of them, then it might only be a few hundred dollars like the low-end Canons or Nikons. If it's a niche camera that sells to only a few thousand enthusiasts, it's the price of a Leica.

Of course, if you want simple, but well-made (metal instead of plastic, weather seals), then it's more expensive.

Features like GPS, HDR, bracketing modes, etc. really don't add much cost. And buttons and dials aren't that expensive, either. But they do add something.


--- A few ideas to keep the costs low and make the camera both more compact and robust:

Removing the screen on the back would save money (maybe $50-$100) and enable the overall camera to be not much larger than the lens mount.

Getting rid of the mirror box, pentaprism, and eyepeice would save a bundle and reduce height, depth, complexity, and fragility. Old "simple" cameras sometimes just used flip-up framing sights.

Using a non-replaceable battery eliminates all the extra plastics, door mechanism, and weather sealing of the battery and battery compartment and enables designers to tuck the battery cells more compactly inside the shell such as one on either side of the lens mount. Without the screen, a simple digital camera might be able to take up to a 1000 shots between charges which is surely more than enough for an inexpensive, compact camera.

Built-in storage. Eliminating the SD card, connector, housing, door, and weather sealing could reduce size, cost, and fragility. It might also reduce the internal complexity of the camera.

Of course, if you really want to reduce cost and size (and harken back to cameras of yore), then maybe the camera only needs enough battery power and internal storage for 36 pictures.

Isn't a big part of the less-is-more ethos to get away from the overwhelming abundance of features, automagical functions, and spray-and-pray shooting? A really simple camera with strictly limited capacity can push the creative capacities because it forces one to think more deeply about each image.

[uttam.hathi]

fully agree removing all those bloats would make a grt dslr, als hope that pentax designs their camera better, ever opened a pentax dslr and canon dslr, pentax dslr is fill of wires which is prone to pinching, no touch screen pls

[BrianR]

Why not make your own? Buy the smallest dslr you can that includes your minimum of features and liberally apply black electrical tape to cover up buttons you don't need and the rear LCD. Better yet, go ahead and epoxy over those buttons and cover the LCD with black silicone. Glue an SD card into place (make it uncomfortably small) but allow transfer via cable.

Make a website, show off your converted camera, convince other "simple dslr" enthusiasts to follow suit (bonus side venture - offer a paid service to convert customer's cameras to 'simple mode', conversion is non reversible, no refunds). Once you number in the hundreds of thousands, dslr makers will start to pay attention to this niche, and an off the shelf model (with better ergonomics) is bound to appear.

[SpecialK]

Why not just not use those revolting options? The price will not be much different and you could be shooting in a few days rather than waiting for another mythical ship to come in? (The other one was the SS "FF").

[pacerr]

It's already here. It isn't the hardware configuration but how you choose to use it.

My modern Pentax H1a is an *istDS set to pure Manual Mode with a PK-M adapter semi-permanently mounted (as originally intended by the way) used with my flock of Super Tak lens-buddies and ol' Sunny Sixteen skills.

Could do the same with the K3ii but misses the point.

That combination also reminds me why I was so excited to be able to afford my first Spotmatic.

[gm4life]

My ideas are mostly stupid and this one may be as well, but I was shooting with one of my MXs this weekend and started thinking...

What if Pentax or someone ... And by "someone" I mean Pentax... made a dSLR that was as simple as a good quality SLR.

A great sensor...Maybe full frame...Wheels for shutter speed, Aperture and ISO, a good meter and maybe a very few semi-auto modes: Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority and Tav. Maybe stabilization on the sensor...Maybe not depending on cost and size impacts. Either remote trigger or timed delay.

Auto WB,because you can do that in post. Hot shoe, but no flash. No GPS, No HDR. No deep menus.

Cut no corners on image quality or build quality/ergonomics, bit strip it to bare bones. Could be a dSLR or could be a rangefinder, but prioritize image quality and form factor.

How small and how cheap could it be? ... And how soon could I pre-order one?

It seems like a way to distinguish from smart phones as well.

I get it... But will never happen especially not full frame. Get a K70 at 600 bucks it is a screaming bargain. Why would Pentax sell a full frame for less than the K1? The K1 is already an awesome value at 2,000 USD or slightly less. Same thing with the K3II, the KP while not a value like the K70 or K3II is a fair price for the camera, the quality and size. I think to keep Pentax around KP and K1 pricing will need to be accepted and not rock bottom prices like the K70 or KS2.

[beachgardener]

Sounds like you want a Nikon Df, except made by Pentax.

yes, maybe like an MX or LX but doesn't need to be retro design

The next generation won't be able to function without an auto setting.

well they may need to learn photography instead

[wildman]

When I think "simplification" I first think of a complete modern digital updating of what we have traditionally called "manual" mode. In other words, the complete direct manual control of the "exposure triad" that digital allows including Ev.. Thus 3 full time dedicated wheels - S, A, and Ev. Throw in a real time histogram display in the VF that responds to the Ev wheel and I would be a happy camper. At the present state of tech this would, of course, require mirrorless. As a ETTR RAW shooter this would be a huge step forward.

Beyond that everything is negotiable. Off hand I don't need flash nor video but there are many other "features" I could easily live without as well.

So far as something like the Nikon Df is concerned that has much to do with style and little to do with real simplicity.

Anyway it's nice to know I'm not the only one that thinks a lot of the features of present cameras is just marketing BS that has little to do with the way I actually use a camera.

[GodsPetMonkey]

How small and how cheap could it be?

It would be about the size of a K-1... if you are willing to sacrifice the screen (and thus, one of the major advantages of digital photography), you can shave off 7mm from the depth... lets be generous and call it a centimetre. So you can save a centimetre of depth and maybe a few millimetres of height. You might save a bit more if you massively compromise on build quality.

Cost wise, about the same as a K-1... maybe $200-$300 (if you sacrifice the screen), assuming that Ricoh expects similar sales volumes (allowing for a similar apportionment of development and capital costs).

The reason is the same for both - the sensor. Ignoring the capital, manpower and logistics costs (which would be substantial) and just looking at the component costs of the camera, the sensor comes way, way out on top. There is a pile of electronics that drives that sensor, and that's expensive too. Much of the other hardware existed back in the days of film (from metering to AF, and non-electronic parts like the shutter, mirror, prism, etc). The 'new' stuff that isn't essential for a digital camera to actually record in image is stuff like the GPS, screen and IBIS - component cost for this stuff isn't insubstantial, but it also wouldn't add up to much. Most of the other fancy features are software - it costs essentially nothing to include the software, the R&D having already been spent, and thus needs to be recovered for Ricoh to turn a profit, regardless of if it is included. Other makers like to impose artificial software limits on lower-end cameras as a means to push consumers to more expensive models... with the latest Pentax cameras including flagship features such as pixelshift this obviously isn't Ricoh's style.

Size wise, again, sensor. Big sensor needs housing. All the fancy electronics that drives it (and there is a lot...) needs housing. Camera sensors sucks power, lots of power, the bigger the sensor, the more it consumes - so you need a big battery. All those electronics also need power, so even more battery. Camera sensors also produce lots of heat (and big sensors produce more heat... see the theme with big sensors?) - heat dissipation is a real problem in cameras with large sensors, look at the cut away of the K-1, that big air gap behind the sensor is to vent heat. Heat is the enemy of electronics - for a start heat build up will introduce more noise into your photos, and if it gets really bad it'll kill things (or at least shorten lifespans). Unlike mirrorless we are stuck with a pretty deep mirror box and legacy flange distance, so Pentax cameras can't take space from the front and add to the back (to help with heat). This isn't a problem unique to Pentax, see the sizes of the FF DSLRs from Canon/Nikon/Sony.

By FF DSLR standards the K-1 is already pretty compact. Engineering wise there probably isn't much more room to move (and if there was, I suspect Ricoh would have taken it - making DSLRs compact is something Pentax is known for).

So Ricoh could produce a feature-stripped down version of the K-1, retailing for slightly less in a slightly smaller package, while increasing the strain on their production and supply chains. Or they could view the K-1 as already meeting your needs, after all, you don't have to use the GPS, AF or even the meter. From a business perspective I can see why they have taken the route the have.

And how soon could I pre-order one?

If you want to see how a retro-FF-DSLR would work, look no further than the Nikon DF - and while I like the idea of the DF (and so did many others), it turned out that nostalgia didn't translate into sales.

So the answer is probably never, or maybe not in the foreseeable future. If we can get to the point that we are able to miniaturize the sensor, all the associated electronics, the power source and any heat dissipation into something the size of a roll of 135 film and a pick up spool (and theoretically we will get there eventually, electronics keep shrinking) then maybe. But even then I am not sure if there is business sense in creating something that tries to emulate a SLR body that can be easily had for under $100 and a roll of film.

[Jeff Lopez]

if only that digital back like the Hasselblad was available, that would set the cards once for all

[normhead]

With the K-1 or even K-3 set to AV the only difference between my k-1 and a K-1000 is auto-focus and the automated exposure system. back dial changing the f-stop instead of turning an aperture ring, ISO is ver similar. Most of the time I'm operating in essentially the same fashion I did with a K-1000, The camera will do more, but I assume that's just taking advantage of the electronics built in and their capabilities. Would a set of electronic components with less capability cost less? Not unless they sold enough of them to pay for R&D and production costs and reduce the initial price.

So initially it would be more money for less functionality. And it's likely they would never get back their development costs/ It's just so unlikely folks would pay more money than a K-1 for less functionality than a K-30. But if it was sold like a K-1000 for 20 years, eventually it would have the potential to be a cheap and dirty camera. Maybe Bill Gates or somebody will do it as write off.