[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I'm looking at a digital body that has a focal plane mark, and there's quite a bit of thickness back there. It's easily 1CM. I've advocated dropping the LCD in order to get to most compact digital body possible. With a high-resolution EVF that can serve double duty as a way to review shots, I don't think it would be so bad. Such a body could be made extremely rugged too.

When I'm heading out with the family unit, I look longingly at my MX but I hardly ever grab it. I'd pay $1000 for a compact fully manual (I mean fully manual) DSLR -- an MX with a digital back would be killer. I'd even settle for APS-C or even slightly smaller sensor -- too bad the "digital film" vapor ware people never got their act together.

Put the MX in the coat pocket always and it will be used!

Yes, dropping the back LCD is a good idea. I'd prefere to keep an optical viewfinder, but a top LCD could be used to review exposure and focus. The first LCD's with review on the *istD and the early optio was not very large and was still usefull for this. Not as good as a bigger screen, but we must be prepared to give something up. Anyway, the big back LCD would get scratched in my coat pocket!

Getting rid of the LCD is a good idea. And an optical VF would be fine - who needs to review shots?
That can be done at home on a PC. How many tiny buttons will that alone eliminate?
Give me large, simple controls too, just like a film camera. Now you're really talking...

Chris

Well, review is handy, but it has changed my shooting style a lot. I thought I used to take extremely many shots in film time, but now on digital I shoot first and think afterwards, instead of thinking first. So getting rid of the review LCD or limiting its size to a top LCD would probably bring me back to a more intelligent shooting.

Here are some photo's of a D3 sectioned.

A DSLR cut into half (OT): Sony Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

To me it looks like the thickness from the sensor to the back face is about 19mm (3/4").

Comparing my K10D to a film camera, it looks to be about 25mm (1") from where I would estimate the film plan to be to the back face. Pentax would need a little more depth due to the SR module compared to the D3.

A film camera looks like the back is 6mm (1/4") away from the film plan. So the circuit board, the sensor assembly, and the LCD add about 19mm to the depth of the camera body. The buttons and switches on the back of the body would also add some depth. Not sure what could really be done to slim thing up. I would expect there is some technology from the compact point and shoot cameras that could be used to slim up the DSLR body.

Between the digital bodies and the MZ serie there is about 10mm and then another 15mm down to the M and A bodies.

K-mount register depth is 45.46 mm, sensor and shake reduction adds another 19 mm, so it's nearly impossible to make k-mount dslr thinner than ~66 mm.

Well, in that case we can conclude that 66mm is the minima if you want to have all of the goodies: digital sensor, LCD and SR, in which case I already have the smallest possible Pentax DSLR, the *istDS.

But I can live without the back LCD and without the SR if the target is a really smallish DSLR. This doesn't mean that I don't apprechiate these features on bigger bodies.

If we drop LCD and SR, is it reasonable to assume that we could get rid of another 10-15mm?

Then drop the built in handle and just give it a small removeable grip like the LX or the Super-A, and place the battery to the other side of the shutter where the film capsel used to be. It will give a thinner body, allthough longer, but length is not that much of a problem.
Then drop the built in flash. The way high iso performance goes, much of the reasons why the built in flash was added to the film SLRs in the late 80's are gone.
Actually, one option would be to put the top LCD on top of the optical viewfinder instead of the flash. It would look odd, but if you got live view (now we are mixing conservative design with some more popular P&S features) you could actually use it as a waist level finder (like the optional waist level finder on the LX) and it would be much more usefull for macro than the back LCD.

As much as I understand the appeal of an MX-D or an LX-D, It just won't happen. The marketing teams get in the way of that type of thinking with their "features lists". It would take a VERY motivated team of designers, with the single directive to "make a minimalist DSLR". They would acheve their task of the LX-D, and it would be a very highly aclaimed camera that no one would buy. If it made a run of 2 years, eventually it would gather a strong cult following of people that love the camera. There will be web forums dedicated to it allone. The entire Canikon nation would be at the same time intriged, and repulsed. Some will jump ship and become a group known as "the converted". The camera would command extrordinary prices on ebay and KEH. People would buy bodies for spare parts. Pentaxians would petition Hoya to bring it back.

I'd like that. It probably wont happen, but it would be nice.

Though in some sence I wonder if it is really such an impossible market idea.
Sure, Pentax would not sell hugh numbers of it in a short time. But given that they use as much as possible of the components from other current DSLRs, there doesn't have to be a whole lot of new inventions to make this camera. It is more about dropping features.

And it is not likely to eat much sales numbers from the K-m or K200D (or K300D). I think it would be baught mainly by people who today keep an old compact film SLR or rangefinder, higher end P&S, or some more or less exclusive digital rangefinders, as a more compact complement to their K10D/K20D, so it is market shares that Pentax currently doesn't catch at all.

And it would be one heck of a body to use to promote the DA/FA limiteds on and could bring up their salesnumbers!

MX-D, LX-D? No, while we are anyway in dreamland, the obvious name would be XC, which would stand for eXCellent and for 90 years since Asahi/Pentax was founderd (XC is roman numbers for 90): announced in 2009 and available in 2010, like the LX (roman numbers for 60) was intended for the 60 years anniversary of Asahi/Pentax in 1979 though it was not available until in 1980. Dream on!

[uccemebug]

I find it interesting that I keep seeing the same specs come out of these forums. People want a DSLR with the minimal feature set of the film cameras, and keep coming back to that.

FWIW, I'd buy an 'XC', too. $1000 sounds about right. As it is I find myself reaching for the above-posted Olympus or my Minolta XD-11 on a regular basis, but more and more rarely my *istDS. The size and weight factors are certainly a part of that.

[rparmar]

People want digital for the convenience, no doubt. There is no selling a new film camera, not matter how small it is, except as a very niche product. I doubt I could even get film professionally developed here in Ireland, at least not for a fee that is reasonable.

I think the only way to shrink the camera is to drop the mirror assembly and go for an EVF. Live View is a technology that will improve.

But here's the key feature: have an optional viewfinder a la rangefinders.

With nothing mechanical I bet the battery can be half the size and still get the same number of shots. That's a second big reduction in space and weight.

No need for any modes, just three separate dials: aperture (used to be on the lens but now needs to be on the body), shutter speed and ISO. Each has an "A" setting. That covers all possibilities, especially if you can set program lines in the menu. This also follows the dictum that each core photographic function needs a dedicated control that does not change function depending on mode. All our current DSLRs have a user interface that is broken.

No top screen. Everything works off the back LCD like the K-m.

No need for a pop-up flash; they are crap anyway.

Make the body metal to last forever. Call it the Pentax Limited 001. An awful lot of people (pro, semi-pro, enthusiasts) would buy this.

[Ben_Edict]

Though in some sence I wonder if it is really such an impossible market idea.
Sure, Pentax would not sell hugh numbers of it in a short time. But given that they use as much as possible of the components from other current DSLRs, there doesn't have to be a whole lot of new inventions to make this camera. It is more about dropping features.

And it is not likely to eat much sales numbers from the K-m or K200D (or K300D). I think it would be baught mainly by people who today keep an old compact film SLR or rangefinder, higher end P&S, or some more or less exclusive digital rangefinders, as a more compact complement to their K10D/K20D, so it is market shares that Pentax currently doesn't catch at all.

And it would be one heck of a body to use to promote the DA/FA limiteds on and could bring up their salesnumbers!

MX-D, LX-D? No, while we are anyway in dreamland, the obvious name would be XC, which would stand for eXCellent and for 90 years since Asahi/Pentax was founderd (XC is roman numbers for 90): announced in 2009 and available in 2010, like the LX (roman numbers for 60) was intended for the 60 years anniversary of Asahi/Pentax in 1979 though it was not available until in 1980. Dream on!

I think, you used the right words: it is an impossible idea...

First, I think, this is an discussion among a very tiny number of enthusiasts. It is not the least representative for the DSLR buyer market, neither for the large number of amateurs, nor for pros. Thus the number of potential buyers is extremely limited.

Secondly, to produce a new body with specs reminiscent of a LX is simply astonishingly expensive. You need completely new machinery to make the body parts for instance. When Pentax dropped the LX finally, its price had reached more than 2000 DM and they lost money with each body sold. If we take into account the initial investment, the general price increase over the last decade etc., Pentax could not sell a body like that for less than 4000 Euros.

This would compete with a Nikon D3 or the latest Canons. Do you seriously think, anybody (apart from a handful of enthusiatsts/collectors) would buy a minimalist body at that price, when they could get a fully-fledged pro modell for the same money?

Producing a DSLR is not about adding a digital back to an existing mechanical camera. That is, what all manufacturers have learned over the last decade. Look at the Hasselblad 500 range. They had to stop the development of digital backs for that old camera range, because the use of digital sensors affords a very high level of integration of all camera components, from sensor to shutter, from camera controls to lenses. Or look at the completely luckless Leica R9 + Modul-R digital back... It is even a bit easier with medium and large format cameras, as the bulky digital backs contain a lot more intelligence, than a tiny add-on back for a classic camera could contain and nevertheless all digital back manufactureres go away from that path and develop/buy-in dedicated digital bodies. It is also no coincidence that the developers of the slot-in digital sensor for 35mm cameras, the infamous "SiliconFilm" gave up long ago.

Anyway, this all is also a discussion about personal taste. I for oince, do not like too small camera bodies, as they make useage inconvenient, with small buttons and no real grip on the body. The K20+grip is not that much smaller or more lightweight than my old LX with MD + battery pack - and I personally like that.

I would also like a digital LX - but I know it is not going to happen, as this would be just one more financial disaster for Pentax.

Ben

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I find it interesting that I keep seeing the same specs come out of these forums. People want a DSLR with the minimal feature set of the film cameras, and keep coming back to that.

FWIW, I'd buy an 'XC', too. $1000 sounds about right. As it is I find myself reaching for the above-posted Olympus or my Minolta XD-11 on a regular basis, but more and more rarely my *istDS. The size and weight factors are certainly a part of that.

Yes, the smallest Pentax DSRL, the *istDS is not small enough, I agree.

Yes, quite many threads keep comming back to this here and on other forums. I'm not stupid enough to think that we are a lot of potential buyers, but maybe we are not entirely negligible.

I think, you used the right words: it is an impossible idea...

First, I think, this is an discussion among a very tiny number of enthusiasts. It is not the least representative for the DSLR buyer market, neither for the large number of amateurs, nor for pros. Thus the number of potential buyers is extremely limited.

Then indeed, the limited lenses would fit nicely
Of course it is not representative for the majority DSLR consumer, nor for typical pros (though the typical pro does not use Pentax anyway). It's a niche. How small? Worth trying? Well, if Pentax could make something that attract jointly severall niches it may work:
1) four thirds and micro four thirds are getting popular, but you have to sacrifice a lot for the smallness, a realy compact K mount DSLR would have greater choise of lenses, especially in the wide angle, and better DOF play options
2) people who buy higher end P&S
3) people who like range finders (film or digital) for their size, but find the limited lenses sexy
4) the odd minority whom like me keep on using their old small film SLR cameras because they don't want to abandon K mount and find the current Pentax DSLR not small enough for all shooting
If they can take a share of 1-3 and all almost of 4 we may be many enough if they can keep costs down.

Secondly, to produce a new body with specs reminiscent of a LX is simply astonishingly expensive...

If you read again you may notice that I'm not calling this a LX-D. I'm not asking for a digital LX. If Pentax wants to go pro, that is another direction. The LX must have been very expensive to develop in the beginning with all the different pro-assecoirs, and it must, as you note, have been very expensive to produce in the end because it was built on 1980 tech's and cannot have had as a modern assembling line as the competition had in 2000. I'm not asking for a lot of assecories. Just the existing limited lenses. I'm not even asking for a grip (if you don't mean a small piece of plastic like on the LX or super-A which should be included as for the super-A).

This would compete with a Nikon D3 or the latest Canons...

I'm not asking for a pro camera. This camera would of course not compete with Canikonys pro cameras (though a few pros might have one in their pocket privately).

Producing a DSLR is not about adding a digital back to an existing mechanical camera...

Read again. I have not asked them to add a digital back to a mechanical camera. Me and some others have wondered what difference it would make to remove back LCD, SR and/or built in flash from an existing digtial SLR.

Look at what Cosina did when they turned a low cred mechanical Cosina SLR body into their Voightlander Bessa-R with minimal changes!

I'm asking for something similarly clever. Mainly removing and minimicing, buying as many of the components the same as the K-m/K-200D/K-300D/... lines as possible. Before you point this out: I admit that it is not as simple as in the crap-Cosina-fancy-Bessa conversion since they kept the same bottom plate, and if we want the body to be smaller by removing the back-LCD and SR you must also reduce the bottom foot print of the camera.

Anyway, this all is also a discussion about personal taste. I for oince, do not like too small camera bodies...
Ben

For some shooting I also like the K20D with the Grip. I even volountarly carry it around with the A*135/1.8 on it (it is actually harder to hold on a smaller camera), which means that I find the DA*50-135 rather light weight on that combo. I used to be all happy draging around the Nikon F3 with driver and a fantastic 300mm shooting air fighters or a Hasselblad camera. But that's when I'm in full armor doing nothing but shooting. I also like to have a pocketable (D)SLR with me anytime with 1-2 extra lenses. It works with the old MX and Super A and some other bodies, but not with any current Pentax DSLR, as my original graphs show.

People want digital for the convenience, no doubt. There is no selling a new film camera, not matter how small it is, except as a very niche product...

Probably some niche producers will remain. I know there are some producers of basic all mechanical SLRs available, and some film-rangefinders. I suspect they will survive in small scale as long as there is film. But this is not what I'm asking for. I have enough film SLRs (six last time I counted, of which three are realy pocketable).

I think the only way to shrink the camera is to drop the mirror assembly and go for an EVF. Live View is a technology that will improve.

But here's the key feature: have an optional viewfinder a la rangefinders.

With nothing mechanical I bet the battery can be half the size and still get the same number of shots. That's a second big reduction in space and weight.

To gain any size by dropping the mirror you will have to change the registration distance, and then it is not a K mount any longer (note that the pentaprism and viewfinder in an APS-C DSLR takes very little space, much of that bulky top is due to the mirror, so you wont gain much in the vertical either). If that is what you want, there are already plenty of options on the market. Why should Pentax compete with them? Similarly, there are already digital rangefinders. Why should Pentax compete with them and in addition take the cost of re-designing their lenses for a new registration distance (if possible).

The whole point would be to have something smallish that still take the current existing limited lenses! And then you need to keep the same mount and registration distance and could just as well keep mirror and the tiny pentaprism. If Pentax can do that, they have something unique.

No need for any modes, just three separate dials: aperture (used to be on the lens but now needs to be on the body), shutter speed and ISO. Each has an "A" setting. That covers all possibilities, especially if you can set program lines in the menu. This also follows the dictum that each core photographic function needs a dedicated control that does not change function depending on mode. All our current DSLRs have a user interface that is broken.

Since I believe the only chanse is to build this from another DSLR, I'm hapy to take any programs that is already on that electronic package, as long as "M" and the green button is there.

No top screen. Everything works off the back LCD like the K-m.

Better drop the back LCD to cut depth from the body and take as large top LCD as possible and take the proview on that LCD. It wont look as either a traditional SLR or a traditional DSLR, but who cares. It should be possible to fit an LCD there comparable to many P&S.

No need for a pop-up flash; they are crap anyway.

Though I occasionally use them, I'm more than ready to drop it to cut size.

Make the body metal to last forever. Call it the Pentax Limited 001. An awful lot of people (pro, semi-pro, enthusiasts) would buy this.

Metal, fine with me. Weight is not the main issue.

Name? If they make it they can name it after the Hoya VD's dog or cat or whatever, I don't care. Just don't name it LX-D because that would give the wrong expectations. Why not name it Limited 007 and pay enough marketting money to make Mr Bond use it in the next movie!

I don't think this is likely to happen. I'm partly writing this just for the fun of it, a mind experiment. Though I would buy it if they made anything near this.

Returning to my original question: "Why my digital Pentax SLR bodies does not fit in my winter coat pocket". What I think we can conclude is that if Pentax is not willing to do something as "extreme" as dropping the back-LCD-screen and/or SR, which are both important marketting items for "normal" DSLRs, the minima depth of a digital Pentax DSLR that stay using the K-mount is very close to the 66mm of the *istDS or the 67.5 or the K-m. I'll wait a bit before I decide if I want to put limited pancakes on my *istDS and go to a tailor with my coat to add some cm's to the pockets...

[Ben_Edict]

Read again. I have not asked them to add a digital back to a mechanical camera. Me and some others have wondered what difference it would make to remove back LCD, SR and/or built in flash from an existing digtial SLR.

Look at what Cosina did when they turned a low cred mechanical Cosina SLR body into their Voightlander Bessa-R with minimal changes!

I'm asking for something similarly clever. Mainly removing and minimicing, buying as many of the components the same as the K-m/K-200D/K-300D/... lines as possible. Before you point this out: I admit that it is not as simple as in the crap-Cosina-fancy-Bessa conversion since they kept the same bottom plate, and if we want the body to be smaller by removing the back-LCD and SR you must also reduce the bottom foot print of the camera.

It is not about preservin the "bottom plate" size. It is about making a whole new body, complete with the machines to make that.

This is very expensive. And this investment is simply out of the question for Pentax. You don't believe that? Reducing the investment in new production lines was the exact and official reason for Pentax to give the K20 the same body the K10 had. And it was the exact reason for Pwentax not to include a 3-inch LCD on the backside, because the 2.7-inch screen was the max, that would fit the "old" (K10) body.

Pentax does not have the ressources to produce a specialised camera for a dedicated few. You cannot compare the Cosina approach with a plainly simple film camera with developping a new DSLR.

Even if that option was vialable, it would consume the ressources needed for the next mass-market or semi-pro modell, which is much more important for Pentax to survive.

-- Don't misunderstand me - I am not loathing your ideas, I just think, that there is not the slightest possibility of doing this, because there are simple, hard facts about economics, which cannot be overlooked. I have my own wishes and ideas about "my" preferred kind of camera, it is different from yours, but I know some others will love it. Do you think Pentax is building two new niche products or three? Who is going to decide, which tiny niche might be interesting and the other one not? And don't forget, the most threads in any Pentax-related forum long for a pro-spec body. That is another modell, too.

And this concerns not only Pentax. What I wrote does in no way critisize Pentax, because this is true for all major manufacturers. Perhaps a small, flexible compane with lower general cost, like Cosina, would be able to produce a niche DSLR, but I doubt that.

Ben

[Ratmagiclady]

"Yes, dropping the back LCD is a good idea. I'd prefere to keep an optical viewfinder, but a top LCD could be used to review exposure and focus. The first LCD's with review on the *istD and the early optio was not very large and was still usefull for this. Not as good as a bigger screen, but we must be prepared to give something up. Anyway, the big back LCD would get scratched in my coat pocket!"

Eh, I don't think I'd be willing to drop the back LCD, ...for me half the point of digital is being able to go, 'Fire, already, you glorified Polaroid back!'

[ChrisPlatt]

I don't expect such a minimalist DSLR from the big boys anytime soon.
But a small and innovative company like Cosina might be able to get it done.
Are you listening Kobayashi-san?

Chris

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

It is not about preservin the "bottom plate" size. It is about making a whole new body, complete with the machines to make that.

This is very expensive. And this investment is simply out of the question for Pentax. You don't believe that?

It is easy to believe, that's why I throw in that reservation that it was not gona be as simple as the trick Cosina pulled, yet it is a good example of doing something very different without changing very much inside.

If I'm right when I conclude from this thread that 66mm is near the minima depth of a Pentax DSLR with all goodies, and if you are right that keeping as many components as possible from another camera is not enough to keep down the costs if the body is going to be made substantially thinner, there will never be such a minimalistic compact Pentax digital SLR. Unfortunately I believe both steps in that logic is correct

Even if that option was vialable, it would consume the ressources needed for the next mass-market or semi-pro modell, which is much more important for Pentax to survive.

I agree. That is why I was restricting my hope for such a camera to that it would be a stripped down version of another body with a "limited" outside, since I see that as the only chance.

-- Don't misunderstand me - I am not loathing your ideas...

Not at all. I apprechiate your feed back. Actually more than if someone just run away with my idea and makes it a totally unrealistic digital LX with no restrictions.

....Do you think Pentax is building two new niche products or three? Who is going to decide, which tiny niche might be interesting and the other one not?...

Well, my line of thinking started from two points. My own personal preference to have a SLR that fit in my (big) pockets. But the other is that Pentax has already made itself a niche when making the limited lences, but only halfway through, since they don't have a "limited" body. Especially the DA pancake limiteds actually do look ackward on the bulky DSLR bodies where the built in flash almost extend further than the lens. I've always thought that was strange, and it is what so far have kept me form buying any more ltds than the 35 macro. If for the moment forgetting about the economical problems to make a compact DSLR, I bet they would sell much more ltd lenses if they had a body to match them! What is the point of making a niche that they don't follow up?

...Perhaps a small, flexible compane with lower general cost, like Cosina, would be able to produce a niche DSLR, but I doubt that.

I don't expect such a minimalist DSLR from the big boys anytime soon.
But a small and innovative company like Cosina might be able to get it done.
Are you listening Kobayashi-san?

But it would not be a K mount body!

Eh, I don't think I'd be willing to drop the back LCD, ...for me half the point of digital is being able to go, 'Fire, already, you glorified Polaroid back!'

I also shoot in that way when I shoot with my digital bodies. Shoot first, think then. It is great! I haven't given that up just because I have started again to always have a compact film SLR and one or two extra primes with me, and I wouldn't give it up if I got a compact digital Pentax K mount DSLR either. One does not exclude the other.

[titrisol]

ooohhh!!!
you made my imagination wonder about a D-Bessaflex!!!

I don't expect such a minimalist DSLR from the big boys anytime soon.
But a small and innovative company like Cosina might be able to get it done.
Are you listening Kobayashi-san?

Chris