My dream full-frame camera.

Started Apr 3, 2014 | Discussions
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 35,743
Like?
Re: Some of us have different priorities
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

Rservello wrote:

Dave Lively wrote:

Rservello wrote:

That's my biggest reasoning...those are useless features that add to cost and battery lose. If I could get a camera that had no extras with the IQ of the D600 for the price of the D7100 (or even D5200) that would be awesome!

For about $100 you can buy a P&S with the usual exposure modes, autofocus (although not phase detect), video, 3 inch LCD, WiFi, etc. So the total cost of all those items has to be less than $100. They add little to the cost of a FF camera and make it appeal to a much larger market. Deleting them would be like asking the maker of a $35,000 car to make you a model without cruise control and power windows and only charge you $25,000.

If you turn the LCD off it consumes no power. Even if it did the battery on most SLRs lasts for close to 1000 shots and you can always carry a spare battery. They take up a lot less room than 30 rolls of film would have.

It makes a lot more sense for camera manufacturers to make a model with all the features and let those of you that do not need them ignore them. I personally have no use for video but having it in all my cameras does not hurt anything. I just disable or reprogram the record button so I do not accidentally press it and ignore everything video related.

And yet, what is wanted is a FF camera with the form factor of an old DSLR...the ability, obviously, to use good lenses, dials for easy/fast control....a point and shoot will not do any of those things..will it. Personally, what I want already exists in a Leica M9....but at $7000 and $1000 for the cheapest prime...it aint happening anytime soon.

That's the point - making low volume costs a lot - Leica isn't ripping you off, that's what it costs. Where they are fooling you is making you think that an M9 has the form factor of a pre-digital M - it doesn't, it's a lot thicker.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,157Gear list
Like?
Re: Some of us have different priorities
In reply to bobn2, Apr 3, 2014

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

Dave Lively wrote:

Rservello wrote:

That's my biggest reasoning...those are useless features that add to cost and battery lose. If I could get a camera that had no extras with the IQ of the D600 for the price of the D7100 (or even D5200) that would be awesome!

For about $100 you can buy a P&S with the usual exposure modes, autofocus (although not phase detect), video, 3 inch LCD, WiFi, etc. So the total cost of all those items has to be less than $100. They add little to the cost of a FF camera and make it appeal to a much larger market. Deleting them would be like asking the maker of a $35,000 car to make you a model without cruise control and power windows and only charge you $25,000.

If you turn the LCD off it consumes no power. Even if it did the battery on most SLRs lasts for close to 1000 shots and you can always carry a spare battery. They take up a lot less room than 30 rolls of film would have.

It makes a lot more sense for camera manufacturers to make a model with all the features and let those of you that do not need them ignore them. I personally have no use for video but having it in all my cameras does not hurt anything. I just disable or reprogram the record button so I do not accidentally press it and ignore everything video related.

And yet, what is wanted is a FF camera with the form factor of an old DSLR...the ability, obviously, to use good lenses, dials for easy/fast control....a point and shoot will not do any of those things..will it. Personally, what I want already exists in a Leica M9....but at $7000 and $1000 for the cheapest prime...it aint happening anytime soon.

That's the point - making low volume costs a lot - Leica isn't ripping you off, that's what it costs. Where they are fooling you is making you think that an M9 has the form factor of a pre-digital M - it doesn't, it's a lot thicker.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I'm well aware that it's thicker.  BUT, it has the features that are desired.  Since nothing that is being described exists...it's the closest there is.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 35,743
Like?
Re: Some of us have different priorities
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

Rservello wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

Dave Lively wrote:

Rservello wrote:

That's my biggest reasoning...those are useless features that add to cost and battery lose. If I could get a camera that had no extras with the IQ of the D600 for the price of the D7100 (or even D5200) that would be awesome!

For about $100 you can buy a P&S with the usual exposure modes, autofocus (although not phase detect), video, 3 inch LCD, WiFi, etc. So the total cost of all those items has to be less than $100. They add little to the cost of a FF camera and make it appeal to a much larger market. Deleting them would be like asking the maker of a $35,000 car to make you a model without cruise control and power windows and only charge you $25,000.

If you turn the LCD off it consumes no power. Even if it did the battery on most SLRs lasts for close to 1000 shots and you can always carry a spare battery. They take up a lot less room than 30 rolls of film would have.

It makes a lot more sense for camera manufacturers to make a model with all the features and let those of you that do not need them ignore them. I personally have no use for video but having it in all my cameras does not hurt anything. I just disable or reprogram the record button so I do not accidentally press it and ignore everything video related.

And yet, what is wanted is a FF camera with the form factor of an old DSLR...the ability, obviously, to use good lenses, dials for easy/fast control....a point and shoot will not do any of those things..will it. Personally, what I want already exists in a Leica M9....but at $7000 and $1000 for the cheapest prime...it aint happening anytime soon.

That's the point - making low volume costs a lot - Leica isn't ripping you off, that's what it costs. Where they are fooling you is making you think that an M9 has the form factor of a pre-digital M - it doesn't, it's a lot thicker.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I'm well aware that it's thicker. BUT, it has the features that are desired. Since nothing that is being described exists...it's the closest there is.

And it costs what it costs to make a camera like that.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,157Gear list
Like?
Re: Some of us have different priorities
In reply to bobn2, Apr 3, 2014

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Rservello wrote:

Dave Lively wrote:

Rservello wrote:

That's my biggest reasoning...those are useless features that add to cost and battery lose. If I could get a camera that had no extras with the IQ of the D600 for the price of the D7100 (or even D5200) that would be awesome!

For about $100 you can buy a P&S with the usual exposure modes, autofocus (although not phase detect), video, 3 inch LCD, WiFi, etc. So the total cost of all those items has to be less than $100. They add little to the cost of a FF camera and make it appeal to a much larger market. Deleting them would be like asking the maker of a $35,000 car to make you a model without cruise control and power windows and only charge you $25,000.

If you turn the LCD off it consumes no power. Even if it did the battery on most SLRs lasts for close to 1000 shots and you can always carry a spare battery. They take up a lot less room than 30 rolls of film would have.

It makes a lot more sense for camera manufacturers to make a model with all the features and let those of you that do not need them ignore them. I personally have no use for video but having it in all my cameras does not hurt anything. I just disable or reprogram the record button so I do not accidentally press it and ignore everything video related.

And yet, what is wanted is a FF camera with the form factor of an old DSLR...the ability, obviously, to use good lenses, dials for easy/fast control....a point and shoot will not do any of those things..will it. Personally, what I want already exists in a Leica M9....but at $7000 and $1000 for the cheapest prime...it aint happening anytime soon.

That's the point - making low volume costs a lot - Leica isn't ripping you off, that's what it costs. Where they are fooling you is making you think that an M9 has the form factor of a pre-digital M - it doesn't, it's a lot thicker.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I'm well aware that it's thicker. BUT, it has the features that are desired. Since nothing that is being described exists...it's the closest there is.

And it costs what it costs to make a camera like that.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Do you just love arguing...we get it, it would be expensive and will probably never exist.  Get over it.  We can still discuss it.  If you don't like it, stop commenting.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darklamp
Senior MemberPosts: 3,567
Like?
DZeros costs nearly as much as D610s to build
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

You and your friend might buy one. That wouldn't cover the cost to tell the world Nikon had made it. never mind the R&D costs and the costs of tooling a plant and developing firmware and the costs of testing.

a D610 with no LCD or auto features shouldn't cost nearly as much to produce...so it should put it into the cost range of a D7100 with the IQ of a D610

That's not true.

The costs to design and build a "DZero" are actually going to be barely distinguishable from those to build a D610. The "auto features" and the LCD just don;t add the kind of costs you guys like to believe.

But there is a simple way to prove me wrong. All you guys have to do is get yourselves a real design, a real financial plan and investors who believe as you do. Surely there must be engineers and accountants and managers and sales people in the leagues of people you think will rush to this retro DZero.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the DZero to appear.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,157Gear list
Like?
Re: DZeros costs nearly as much as D610s to build
In reply to darklamp, Apr 3, 2014

Yes, I know.  It's the internet.  The goal is to squash anything and everything for no apparent reason. If we were discussing our favorite dragon I'm guessing you would argue that dragons don't exist and couldn't possibly exist.  How about, if this isn't a topic of interest to you...stop commenting.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 35,743
Like?
Re: Some of us have different priorities
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

Rservello wrote:

I'm well aware that it's thicker. BUT, it has the features that are desired. Since nothing that is being described exists...it's the closest there is.

And it costs what it costs to make a camera like that.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Do you just love arguing...

It takes two to argue. There would be no argument if you weren't insisting that your view of things was the only one to be discussed.

we get it, it would be expensive and will probably never exist. Get over it. We can still discuss it. If you don't like it, stop commenting.

'Discussion' is where people say different things. What you seem to want is one where you say 'this would be a jolly good idea' then everyone else says 'yes, that would be a jolly good idea, aren't you clever for thinking that a digital F2 would be a jolly good idea'. It isn't like that, in a discussion, people say what they think, not what you want them to say.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Hass
Regular MemberPosts: 392Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

Rservello wrote:

Jack Hass wrote:

I agree, lets shoot freely without chimping or any other digital help, keep it as simple as possible. There's nothing more satisfying than getting that SD card home and seeing 250 back focused shots that have blown highlights.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

If you are that bad at manual focus and require auto everything to shoot...maybe you should consider a point and shoot and leave the bulky DSLR at home?

Id like to introduce you to my friend, his name is Rhetoric. He also has a cousin named facetious (no, not a mythical greek figure). I shoot as well as any other casual intermediate, that's not the issue. I fail to see the point of the OP and his movement. If i don't want to use my LCD, i can turn it off. Poof!  Like magic, it may as well not be there. If i don't want AF guess what.... Poof! Like magic, i turn it off and it's gone. What i see is a bunch of pompous ego heads who would like to show off their prowess by owning "the pure" cameras that nobody else is good enough to use. Nobody is making you guys use these features now. Turn it off, shoot blind, keep it till you go home, like a cracker jack box. Surprise !!!

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jack Hass
Regular MemberPosts: 392Gear list
Like?
Re: And we thought Nikon's current management was poor
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

Rservello wrote:

And presumably a time travel device to sell these, because they won't sell now.

They would sell. There are still people that shoot photography for the enjoyment of mastering an art...not for the ability just to show off cool pics on facebook...or do it for a living. Would they sell for $3000....not a chance in hell. But a D610 with no LCD or auto features shouldn't cost nearly as much to produce...so it should put it into the cost range of a D7100 with the IQ of a D610. If I could get my old Canon AE-1 with a digital sensor back I would be ALL IN!

I personally shoot 100% manual and never look at the meter. I do look at the histogram in order to make sure I am exposing evenly on a test shot, but after that I just shoot and look later.

I fail to see how having aids like AF or a histo detract in any way my ability to produce art. Goodness knows im anti FB, twitter, myspace, i could care less about the social movement. That is why i like DPR, it's not about identity, it's about ideas. If all you guys are worried about is saving a few bucks perhaps you should spend a few more hours at work to finance your hobby. Or take you own advice, buy a cheap P&S.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aaron801
Senior MemberPosts: 1,695Gear list
Like?
Re: yuck
In reply to tko, Apr 3, 2014

tko wrote:

Why would anyone want that? Lets throw away 60 years of progress. Why not just buy an old film SLR and develop in the darkroom? Which, if you truly want the old-time experience, would be the only ethical way to go.

By the way, I've been shooting for about 50 years now . . . and I don't get this yearning for the past.

I agree with that viewpoint. I mean, I do like certain "old school" controls for camreas. The Fuji design with the ISO and shutter speed, right on the camera body is nice, I think. So is the fact that their lenses have the aperture right on the barrel. I like cameras with exposure comp adjustments on the body as well, which my GH2 doesn't have but I've certainly leaned to live with. I like occasionally using manual focus as well, but then again the really nice aids for that are high-tech, like focus peaking.

I really appreciate a lot of the "tech" in these cameras though (beyond just the sensor) and I think that although some on-the-body, old school type controls are really nice and very useful (you pay more... a lot more for that kind of thing in pro-level video cameras) I don't see a reason that digital cameras should operate just like film cameras. All of these extra features (like AF, to begin with) just mean that you have the ability to take good photos in many different types of situations and features like AF mean that you can come away with more keepers. The really well designed cameras are made in such a way that they're easy to use manually, without all of the automated features (like AF, auto exposure, etc) so I see no really compelling reason to have a digital camera that is designed to mimic an old film camera and only does that... Why not have the best of both worlds with great automated features as well as well implemented full-manual controls and then the user can choose between the two depending on what works best for a given situation.

The one set of features that I know that I'll never use is various in-camrea effects; if I want some crazy clown-color saturation,  on something I can always make that adjustment later in Photoshop and I'm much rather do it that way and have precise control of what I'm getting. Still, it doesn't bother me that my camera offers tons of those kind of options; they're buried deep in menus that I don't go to and am unlikely to get to by accident. I figure that they're made for a few percentage of users that are going to like that sort of thing and by appealing to those folks, the manufacturer can sell more camreas. If they're selling more, they can make 'em for cheaper and I get a bargain. It's a win-win situation, really. I realize that cameras are mass produced products and as such they're made to appeal to as many folks as possible. As long as they can be made so that the checklist of features that I want is part of the equation and that the extra features don't bog down the operation, it's all good.

 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darklamp
Senior MemberPosts: 3,567
Like?
Re: DZeros costs nearly as much as D610s to build
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

Rservello wrote:

Yes, I know. It's the internet. The goal is to squash anything and everything for no apparent reason. If we were discussing our favorite dragon I'm guessing you would argue that dragons don't exist and couldn't possibly exist. How about, if this isn't a topic of interest to you...stop commenting.

I'll comment as much as I like. You don't get to tell people to get lost just because you don't like what they say.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,157Gear list
Like?
Re: DZeros costs nearly as much as D610s to build
In reply to darklamp, Apr 3, 2014

This is getting boring. I agree with the op.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 2,080
Like?
My dream camera...
In reply to Rservello, Apr 3, 2014

Digital has brought us one MASSIVE advantage: Variable ISO. This is the single most amazing revolution in camera evolution and the one thing I could not sacrifice - hence the reason I do actually enjoy modern cameras with all their fiddly buttons and (personally) unnecessary gizmos!

Howver,  there are a good deal of photographers who do want a return of some of the things we've actually lost as technology has 'advanced'. And, there is no reason these things can't be re-incorporated.

So, hopefully I can take a turn to 'fantasize' about my ideal FF and others can bring me back to reality with factsas to why this can't be done .......

1) A Large bright viewfinder. THE single most important feature on a camera as it is the part which your brain engages with to create the shot. No viewfinder has been made since the advent of digital which could compare to those on older manual focus models. A LBV = easier composition, less eye-strain, easier to see if focus is hit (without the backfocusing you suffer now, Jack Hass - and without the lens hunting, or without Aaron's needle-threading syndrome). I know of so many photographers who long for easy accurate manual focus that I'd bet the first FF to incorporate this will sell like hotcakes.

2) Removable/Interchangable viewfinder. This was a great feature of cameras like the Nikon F, great for macro-work, overhead or hip shooting.

3) Only 2 dials on the camera: 1 to control Shutter speed, the other to control ISO. Anything else is a distraction. The other two dials, aperture and focus, staying on the lens - This design is perfect for fast, intuitive control , firm grip and always being ready to hit the release. Simply put, it fits with the old adage: 'The best camera is the one which doesn't get in the way of taking photos'. Again - there's a large market for photographers who just want something simple that does the job. Call it a point & shoot if you will

4) Lightweight & portable AND solid as a brick.

5) Changeable backs: so I can keep hold of a perfectly working camera, and the tool I'm accustomed to, when they improve sensor technology. Perhaps we'd also have the options of a selection of VR sensors, specialist high ISO sensors, or high MP low ISO one's.
Alas, the marketing people have us over a barrel on this one (pssst...it's called planned obsolescence )

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pavi1
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,645Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to robin t, Apr 4, 2014

robin t wrote:

Tell me why I'm wrong and I'll cave in and buy that new Nikon. . .

You are wrong for creating a new account and making a ridiculous post just to see who will argue with you.

-- hide signature --

Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 2,080
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to pavi1, Apr 4, 2014

pavi1 wrote:

You are wrong for creating a new account and making a ridiculous post just to see who will argue with you.

I do agree that the op is rather guilty of lighting a fuse and standing back to watch the fireworks!!! But I guess nobody is forced to watch the show!

Personally, I think the idea of a camera which suits my needs is worth discussing - Heck, it makes a change from the endless discussions about who has the best one with the fastest fps, or AF. But, as I have no interest in those discussions I don't join in with them. And I certainly wouldn't do so just to call them ridiculous. Is that ok?

Anyway, On with my happy dream........

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Malikknows
Regular MemberPosts: 149Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to Jack Hass, Apr 4, 2014

I don't agree, Jack.  It is a fair question to ask why our cameras have to be so complex.  Can't technology be employed to make them simpler?  Do our cameras have to be computers with lenses on them?  Do they have to be packed with features few of us will ever use?  It is not simply nostalgia at work here, and it is certainly not snobbery, at least for me.  I'm not a computer geek but I love taking photos, thinking about composition and light and experiencing the moment.  I use a small fraction of the tech that's available in my 5D and do wonder if I wouldn't enjoy myself more without it.    It is fair to consider the question of whether or not this spectacular technology is not for its own sake, rather than for the sake of photography or even art.

Notwithstanding these concerns, I am grateful for these incredibly competent and innovative instruments and for the scientists and engineers who make them possible -- at such high levels of reliability yet for such low cost.

Yours, Malik

 Malikknows's gear list:Malikknows's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aaron801
Senior MemberPosts: 1,695Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to Janoch, Apr 4, 2014

Janoch wrote:

You don't have to use the LCD or other screens... mine is turned off and only use it, when "chimping". But I like to check, if the shot was nailed at site.

Alas, I'm surprised again and again, when looking through shots, once at home (rolls eyes)

Better battery life? I don't know... haven't still been able to "kill" a battery out there. More than 1000 shots per charge...

Image qulity = equal? I don't believe you!

And if you want a weight winner, just replace the D600 with a D800!

Will also increase the fun part...

Happy Hunting!

Yeah, the "equal" comment doesn't really seem to be the case. I feel like my m4/3 camera captures far more detail than a 35mm image and for it to even come close you'd have to be shooting on some sort of 64 ASA film... which is a drag and pretty limiting. A FF camera then would be much more comparable to a medium format. I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff but I seem to remember seeing tests where a digital FF bested a 120 camera's image. A 4' x " much less an 8"18" image is in a whole other class, but most folks don't need that kind of quality anyway (a lot of us don't see that the bunk and cost of a FF is even worth it with the quality possible in smaller formats.

The whole battery issue doesn't really make sense to me either. First of all a digital camera does so much more stuff, it's inevitable that it's going to draw more power... if not only for the sensor for the ability to preview images right after you take them and in the case of electronic viewfinders to show you effects of exposure and all kinds of other information in the finder. I bought my GH2 used and perhaps because the three batteries it came with already had a lot of use on 'em they go really really fast. Still, I'm not bothered by this in the least as it's easy enough to charge up all three and then they pack very, small so even if I don't bring a camera bag with me they're easily pocketable. If I'm doing a lot of shooting, I'll typically only use two so the third one is really just a sort of safety measure.

 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darklamp
Senior MemberPosts: 3,567
Like?
The OP has every right to post
In reply to pavi1, Apr 4, 2014

You are wrong for creating a new account and making a ridiculous post just to see who will argue with you.

The OP became a DPR member back in Jan 2013 according to their profile - over a year ago. So your claim has no basis.

Not that it matters - the OP is entitled to start any thread he or she likes as long as it obeys the rules.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
robin t
robin t OP
New MemberPosts: 9
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to Aaron801, Apr 4, 2014

Aaron801 wrote:

Janoch wrote:

You don't have to use the LCD or other screens... mine is turned off and only use it, when "chimping". But I like to check, if the shot was nailed at site.

Alas, I'm surprised again and again, when looking through shots, once at home (rolls eyes)

Better battery life? I don't know... haven't still been able to "kill" a battery out there. More than 1000 shots per charge...

Image qulity = equal? I don't believe you!

And if you want a weight winner, just replace the D600 with a D800!

Will also increase the fun part...

Happy Hunting!

Yeah, the "equal" comment doesn't really seem to be the case. I feel like my m4/3 camera captures far more detail than a 35mm image and for it to even come close you'd have to be shooting on some sort of 64 ASA film... which is a drag and pretty limiting. A FF camera then would be much more comparable to a medium format. I'm certainly not an expert on this stuff but I seem to remember seeing tests where a digital FF bested a 120 camera's image. A 4' x " much less an 8"18" image is in a whole other class, but most folks don't need that kind of quality anyway (a lot of us don't see that the bunk and cost of a FF is even worth it with the quality possible in smaller formats.

The whole battery issue doesn't really make sense to me either. First of all a digital camera does so much more stuff, it's inevitable that it's going to draw more power... if not only for the sensor for the ability to preview images right after you take them and in the case of electronic viewfinders to show you effects of exposure and all kinds of other information in the finder. I bought my GH2 used and perhaps because the three batteries it came with already had a lot of use on 'em they go really really fast. Still, I'm not bothered by this in the least as it's easy enough to charge up all three and then they pack very, small so even if I don't bring a camera bag with me they're easily pocketable. If I'm doing a lot of shooting, I'll typically only use two so the third one is really just a sort of safety measure.

So when I said "image quality" I should really have said 'shallow depth of field', because for me that's what makes a truly beautiful image. I don't really care so much about how crisp or perfectly rendered the colours are, I'm after an interesting image that grabs the eye, and that requires part of the image in focus and part of the image out of focus. I've tried a 4/3 camera for a few years, and while the size, weight and quality of the images are all excellent, it does not in any way inspire me like seeing my slide and black and white images from my old 35 mm camera. Very simply, the smaller sensor leaves too much in focus all the time. This is one of the hardest things for me to accept about the new digital paradigm, is that consumer, prosumer, and every other level of affordable equipment cannot replicate the depth of field of professional equipment. Whereas in the old days the very cheapest plastic SLRs (i.e. nikon fm10) could take pictures as beautiful and mesmerizing as the most expensive professional equipment, because they all had the same 'sensor' size.

In terms of battery life, I agree, modern cameras do so much more stuff that they require lots more battery power. But what if I don't want the camera to do all that stuff? What if I want to do more of it? What if I prefer the manual click of an aperture ring, and the full stop of a proper manual focus ring - some actual physical feedback that allows me to work by feel? That makes the experience of photography something more than just recording images. It's a physical act that requires coordination - a learned skill. And that's what I want. It also happens to not require batteries, which is also what I want. Hmm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
robin t
robin t OP
New MemberPosts: 9
Like?
Re: And we thought Nikon's current management was poor
In reply to Jack Hass, Apr 4, 2014

Jack Hass wrote:

Rservello wrote:

And presumably a time travel device to sell these, because they won't sell now.

They would sell. There are still people that shoot photography for the enjoyment of mastering an art...not for the ability just to show off cool pics on facebook...or do it for a living. Would they sell for $3000....not a chance in hell. But a D610 with no LCD or auto features shouldn't cost nearly as much to produce...so it should put it into the cost range of a D7100 with the IQ of a D610. If I could get my old Canon AE-1 with a digital sensor back I would be ALL IN!

I personally shoot 100% manual and never look at the meter. I do look at the histogram in order to make sure I am exposing evenly on a test shot, but after that I just shoot and look later.

I fail to see how having aids like AF or a histo detract in any way my ability to produce art. Goodness knows im anti FB, twitter, myspace, i could care less about the social movement. That is why i like DPR, it's not about identity, it's about ideas. If all you guys are worried about is saving a few bucks perhaps you should spend a few more hours at work to finance your hobby. Or take you own advice, buy a cheap P&S.

-- hide signature --

May Satan forever guide you.

It's not about your art vs my art, and its also not about saving a few bucks. What I was saying in the original post was just that all the things I happen to want in a camera are all things that it *seems* would also make the camera lighter, cheaper, and have much greater battery life. It's not that I want them simply because I think they will make it cheaper.

I genuinely want a small full frame DSLR. I am genuinely not interested in having ten million options everytime I shoot a picture. I realize I could ignore all the extra buttons and dials, but the shooting experience is not the same (and is lesser in many ways) than a 40 year old hunk of metal that cost me next to nothing and still worked fine 20 years after it was built.

I don't want to shoot film, and I understand that the combined cost of the camera and all the film I bought over the years is far more than any full frame professional DSLR nowadays. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the experience is lesser (in my opinion) than it was.

I believe that cameras (and probably all things) will go 'backwards' eventually when we finally figure out that having tiny screens on every single appliance we own does not make them better to use. There is nothing like knowing a well designed tool so that you can use it with your eyes closed. With my FT2 I could pick it up and within 2 seconds know what f-stop, aperture, and where the focus ring was WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CAMERA. Without having it at my eye. It means that my interaction with the camera is physical, and not cerebral at all. I liked that interaction, and I feel its a loss that that does not exist any more.

And the solution seems so simple, which is why I made the post. All I want is an old time setup. I don't want to see my photos as I take them. I want to take photos when I take them. And after I get back home I can get back into that reflective, cerebral mindset where I look at my photos and  get all excited about them. Or feel like a doofus for messing up the focus, aperture or shutterspeed. Cause that's all part of it. . .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads