My MX

twinda1 · 03-08-2008, 12:09 AM

The MX that ChrisM had in the marketplace arrived a few days ago, and wow, I guess to hold an MX is to love it. I loaded it with Tri-X, and honestly, it's going to take me a while to finish the roll. "Are you film worthy?" -- sort of like that Seinfeld episode.

But wow again, the size of that view finder, the heft of the body, the thunk of that mirror (ok, maybe the shutter noise could be a wee bit more subtle.)

Sure, we've gained a ton, but I couldn't help but think what's been lost with the digital age. Here's an idea that I've tried to float in a different forum was shot down: think of it, a digital MX! In spirit, as well as execution. Meaning: no LCD, manual everything, RAW only, no complex JPEG engine -- got to lose some of the electronics to keep the form factor. With a 8gb card in there, do you really really need to chimp? And losing the LCD might increase the register distance such that you could possibly get a large sensor in there, though I'd be happy with a 1.33 crop factor, just like the M8. With a 40mm pancake on there it might even be the elusive "DMD".

I know it will never happen, but if I ruled the world... or if corporations existed to serve me.

Last edited by twinda1; 03-08-2008 at 12:15 AM.

Ron · 03-08-2008, 02:47 AM

That's is a very good idea. I hope Pentax listen but I doubt it.

ftpaddict · 03-08-2008, 03:32 AM

Although your idea is very good, I'm not so sure it is a viable economically. Most Pentax afficionados would buy them for the heck of it, or as a backup body, but it wouldn't attract any new buyers.

Finn · 03-08-2008, 07:35 AM

I wish a third party would make a digital imaging device that would fit in the film cassette slot, with a sensor extending out where the film leader is. Of course, that means the sensor and all associated electronics would have to be no deeper than film, which I imagine is a few years off yet. Anyway, with something like this you could make any 35mm camera digital. No camera company would EVER make it (why help your competition?), but there are always others.

I'm looking at YOU, Kodak.

Tom M · 03-08-2008, 07:43 AM

I mentioned this the other day.. A kit similar to a HeathKit but for a digital camera. I think it's easily done. Hog out the guts of a K1000, leave the mirror and pentaprism intact. As for the controls, in my opinion you have two choices. Leave the existing doo-dads on the top of the camera for looks and mount the digital controls through the back film door. Option two would be to remove the doo-dads on top and mount the digital controls in their place as best as possible.

I was very close to hacking apart a Canon P&S to achieve this until I looked at the lens to film plane figures. I would have had to mount the sensor in front of the mirror. Doh! So, I need an *istD or something along those lines, which of course jacks the price up and makes it a bit less fun.

séamuis · 03-08-2008, 08:13 AM

yes I'm still hoping for a digital 'K1000' full manual masterpiece. you reading this pentax?

twinda1 · 03-08-2008, 10:43 PM

I'd be all over a HeathKit-style digital sensor kit consisting of the sensor, logic board and SD card mount. I wonder if there is a reason other than economics why it hasn't been done. You'd figure a 6MP sensor would be no more than $50 even in small lots. We should get Make magazine on the job!

I took the MX and K10D out to see a friend play in a band tonight. I was able to fit both bodies and two medium telephotos all into a small Tamrac sling bag (the Velocity 7). It was cool to get 4 effective focal lengths with just two primes.

Mike Cash · 03-09-2008, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Finn

I wish a third party would make a digital imaging device that would fit in the film cassette slot, with a sensor extending out where the film leader is. Of course, that means the sensor and all associated electronics would have to be no deeper than film, which I imagine is a few years off yet. Anyway, with something like this you could make any 35mm camera digital. No camera company would EVER make it (why help your competition?), but there are always others.

I'm looking at YOU, Kodak.

The simple solution to the sensor thickness issue is to remove the pressure plate and associated items from the film door.

**ChrisPlatt** · 03-09-2008, 07:29 AM

Ten years ago a company called Silicon Film tried and failed.
No working product was ever marketed.

Silicon Film Strikes Back?: Digital Photography Review

Chris

Gerry · 03-09-2008, 09:45 PM

And with a traditional interface I would kill for such a camera. I'm sure that there isn't a camera marketing department in the world even thinking about how arge the niche for it would be.

In the rangefinder world the equivalent already exists in the Epson RD-1. It's a joy to use but for myriad reasons, not a commercial success.

Gerry

woof · 03-10-2008, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Gerry

In the rangefinder world the equivalent already exists in the Epson RD-1. It's a joy to use but for myriad reasons, not a commercial success.

The Leica M8 is certainly a nice example of a digital rangefinder too...

Amazon.com: Leica M8 10.3MP Digital Rangefinder Camera with .68x Viewfinder (Black Body Only): Camera & Photo

woof

baltochef920 · 03-10-2008, 11:44 PM

Why does everyone assume that a very simplistic digital SLR camera with mostly manual features would be a money loser??..

If the price was right I'd buy several of them, no question..

What is so seductive about a dSLR that weighs as much as a professional medium format film camera with menus so extensive & complicated that it takes an engineering degree to figure them out??..

And a several hundred page long owners manual that is so counter intuitive, complex, & poorly written that the average owner doesn't even bother to read more than a small fraction of the manual??..

From what I have observed, the average dSLR owner (myself included) would be much better served with a simpler, lighter, easier to understand, easier to use camera..

My ideal camera would be something like a digital Pentax LX..

Incredibly bright 98% viewfinder..Easily interchangeable screens, finders, & lenses..Full size sensor..

Flip-down sensor for easy cleaning..Weather sealed body..No built-in flash..

Minimal frame-per-second image advance, say 3fps tops..

Other than image writing to the chip & the image advance rate, everything else to be manually set by the user..

No auto-focus, no auto exposure..Minimal external controls..

P-TTL & TTL flash capability..Flash sync for standard lenses at 1/250th second..

Able to accept both standard & electronic leaf shutter lenses..

Electronic leaf shutter lenses available with speeds from 1/2 second to 1/1000 second and B..

Leaf shutter lens suggestions--20mm f2.8 AL, 24mm f2 AL, 28mm f2 AL, 35mm f1.8 AL, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 ED, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 135mm f2 ED , 200mm f4 Macro ED..

Keep the camera as simple as possible with a full-sized digital sensor; with all of the features that the advanced amateur had with the MX & LX cameras..

If Pentax were to market such a camera & it proved to be reliable I'd purchase at least three of them for sure..

My main interest is in street photography..So a camera such as I've described above would be just about perfect for my needs..

Since digital sensors don't read through filters very well, the white balance menus would have to be retained, & or added to..Other than the white balance settings, I don't see the need for most of the other functions in the menus..

Make the camera simpler, & do all those other things in post processing on a full-sized personal computer where you will have more control over the image & be able to accomplish those tasks much more quickly..

Just my 2 cents worth..

Bruce

ftpaddict · 03-11-2008, 01:23 AM

AF and AE are not such expensive additions, IMO. Just the sensor alone would make the camera cost about as much as a K20D costs.

twinda1 · 03-11-2008, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by ftpaddict

AF and AE are not such expensive additions, IMO. Just the sensor alone would make the camera cost about as much as a K20D costs.

Wouldn't the development cost of Bruce's camera be smaller though? The problem is the potential market is so small it probably doesn't matter if the development cost is reasonable. Maybe not Pentax, but perhaps C. Voigtlander?

And think of the battery life! 5000 shots minimum

ftpaddict · 03-12-2008, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by twinda1

Maybe not Pentax, but perhaps C. Voigtlander?

As long as they don't make it with a Leica screwmount...

03-08-2008, 12:09 AM	#1
twinda1 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 142	My MX The MX that ChrisM had in the marketplace arrived a few days ago, and wow, I guess to hold an MX is to love it. I loaded it with Tri-X, and honestly, it's going to take me a while to finish the roll. "Are you film worthy?" -- sort of like that Seinfeld episode. But wow again, the size of that view finder, the heft of the body, the thunk of that mirror (ok, maybe the shutter noise could be a wee bit more subtle.) Sure, we've gained a ton, but I couldn't help but think what's been lost with the digital age. Here's an idea that I've tried to float in a different forum was shot down: think of it, a digital MX! In spirit, as well as execution. Meaning: no LCD, manual everything, RAW only, no complex JPEG engine -- got to lose some of the electronics to keep the form factor. With a 8gb card in there, do you really really need to chimp? And losing the LCD might increase the register distance such that you could possibly get a large sensor in there, though I'd be happy with a 1.33 crop factor, just like the M8. With a 40mm pancake on there it might even be the elusive "DMD". I know it will never happen, but if I ruled the world... or if corporations existed to serve me. Last edited by twinda1; 03-08-2008 at 12:15 AM.

03-08-2008, 02:47 AM	#2
Ron New Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Israel Posts: 11	That's is a very good idea. I hope Pentax listen but I doubt it.

03-08-2008, 03:32 AM	#3
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Although your idea is very good, I'm not so sure it is a viable economically. Most Pentax afficionados would buy them for the heck of it, or as a backup body, but it wouldn't attract any new buyers.

03-08-2008, 07:35 AM	#4
Finn Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Phoenix Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,056	I wish a third party would make a digital imaging device that would fit in the film cassette slot, with a sensor extending out where the film leader is. Of course, that means the sensor and all associated electronics would have to be no deeper than film, which I imagine is a few years off yet. Anyway, with something like this you could make any 35mm camera digital. No camera company would EVER make it (why help your competition?), but there are always others. I'm looking at YOU, Kodak.

03-08-2008, 07:43 AM	#5
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	I mentioned this the other day.. A kit similar to a HeathKit but for a digital camera. I think it's easily done. Hog out the guts of a K1000, leave the mirror and pentaprism intact. As for the controls, in my opinion you have two choices. Leave the existing doo-dads on the top of the camera for looks and mount the digital controls through the back film door. Option two would be to remove the doo-dads on top and mount the digital controls in their place as best as possible. I was very close to hacking apart a Canon P&S to achieve this until I looked at the lens to film plane figures. I would have had to mount the sensor in front of the mirror. Doh! So, I need an *istD or something along those lines, which of course jacks the price up and makes it a bit less fun.

03-08-2008, 08:13 AM	#6
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	yes I'm still hoping for a digital 'K1000' full manual masterpiece. you reading this pentax?

03-08-2008, 10:43 PM	#7
twinda1 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 142 Original Poster	I'd be all over a HeathKit-style digital sensor kit consisting of the sensor, logic board and SD card mount. I wonder if there is a reason other than economics why it hasn't been done. You'd figure a 6MP sensor would be no more than $50 even in small lots. We should get Make magazine on the job! I took the MX and K10D out to see a friend play in a band tonight. I was able to fit both bodies and two medium telephotos all into a small Tamrac sling bag (the Velocity 7). It was cool to get 4 effective focal lengths with just two primes.

03-09-2008, 12:26 AM	#8
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Finn I wish a third party would make a digital imaging device that would fit in the film cassette slot, with a sensor extending out where the film leader is. Of course, that means the sensor and all associated electronics would have to be no deeper than film, which I imagine is a few years off yet. Anyway, with something like this you could make any 35mm camera digital. No camera company would EVER make it (why help your competition?), but there are always others. I'm looking at YOU, Kodak. The simple solution to the sensor thickness issue is to remove the pressure plate and associated items from the film door.

03-09-2008, 07:29 AM	#9
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	Ten years ago a company called Silicon Film tried and failed. No working product was ever marketed. Silicon Film Strikes Back?: Digital Photography Review Chris

03-09-2008, 09:45 PM	#10
Gerry Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 33	And with a traditional interface I would kill for such a camera. I'm sure that there isn't a camera marketing department in the world even thinking about how arge the niche for it would be. In the rangefinder world the equivalent already exists in the Epson RD-1. It's a joy to use but for myriad reasons, not a commercial success. Gerry

03-10-2008, 07:21 AM	#11
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by Gerry In the rangefinder world the equivalent already exists in the Epson RD-1. It's a joy to use but for myriad reasons, not a commercial success. The Leica M8 is certainly a nice example of a digital rangefinder too... Amazon.com: Leica M8 10.3MP Digital Rangefinder Camera with .68x Viewfinder (Black Body Only): Camera & Photo woof

03-10-2008, 11:44 PM	#12
baltochef920 Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Baltimore, Maryland USA Posts: 162	Why does everyone assume that a very simplistic digital SLR camera with mostly manual features would be a money loser??.. If the price was right I'd buy several of them, no question.. What is so seductive about a dSLR that weighs as much as a professional medium format film camera with menus so extensive & complicated that it takes an engineering degree to figure them out??.. And a several hundred page long owners manual that is so counter intuitive, complex, & poorly written that the average owner doesn't even bother to read more than a small fraction of the manual??.. From what I have observed, the average dSLR owner (myself included) would be much better served with a simpler, lighter, easier to understand, easier to use camera.. My ideal camera would be something like a digital Pentax LX.. Incredibly bright 98% viewfinder..Easily interchangeable screens, finders, & lenses..Full size sensor.. Flip-down sensor for easy cleaning..Weather sealed body..No built-in flash.. Minimal frame-per-second image advance, say 3fps tops.. Other than image writing to the chip & the image advance rate, everything else to be manually set by the user.. No auto-focus, no auto exposure..Minimal external controls.. P-TTL & TTL flash capability..Flash sync for standard lenses at 1/250th second.. Able to accept both standard & electronic leaf shutter lenses.. Electronic leaf shutter lenses available with speeds from 1/2 second to 1/1000 second and B.. Leaf shutter lens suggestions--20mm f2.8 AL, 24mm f2 AL, 28mm f2 AL, 35mm f1.8 AL, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 ED, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 135mm f2 ED , 200mm f4 Macro ED.. Keep the camera as simple as possible with a full-sized digital sensor; with all of the features that the advanced amateur had with the MX & LX cameras.. If Pentax were to market such a camera & it proved to be reliable I'd purchase at least three of them for sure.. My main interest is in street photography..So a camera such as I've described above would be just about perfect for my needs.. Since digital sensors don't read through filters very well, the white balance menus would have to be retained, & or added to..Other than the white balance settings, I don't see the need for most of the other functions in the menus.. Make the camera simpler, & do all those other things in post processing on a full-sized personal computer where you will have more control over the image & be able to accomplish those tasks much more quickly.. Just my 2 cents worth.. Bruce

03-11-2008, 01:23 AM	#13
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	AF and AE are not such expensive additions, IMO. Just the sensor alone would make the camera cost about as much as a K20D costs.

03-11-2008, 09:49 PM	#14
twinda1 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Boston Posts: 142 Original Poster	Originally posted by ftpaddict AF and AE are not such expensive additions, IMO. Just the sensor alone would make the camera cost about as much as a K20D costs. Wouldn't the development cost of Bruce's camera be smaller though? The problem is the potential market is so small it probably doesn't matter if the development cost is reasonable. Maybe not Pentax, but perhaps C. Voigtlander? And think of the battery life! 5000 shots minimum

03-12-2008, 01:38 AM	#15
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Originally posted by twinda1 Maybe not Pentax, but perhaps C. Voigtlander? As long as they don't make it with a Leica screwmount...