A simpler digital camera

Started Nov 1, 2007 | Discussions thread
Genes Pentax Senior Member • Posts: 1,037
Re: A simpler digital camera

Okay, but do you want an imaginary camera that you will never see or
one that has an actual chance of being made? If successful they

All current cameras were just someone's imagination once.

And I hate to break this to you, but every dslr out there is pretty
much the same guts and there isn't all that much difference between

That's probably a good reason to differentiate yourself. When Ford, Chrysler and GM were doing same things, the Japanese auto makers came with something different. Now, look where they are.

bodies either. The differences mainly lie in how the controls are
laid out and how the raw information from the sensor gets handled.

Yes.... control lay out. That's exactly what I've been talking about. Make it better, simpler, etc. I have and had no problem with *ist DS's image quality or the sensor. RAW images produced by the DS was quite good.

Pentax has their way of handling the information, which may improve
from generation to generation but at any one time they have one way
of doing it, so that's going to be the same from body to body so long
as the sensor is the same. So to me, same body with a different
control layout is pretty much a different body. I don't see why they

A body with one or two more buttons than the other one isn't a different body. that's like calling a Buick a Cadillac just because it has a Cadillac badge on it. You must have worked for them during the 80s.

should reinvent the wheel so the thing can be 1 mm narrower. It
makes sense to me to make different versions of the same body to
target different groups rather than try to please everyone with one
body. That's how you end up with tons of features crammed into it
that just confuse one end of the spectrum and irritate the other end.
So, make different versions trying to share as much of the R&D and
production line between them as possible while still making them have
unique characteristics.

Whoever advocated for just one body? I certainly didn't. I'm actually arguing for ANOTHER body.... so, I guess it'll be a 3rd body type.

Yes, share the R&D. I'm all for it.

I'm just saying that if *ist D/DL/DS/K100D/K110D lose some of the unnecessary things like the USB port, power input port, built-in flash, SR, etc. then it could probably be in a smaller package while sharing the same core. Also, lose the stupid post processing stuff built into the camera like B&W mode or Sephia mode, image sharpening, etc. (Again, as I've said before a number of times, that can be done (1) better and (2) faster in a computer.) Perhaps that will allow (1) less buttons, and (2) getting rid of extra processor in the camera which will make the camera even smaller and lighter.

At the same time, it will probably be a bit cheaper (since it won't need some parts it did before) and lighter.

http://genespentax.blogspot.com/

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