[normhead]

Autofocus - NOT KIDDING!

Pentax could admit they can't compete on AF with Sony, Nikon, and Canon - so just get rid of AF, reduce the price of cameras, and go retro. KISS, simplify, release an all-manual high-res digital camera. It would be perfect for me. No need for a 300 page instruction manual and dozens of features that most will never use. All it would need are dials for: shutter, aperture, iso, and exposure compensation. Simple, eligant, light, and bullet-proof. Customer interchangeable sensors - 16, 24, 36, 50MP.

I think your insistence on using manual focus lenses is clouding your judgement.

And you must never take images like this,



Or this


Or this.


There is a difference between not as good as everyone else, and not functional at all.

Is this topic really "How would you make the Pentax K-1 a less useful tool for everyone but me so I can save $50 on the price?'

I must have misunderstood the question.

---------- Post added 11-17-17 at 09:26 AM ----------

How much does an AF system cost vs the whole camera? Even if they'd just remove the motor and electronics, and keep everything else [to minimize costs], you'd still still need new firmware/testing/assembly line adaptations,etc..
What is the size of that niche market? Enough to pay for that work, on a camera that'd have to be cheaper?
They need to expect volume (new APS) or margin (???) to commit. This option doesn't look like it'd fit either condition.

Removing the AF system would mean no focus confirmation in live view. So we'd be back to split screen focussing screens etc. So it would actually involve less spending in some areas, but more spending on a decent MF focussing system.

This would require some speculation on how the MF focussing system would be implemented. Whether or not you have AF, you still have to be able to focus your camera.

The thing I like about all the features on the K-1, one day I do pixel shift, one day I take out the tiny tripod and DFA 100 and do macro using the tilting back screen, one day , I do wild life making extensive use of AF, and the next day birds. Then I do a hike for landscape. The one camera can be used for all those things. I could take a day and take images with my MF lenses although for me that's pretty unlikely. I really like the potential to do different things with the same piece of equipment.

What piece of capability would I give up? None of them, I use them all. Would a stripped down version of the camera that did less appeal to me? It would mean sooner or later I'd have to buy another camera, to do what I do now with the K-1. That would not be a savings in dollars spent. It would just mean a lot more opportunities missed, because I brought the stripped down version of the camera and have a chance for an image taken with one of the missing functions.

If anything I would add capability, like that Olympus in camera focus stacking.

I'm wracking my brain here asking myself "what K-1 capability do I not use?" I'm coming up blank.

The more capability, the more potential customers you have. The more chance of the camera being a sales success. Less capability means less potential customers.

Look at how many people have bought K-1s just to have the FF implementation of Astrotracer. I might have a chance to use that twice a year. For others it is why they bought the camera. Every one of these "un-necessary features" has it's champions. It takes all of them to make the K-1 a successful camera. With pentax's tiny market share, to you really want to shrink your number of potential sales? How can you know a stripped down camera could even pay for it's development costs? After all, it's not just a matter of ripping out components.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-17-2017 at 07:45 AM.

[zzeitg]

I'd get rid of all video functions. Not sure if that would make K1 cheaper, though.

[Kunzite]

Removing AF and/or video would make the camera more expensive. Perhaps even Leica-expensive.
None of those hoping for a much cheaper product would pay the price, so Pentax would.

[Rondec]

Why are people so focused on cutting out features to slightly decrease the cost of a camera. A lot of the things people talk about cutting are either sunk costs -- the R and D is done -- or are software which once again is done. I suppose you could go with the D610 sensor, which is older and not quite as good and probably cheaper. As Kunzite says, getting rid of auto focus and video at this point would have minimal impact on cost but would significantly decrease number of units sold and so would actually drive up price. Remember, every one of these sensors is capable of video. It is only a question of whether or not it is enabled from a software standpoint. And that work is done already as well.

More than anything else, Pentax has telegraphed that full frame is not going to be a cheap option for Pentaxians. For the time being, they are only releasing expensive lenses for it and there is not particular point to releasing a 1000 dollar full frame camera if all of your lenses are sold for more than that.

[geomez]

As you see by above comments, there is a desire for a smaller and less complicated FF camera, and at the right price, it will sell. The Canon 6D sold thousands, and still does, yet its a very basic FF..

1. People don't want a less capable camera, they want to pay less for the camera. They want it to be cheap and easy to use, but also want it to be feature packed.

2. Size and number of features are not correlative.

2. Many people equate less with ease. Less buttons and knobs = easier camera. Less features = easier camera. Less screens = easier camera. The people that believe this generally haven't used both basic and advanced cameras and are misinformed. The K-1 is as easy to use an a smartphone camera if you want it to be. Smartphone has fully auto mode where you press the shutter button and it's done. K-1 has the same thing.
Comparing the K-1 to a K-70, or even a Canon 6D, the same basic concept runs true. The only thing a K-70 or a 6D will gain you (weight aside) is that you pay less for it. The K-1 can do all the things the those cheaper cameras can do but EASIER and FASTER, because flagship cameras usually have more buttons, knobs, switches, and screens, and they're usually placed in more accessible, and easier to use places. So even novice photographers that may want to change the camera's ISO, can do so quicker and more intuitively on the K-1 vs a K-70 or 6D. So more expensive cameras, especially in the Pentax line up are not more complicated. They don't require more knowledge to use. You use the parts of the camera that you know, and as you learn more, you realize that it's easier to put your knowledge into action on a K-1. And if you get to the point where you want an Astrotracer, or Pixel Shift, or Composition Adjustment, it's already there.

Why in heaven's name would you buy a 6D when you can buy a K-1 for pretty much the same money? The K-1 can be as simple as you want it to be. Just don't access the features you don't want. Set it on manual and do it all or set it on auto. The logic here escapes me. Is there something I don't know about the 6D, like that it's basically featureless and for that reason very easy to use?

I'm with Norm on this one.

[Lord Lucan]

.... a retro version for manual focus lenses, there is a (small) market for it. Actually, I believe such model would sell much more than K1 silver... Silver finished , IMO isn't a very strong unique selling point. A very good manual focus system would trigger a new of buy, especially by owners if [of?] legacy glass

It does not cost much to produce a silver version and it spices up the sales a bit, typical mid-life marketing tactic. OTOH a manual version is a significant amount of re-engineering, even if it is to simplify. I don't see much of a demand - those owners of legacy glass are mostly now getting on a bit and their eyesight is not what it used to be. In my camera club 10-15 years ago when old-timers were buying new autofocus cameras their main "excuse" was that they were finding it hard to use the split screen because of eyesight problems. .

As for removing features to produce a budget model, that has been done before in the case of the KM, which had its self-timer, DoF botton and other features removed to make the K1000. But removing AF is a much bigger step that would leave most of the market stunned in disbelief. Producing a new, cheap, simplified manual camera from scatch might find a tiny market today, but it would be APS-C format, not FF.

[biz-engineer]

To make K1 cheaper, remove SD2 slot, remove USB connector, remove remote IR sensors (like Canon), replace magnusium alloys chassis by molded carbon fiber compound (like Nikon), replace pentaprism by plastic pentaxmirror, remove night led lighting, remove top dials, remove tilt display, shrink DRAM buffer to a quarter of the size. Basically you get a 6Dx or D610 sort of camera at the price of that sort of camera.

[jbinpg]

Shrink DRAM? You must be kidding. It is one of the Achilles Heels of the K-1. I'm with Norm on this one: I would not sacrifice any of the K-1's functions in the pursuit of cost. I use all it provides.

[mikesbike]

I think the next Pentax FF will have a 42mp or 45.7 sensor. That is the only thing that makes sense. Offer cutting edge at a reduced price, and correct the few niggles found with the K-1. The only reason I see for a 24mp sensor is to improve buffer and burst-shooting properties for fast-action photography. A 24mp FF will not have the pixel density of the KP.

[Lord Lucan]

1. People don't want a less capable camera, they want to pay less for the camera. They want it to be cheap and easy to use, but also want it to be feature packed.

Indeed. They want all the features at purchase time, but when it comes to it they do not actually use them, partly because to use these features requires at least a slight reading of the handbook which many people consider to be something beneath them.

I call it the "Tick Box Mentality". In the UK there was (AFAIK, still is) a review magazine called "Which?" that was noted for its tick box matrices (actually they were blobs rather than ticks). Across the top you had all the rival brands and models (of camera, car, TV or whatever) and down the side you had features (like red-eye reduction, multiple exposure, DX coding etc). To many people it simply came down to the more ticks the better.

Then at one time Hasselblad had an amusing advert for (AFAIR) their EL series that was a take on the tick-box mentality. The advert had a EL series feature list that was entirely negative : Red-eye reduction : No; Auto-focus - No; Auto-exposure - No; DX coding - No; Voice confirmation [a fad at the time] - No; 3-D images [another fad] - No; and so on.

[timw4mail]

It does not cost much to produce a silver version and it spices up the sales a bit, typical mid-life marketing tactic. OTOH a manual version is a significant amount of re-engineering, even if it is to simplify. I don't see much of a demand - those owners of legacy glass are mostly now getting on a bit and their eyesight is not what it used to be. In my camera club 10-15 years ago when old-timers were buying new autofocus cameras their main "excuse" was that they were finding it hard to use the split screen because of eyesight problems. .

As a twenty-something that likes manual focus, I find that kind of presumptuous.


I think it would be cool to see a DSLR with controls more similar to the ~70s SLRs:

• Shutter speed wheel, with auto, and maybe +/-
• Aperture +/- over-ride (auto if lens on 'A')
• ISO wheel (maybe within the shutter wheel, and an auto setting)
• Screen
• Non crippled mount
• And maybe a d-pad with enter button for additional functionality/menu settings

And while I'm dreaming:

• No larger than a big film-era SLR

[Lord Lucan]

As a twenty-something that likes manual focus, I find that kind of presumptuous.

I am afraid you have lost me there. I am saying that manual focus is fine for most younger people (like yourself) with good eyesight, but many older people (like myself) who might have poorer eyesight (not myself just yet), can struggle with a manual focussing screen. That is a fact, bourne out by conversations I have had with older photographers who went for AF, despite their extensive existing collection of manual glass, for that very reason .

This is notwithstanding the fact that much manual glass is owned by older photographers because they have kept it from earlier days, even if they might also have and mostly use AF glass (as I do), while younger photographers tend to have AF glass because that was standard by the time they bought their first camera. There are many exceptions of course, like younger photographers taking advantage of the boatload of manual glass on the used market.

I would have thought the above was self-evident and do not see anything presumptuous about it.

[normhead]

I think it would be cool to see a DSLR with controls more similar to the ~70s SLRs:

For those us alive in the 70's, the 70's lost their appeal in the 70s.

As a twenty-something that likes manual focus, I find that kind of presumptuous.

Th K-1 can be completely manual. So what's the problem. Oh ya, no split screen or other focusing system. I guess they could bring that back too. The big question is would it actually reduce the cost? You'd have to pay for your development costs on a ridiculously small production run.

[Kunzite]

To make K1 cheaper, remove SD2 slot, remove USB connector, remove remote IR sensors (like Canon), replace magnusium alloys chassis by molded carbon fiber compound (like Nikon), replace pentaprism by plastic pentaxmirror, remove night led lighting, remove top dials, remove tilt display, shrink DRAM buffer to a quarter of the size. Basically you get a 6Dx or D610 sort of camera at the price of that sort of camera.

You're missing something: the K-1 already was "at the price of that sort of camera"; it's launch price being slightly lower.

[timw4mail]

For those us alive in the 70's, the 70's lost their appeal in the 70s.

I wouldn't want to live in the 70s either...but I like the controls of those cameras more than the more screen-focused interfaces of later cameras.

Th K-1 can be completely manual. So what's the problem. Oh ya, no split screen or other focusing system. I guess they could bring that back too. The big question is would it actually reduce the cost? You'd have to pay for your development costs on a ridiculously small production run.

Manually setting most things on the K-1 requires more effort than with dedicated knobs. I like the K-1, but I just find the idea of a Digital K1000, or MX fascinating.

It probably would not reduce cost, though.