A simpler digital camera

Started Nov 1, 2007 | Discussions thread
Genes Pentax Senior Member • Posts: 1,058
Camera equivalent of a roadster

TMalford wrote:

I'm having trouble grasping the idea that a DL isn't easy to operate.

DL is easy to operate. But I think what I (and Eric, I think ...) is trying to say is that it could be BETTER.

I'm thinking of a roadster equivalent of a camera. Sure, you could have a Lexus with 900 watt sound system with 30 speakers + GPS + Maps + wifi + computer + etc etc. But some people want a Simple and Fun machine that will give them the DRIVING experience .... not an audiophile moment in their car. I'm sure you'll agree that there are those that enjoy having a Lexus. However, there is a market, though not big, for roadsters ... small, simple, nimble, and fun machines that really makes you feel the road.

Well, my idea is that if I want to do some serious music listening, I'll go to my listening room in my home and listen rather than go to my car to do the listening.

It's like having a Porsche equivalent (not in terms of price, but in terms of the form/simplicity) of a camera.... classic look with a simple form that is meant for driving. I think Pentax was getting their with ZX-5n, etc.

That's what I'm looking for again. Just as you wouldn't want to bog down a roadster with 900 watt stereo system and all the bells and whistles, a really functional camera can do without all those. At the same time, losing all those bells and whistles should allow it to be SMALLER, SIMPLER, and (hopefully) CHEAPER ... but still produce good quality photos.

Just as I would go to a listening room to have a good music listening experience, if I wanted to have a good picture processing, then I would do it on my computer with Photoshop. Even pictures taken in JPEGs would be processed on my computer with 20" screen. LCD on a camera will never match what I can see on my computer screen and so the post processing on a camera (i.e., adjusting the sharpness, etc in the camera) is just a wasted buttons and electrons. Having a simple computer program that can adjust the sharpness, etc. would be much better ... I mean a computer program that is barebones so that it starts up quickly ... just as fast as turning on the camera and browsing through the menu to adjust the sharpening, etc.

If roadsters were one of the least inexpensive cars on the road, I'm sure the market for them would be much bigger. A camera built so simply and small, unlike cars, won't (or shouldn't) cost very much. So, I speculate that the market for such cameras would be bigger than one would imagine ... unlike roadsters.

But, it seems to me if we want something even easier, how about we
bury these unwanted specs in a menu rather than deleting them,
thereby reducing the number of buttons and knobs. This way the user
still has some growing room.

A true roadster doesn't have "growing room," i.e., option for bells and whistles to make them like a Lexus.

But more importantly, a roadster isn't trying to be everything for everybody. It's for those that enjoy driving. Same thing for a Simple camera. It's for picture taking and all the necessary controls to precisely capture the light. "room to grow" won't be necessary just as a roadster doesn't come with an option for automatic transmission.

Also, having those room to grow will only complicate things and make things more expensive. The point is to make something SIMPLE, SMALL and INEXPENSIVE, yet having the necessary controls to satisfy an enthusiast.


GMT minus 7

One lens leads to another.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow