Regarding: K20D Wishlists and Photography's Masochistic Streak

(NOTE: I realize there are a million K20D wishlist threads out there, but I think mine is significantly different enough to justify its own thread.)

My wishlist for the K20D is very simple, involves decades-old "technology", but has about a 0.02% chance of happening.

There is an epidemic in the camera world today, an epidemic of obesity. Quite frankly, cameras today have all become quite pudgy. Perhaps a bit too much indulgence at the dessert bar and the complacency of photographers who claim "it fits in their hand better."

Nonsense. A camera many value as one of the most comfortable and ergonomic ever made is also significantly smaller than any SLR on the market today. That camera is of course, Leica.



EXHIBIT A: We know who would win in an eating contest but how about a candid photography contest? Read on at http://keppler.popphoto.com/blog/2007/11/inside-straight.html for an article that hits the mark on why today's cameras are freaking oversized.
--

In most sectors of the technology world, you pay more for a more compact product, which is why ultraportable laptops cost more than mainstream laptops which cost more than desktops. Yet for some reason, in photography, where size and weight should be more of a concern than for most kinds of technology, somehow a smaller product is regarded as being "inferior." Thus you get the spectacle of Michael Reichmann travelling around Africa with a positively beastly "walkaround" combination of Canon 1Ds MkIII + 100-400 lens. (Combined weight 2.76kg/6.07lbs.) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/mada-iiis.shtml



EXHIBIT B: Canon 100-400 L attached to "just" a Canon Rebel. Couldn't find the 100-400 attached to a Canon 1D but see the picture above and try to imagine the two together.
--

In his report, Reichmann mentions the size of the Canon 1Ds several times: it is pretty difficult to overlook after all. Although he seems remarkably forgiving of it, I'm willing to bet if you had asked him if he could get the same image and camera quality for one quarter the size and weight, he would have pulled out his wallet and asked how much.

The question is, what is stopping this? OK, the lens may be difficult to size down, but why does the camera have to be such a monster? What ever happened to technology miniaturization, and why are cameras from decades ago so much smaller than today's? I think it is more of a perverse expectation from photographers that small cameras are for amateurs and that real photogs "need" to suffer for their art, and complacency as a result from the camera manufacturers who are happy to indulge as it makes their job a whole lot easier.

It is because the market is being driven by these masochistic expectations and the highly risk-averse nature of camera companies that I don't think we will ever see a high-end compact digital SLR. But still, I can dream, and my dream is called the K20D Limited. Go ahead and release the new, improved, and even fatter K20D to satisfy the egos of the rest of those nutcase photographers, but give me and a few sane others the K20D Limited. I don't mind if everything is exactly the same as the K10D, save two changes:

1. It is roughly the dimensions of the *ist

2. It has an all-metal sealed body to match the Limited series lenses, and would equally come in silver or black.

This camera makes sense for so many reasons. First, Pentax has a long history of making SLR cameras smaller than the competition for those who don't want to engage in the completely unnecessary arms race in size. Second, Pentax has a made a beautiful line of Limited lenses, but where is the camera to go with it?



EXHIBIT C: As Klaus wryly observes in his Photozone review of the Pentax 40mm Limited, "The cutey is a bit of weird fellow when mounted on the rather substantial K10D."
--

What is the point of a lineup of three beautiful and diminuative pancake lenses, perfect for many kinds of photography demanding light and discrete equipment, when Pentax makes no corresponding camera? The idea that people want small, light, and durable camera equipment has clearly occurred to Pentax, but so far the idea is only half-baked.

I would be willing to pay double the price of the K10D for such a camera, say $1400 for the body. Because it would be Limited, Pentax could actually produce the camera in limited numbers alongside the "standard" K20D to minimize their risk. If the demand is there, they can always increase production.

I really think there is a niche market for the K20D Limited. Do you agree?
--
http://madhubuti.deviantart.com/gallery/

I am not too much in favor of size reduction as much as I am in favor of weight reduction.

In fact with the same weight, if the K10D would be a little taller (especially the grip part, the camera would feel more balanced in one's hands.

With a large LCD and things like shake reduction, there is a need for battery power. So the battery weight would be a big component if one needs a decent number of shots. I am sure

Olympus is already doing what you are asking for with their consumer DSLRs (if you can live with the compromises).

Evil_Sheep said:

I would be willing to pay double the price of the K10D for such a
camera, say $1400 for the body.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, $1,400 is unrealistic for such a low volume seller to make any profit at all as it requires a totally new chassis, new parts and new production; and there just aren't enough of you to have a reasonable demand.

History has said otherwise. *ist D* did not sell well at all, despite being significantly smaller & lighter than the competition.

I so agree with you. Even if it were significantly more expensive, I would be much more likely to buy a DSLR the size of my LX (or even better MX) than one the size of a K10D (or worse Canon 5D).

--
http://www.twice-cooked.com/

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wadam/
http://www.flickr.com/people/wadam/

Evil_Sheep said:

Thus you get the spectacle of
Michael Reichmann travelling around Africa with a positively beastly
"walkaround" combination of Canon 1Ds MkIII + 100-400 lens. (Combined
weight 2.76kg/6.07lbs.)

Click to expand...

Evil_Sheep said:

EXHIBIT B: Canon 100-400 L attached to "just" a Canon Rebel. Couldn't
find the 100-400 attached to a Canon 1D but see the picture above and
try to imagine the two together.

Click to expand...

Because Leica makes pocketable 400mm lenses? He took this because he didn't have an alternative. I'd bet this lens is internal focus, which prevents dust from being pumped into the sensor. Really once you start carrying a lens like that around, the size of the body is not important. In fact, if you mount a lens like that on a Rebel with no grip it looks just as out of place as the DA 40 on the K10D.

Evil_Sheep said:

In his report, Reichmann mentions the size of the Canon 1Ds several
times: it is pretty difficult to overlook after all. Although he
seems remarkably forgiving of it, I'm willing to bet if you had asked
him if he could get the same image and camera quality for one quarter
the size and weight, he would have pulled out his wallet and asked
how much.

Click to expand...

And when you told him it was a film camera, he would have put it back in his pocket.

Evil_Sheep said:

The question is, what is stopping this? OK, the lens may be difficult
to size down, but why does the camera have to be such a monster? What
ever happened to technology miniaturization, and why are cameras from
decades ago so much smaller than today's? I think it is more of a
perverse expectation from photographers that small cameras are for
amateurs and that real photogs "need" to suffer for their art, and
complacency as a result from the camera manufacturers who are happy
to indulge as it makes their job a whole lot easier.

Click to expand...

It's because there was very little inside of the film cameras. No AF motor, no pop-up flash, practically no batteries, fewer electronics, no lcd, no rear buttons. Comparing a K100D to a Super Program, the primary difference comes down to the batteries and the rear LCD. If you line up the mounts (sensor/film plane is an identical distance back from the mount) you can see that there is no way to get the cameras as small as they were. Instead of a thin piece of film with a thin door behind it, you have a chip with circuit boards surrounded by a SR mechanism, followed by an LCD panel. The rest of the difference is largely in the batteries. The K10d adds weather sealing which accounts for a lot of the bulk. Tiny cameras are neat, but many of those older cameras were ergonomic train wrecks. There is simply nothing to hold on to.

Evil_Sheep said:

1. It is roughly the dimensions of the *ist
2. It has an all-metal sealed body to match the Limited series
lenses, and would equally come in silver or black.

Click to expand...

I would love an *ist DS concept using the K100d body. I would actually like a larger grip as my finger tips wrap back into the body of the K100d. The rest of the camera is sized right. Basically, put in the Pentaprism VF, improve the shooting rate (the 3 shot buffer isn't really that big of a deal to me, but the 4 second write time to the card is ridiculous) into the K100d Super. Add a changeable focusing screen, overhaul the clunky function menu interface, add the new shooting modes, put ISO in the viewfinder and go ahead an put the 10mp chip in (because its going to happen anyway) and you've got my dollar. Regarding silver, I wish they would just drop that forever. It looked bad enough when cameras were made of metal.

Much of the size of the K10D is in the weather sealing, (something few of those golden oldie small film cameras have) yet you want it all crammed down into what was already a compact camera. Making a body out of metal would make it larger, not smaller as everything would have to be blocky and over-sized to get the same interior room.

The funny part is, the K100d puts most of the old compact film cameras to shame. In the Pentax film bodies, bottom end cameras would typically be missing random modes. Some were aperture priority only like the ME. You had to get the "Super" version to have manual exposure. The K100d has M, P, Av, and Tv, mirror lock up, DOF preview, 1/4000 shutter speed with 1/180 sync speed, three metering modes, and exposure lock. Basically, it is one control wheel and an interchangeable focusing screen away from blowing those old cameras out of the water. Maybe the problem is that the bottom end cameras are just too good as they are, yet some people aren't happy to save some money. Instead they want the same package made out of metal with a big limited sticker across the top.

Evil_Sheep said:

This camera makes sense for so many reasons. First, Pentax has a long
history of making SLR cameras smaller than the competition for those
who don't want to engage in the completely unnecessary arms race in
size. Second, Pentax has a made a beautiful line of Limited lenses,
but where is the camera to go with it?

Click to expand...

Evil_Sheep said:

EXHIBIT C: As Klaus wryly observes in his Photozone review of the
Pentax 40mm Limited, "The cutey is a bit of weird fellow when mounted
on the rather substantial K10D."

Click to expand...

I think it is too small for anything. They should have made it an f/2.4 and put it on par with the DA 21 for size. Still, there is no doubting it looks silly on the K10d.

Evil_Sheep said:

I really think there is a niche market for the K20D Limited. Do you
agree?

Click to expand...

Not in it's own body size. Swapping some better components out of a budget camera that already has a compact body makes sense. Re-engineering and retooling for a limited run body wont happen. It would cost more than you want to spend and would still be a money pit.

--

Judging a photographer on the basis of equipment is like speculating one's physique from a gym pass.

As I should have guessed, most of the comments made so far have been regarding whether my idea for a "K20D Limited" is technically feasible. That was not the main point of my post. The main point was: I believe there is a need and a market for compact midrange and high-end SLR's, instead of just being stuck at the bottom of the market and marketed to amateurs. It is, to me, bizarre because it is the pro photographers (e.g. photojournalists, landscape/wildlife photographers who hike many miles to remote spots, artistic candid street photographers) who most need lightweight, compact yet highly capable SLR's, and yet they are the ones who are stuck with the heaviest, bulkiest equipment. It should be the other way around.

But of course, it is basically inevitable that discussion should turn to whether or not such an SLR is even technically possible. Of course it is technically possible! What I propose contains an absolute zero of new technology. Simply put, I am saying, take a *ist, replace the plastic shell with a metal alloy frame of some sort, add some retro styling, stuff inside the K10D or proposed K20D internals, and call it the K20D Limited or whatever you want. There is nothing technically groundbreaking about it, and yet the idea is completely groundbreaking. Why? Because no manufacturer has ever bothered to put out a high-end compact metal dSLR.

(part 1, and apologies for breaking my post into parts but for some reason the forum times out if I try to send more than 4 paragraphs at a time...)

Question 2: Can Pentax make a profit on it? That depends on how big the market is, partially. But I am pretty sure that $1400 is a generous price point for what I propose. Why? Because no new technology has to go into the K20D Limited, just developing a "new" frame, and one that could easily be based on previous models Pentax has made. Even with low numbers of shipping units, I am confident that Pentax could make a profit. Pentax makes a profit on its Limited lenses like the 31 and the 77...at those prices, how many do you think they sell a year? Probably not too many. And if Voigtlander can still profitably produce a camera like the Bessa R today, a manual, rangefinder film camera with all metal construction for $700 (how many units do you think they sell a year?), I'm pretty sure Pentax can do it for $1400.

I've also seen comments like making a metal body is far too expensive and would make the camera too bulky. Ridiculous. Metal camera bodies are currently widely in use in DSLR's today. The Canon 40D, Sony A700, Nikon D200/D300, to name a few. It's clear that metal-bodied cameras can very easily be profitable at a $1400 price point, if not much cheaper (consider the Voigtlander example as above...or just about any camera made before 1985.)

(part 2)

As for metal increasing size: it increases weight but I don't buy the argument it would increase size. Metal is a considerably tougher material than plastic and so you don't need nearly as much. That is, after all, the whole point of using metal. Manufacturers today use plastic because they cut costs whereever they can, because it is easier to fabricate, because it is very light (but weak), and because people have become much very accepting of poor-quality mass-produced widgets.

It seems pretty clear that a "K20D Limited" is technically possible. When it comes to new, groundbreaking ideas, it is easy to come up with a hundred reasons why something isn't possible. Sometimes it's important to start with the idea that something IS possible and then work from there. That is how most of the world's most successful ideas have come to fruition (ever heard of Google, anyone?) And when it comes to the K20D Limited, there is actually nothing new going into it at all. It is all old ideas, packaged and combined into an evolutionary, not revolutionary, idea.

(part 3)

Question 3: Is it marketable? I don't know, there is a good chance that it isn't. That is why, as I admit in my original post, it is probably a pipe dream. Why? Because both photographers and camera companies are stuck in a rut, both are afraid to take chances and get away from what they know. As mentioned previously, photographers have been misled into believing that bigger must mean better, and they are willing to bust their balls hiking with 30lbs of equipment in order to show off they are a "real" photographer (not like that "amateur" with his Rebel over there.) And camera companies don't know how to innovate besides adding megapixels, more high ISO and more FPS. Slightly useful, but very very safe. They have a successful business model and they don't want to rock the boat. Nobody does.

Still, based on what I've read in this forum at least, and talking to photographers, I believe there really is a niche market out there for high-end compact digital SLR's. I might point out that this very recent hot thread seems to have many who might be supportive of such an idea, like the OP who has moved to Olympus. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=25889002

Also, I might point out the apparent runaway success of the Limited series lenses. The same arguments some of you may make against a Limited camera could easily be applied to the Limited lenses. Jeez, who wants a prime lens in today's day and age, that is so out of date. Who wants a metal lens when I could get the same thing in plastic for $100? Guess what, the Limited lenses are one of Pentax's biggest selling points right now, in my opinion. Why? Because there are enough plastic fantastics out there already, to paraphrase Klaus of Photozone.de.

(part 4)

(part 5 of 5, and again my apologies)

The market is already saturated with plastic consumer junk. Between Canon, Nikon, and Sony there is more than enough plastic to go around for every soccer mom and expectant dad in the world. There's no room for Pentax to play that game because it is never going to win playing their game. It has to play its own game.

Pentax probably thinks it can't afford to take a risk. In my opinion, Pentax can't afford not to take a risk. Right now, things are going good, the DSLR market is red hot with prices hitting rock bottom. That's not going to last. Pretty soon every mom and dad will have their SLR, and then what? Is there really room for 5 big players in the DSLR market, all making exactly the same product? (except Olympus.) What will Pentax do against the entrenched brands and endless development budgets of Nikon, Canon, and Sony? Lower their prices? Margins already look pretty thin. They're gonna have to do something different, or inevitably, go the way of many other great camera companies, like Konica and Minolta. I think there is a niche market out there for people who don't want to lug around cameras the size of medium formats just to take a photo, and who are tired of plastic clone cameras. And I think a camera like a K20D Limited really could fill that niche.

--
http://madhubuti.deviantart.com/gallery/

sit down and draw yourself a chart

who can design you such a contraption

contact an engineer, tell him what you want done, give him a pentax camera so he can take it apart and figure out what would be needed to eliminate all the uneccesary functions

once you have blue prints, find out who can build you such a device

outsource everything

then market it

good luck.

--
i shoot things,

http://fork.zenfolio.com

Here's at least one form of an answer to your question. No to-market date yet, but Sigma recently reaffirmed their commitment to developing it. Still, the trouble they've had and the ongoing debate (over IQ, focal length, etc.) suggests that it's no easy feat, and a big marketplace gamble as well.

http://sigma-dp1.com/

BTW I myself am not generally bothered by the size of a camera like the K10D. But I do agree that it is/would be nice to sometimes have something smaller and easier to carry around for unexpected shots. My own solution for this has been to throw the DA40 on my K100d body, and use lithium batteries. It won't really fit into a pocket, but it's pretty compact, more or less full-featured, and it will make excellent pictures. It's totally compatible with the rest of my gear and workflow. And it's a pretty cheap combo on top of all that too.

See this for a discussion of some similar issues:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/11/splendid-news-f.html

Well I know I should not be writing this, but anyway...

There is a long list of applications where a camera can be too smal too...
Work in arctic climates is one.

Your statement is like saying that high ISO and high framecount is what makes a camera a "pro" camera.

Yes for candids a leica is fine, but then again if you are into wildlife photography, what good is a 21 or 40mm pancake or a leica?

For my applications, the K10D with grip is the smallest i would want. anything smaller is a no go.

And trust me the mountains, snow and fiords really do not care about what I carry around.

around street photography, you may have a point, but I have actually begun realising that your approach is much more important than the camera size... look at doyles work with the new D3 or to darrens work.

Different cameras for different applications and different people, but i think you are wrong about why cameras have grown. For me it is an upside, even when using it for street photography, but especially during the 8 months a year where glvoes is a must when going outside.
And yeah I do prefer the ergonomics of a large camerabody without gloves too.

Sorry if it sounds a little harsh... Your comparison is just not making sense to me.
--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://www.duplophotography.com/
http://www.my.opera.com/duplo
My pictures categorised by lens used:
http://main.duplophotography.com/f311992052/

Your requirements are valid to certain extent for candid, street, travel and causal photography. And that's it. You asked about Reichmann. Handling typical f2.8 moderate zoom, not speaking of something like 100-400L, attached to a small body is an ergonomic unbalanced disaster. Certainly Michael Reichmann would refuse a small body for that type of lens.

It's ridiculous to think that big size of pro camera bodies is some kind of masochistic exercise. It comes from real life field and assignment requirements - handling with long tele lens, sealed durable construction, big bright pentaprism finders for best framing and MF, big LCDs to check critical focus, big batteries and battery grips for longest time in a field, fast fps and complicated precise AF and AE systems for best and fast result, rich direct control with large glove friendly buttons and dials, etc, etc. That all adds to the size and weight and, yes, enhances usability not decreases it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

Nope, you'll see where your mistake is when you will mount constant aperture 2.8 walk around lens like 24-70 EX Sigma on *istD body.

istD is remarkably small for DSLR, but in combination with this lens it is very hard to handle. K10D is much better in this regard, because of the the bigger size and weight it is more balanced with big lenses.

I wouldn't want this cameras smaller, in fact I think that istD and K10D are perfectly sized and balanced for DSLRs. I use one with small primes, and the other with bigger zooms and I am quite happy with there size.

--
I had superpowers, but my therapist took them from me.

brad_R said:

BTW I myself am not generally bothered by the size of a camera like
the K10D. But I do agree that it is/would be nice to sometimes have
something smaller and easier to carry around for unexpected shots. My
own solution for this has been to throw the DA40 on my K100d body,
and use lithium batteries. It won't really fit into a pocket, but
it's pretty compact, more or less full-featured, and it will make
excellent pictures. It's totally compatible with the rest of my gear
and workflow. And it's a pretty cheap combo on top of all that too.

See this for a discussion of some similar issues:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2007/11/splendid-news-f.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments brad_R. I agree the K100D + DA40 makes a fairly good minimal solution already. However, what I would like to see is a high-end, even more compact SLR that would have all the high-end features, including such things as a metal-framed, sealed body, an improved AF system, the inevitable megapixels, etc. All the stuff you usually find in higher-end bodies...but in a small size around that of the *ist. A camera that could be marketed towards serious amateurs, travellers, hikers, etc. Basically, something that bucks the trend in SLR's that bigger is better, because, I don't think it always is.

Also thanks for the TOP link. That story had also got me thinking about this. The principles are similar, but the difference is I'm thinking of a full-featured SLR that could serve as a primary body, not a secondary, and which follows a more physically minimal design philosophy.
--
http://madhubuti.deviantart.com/gallery/

Duplo said:

Well I know I should not be writing this, but anyway...

There is a long list of applications where a camera can be too smal
too...
Work in arctic climates is one.

Your statement is like saying that high ISO and high framecount is
what makes a camera a "pro" camera.

Yes for candids a leica is fine, but then again if you are into
wildlife photography, what good is a 21 or 40mm pancake or a leica?

For my applications, the K10D with grip is the smallest i would want.
anything smaller is a no go.
And trust me the mountains, snow and fiords really do not care about
what I carry around.

around street photography, you may have a point, but I have actually
begun realising that your approach is much more important than the
camera size... look at doyles work with the new D3 or to darrens work.

Different cameras for different applications and different people,
but i think you are wrong about why cameras have grown. For me it is
an upside, even when using it for street photography, but especially
during the 8 months a year where glvoes is a must when going outside.
And yeah I do prefer the ergonomics of a large camerabody without
gloves too.

Sorry if it sounds a little harsh... Your comparison is just not
making sense to me.
--
Thomas

Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments Thomas, I don't think they are harsh. I fully expected that some people wouldn't understand the idea of a high-end compact SLR, because they prefer larger sizes such as yourself. That is fine, and you are lucky because the market is full of the kinds of cameras you want. But I prefer the ergonomics of a small camera body, but with features beyond the entry-level. There is no product out there right now like that.

I think that not everyone wants big, some want small. It especially seems relevant because Pentax makes, for example, nice and small Limited lenses, a high-end product, but there seems little point in pairing them up with the K10D, at least not if you are trying to achieve a minimal combo. They can go with the K100D, but that is still somewhat large and does not have some desirable features of the K10D. Basically, the idea is less is more: for those for whom space and weight are paramount but don't want to compromise on features, for those for whom having a smaller, more discrete camera is important, because some people get intimidated when you bust out your massive Canon 1D.
--
http://madhubuti.deviantart.com/gallery/

When I got my 43mm I knew I'll be putting it on a large body which would make it look awkward. But if there was a body that matches its size, build and performance then I'll get that body then add more Limited lenses.

It's a Limited; it's not intended to be the brand's bread and butter. But it will be an attraction for non-Pentax users. It makes the brand unique. I first took notice of Pentax when I saw the DA Limiteds. I wished I could get one for Canon. Now that I'm with Pentax, whenever I put on my 43 Limited I always catch someone glancing longingly at it from the corner of my eye, and I know that feeling.

Maybe it's just me but the small traditionally shaped DSLRs like the *ist series and K100 did not elicit that same kind of longing in me that the Limiteds did. It's not just the size but also the shape and build. It's a lens line that does not have a matching body, and I suspect Pentax have thought about making it. Otherwise, why would they make such lenses? The DA* line make sense on the K10d; FA and DA make sense on the K100d. Now for the Limiteds, I'm sure there is a designer/engineer within the organization who would have proposed a body for it, but would have trouble getting approval.

Many commenters are exactly right that a small body is not necessarily beneficial, and can even be a drawback. Weight is not one of them of course; if the body is too light for your lens, just screw in an extra weight at the bottom. But a small camera is difficult to handle with gloves or in bad weather.

Now, I'd like to see a small camera with weather sealing, but that's not going to happen. The sealing itself adds quite a lot of bulk, with every seal needing a couple of millimeters extra thickness for the O-ring and fittings. Add a few millimeters all around and the camera bulks up quite notcieably. Better to go for small.

And the last thing we need is a metal body.Yes, metal is cool. Yes, it looks good. Yes, being able to say "oh, it's magnesium alloy" is apparently important for some people. But if you want high impact resistance with low weight and bulk, then plastic is the way to go, either polycarbonate or a fiber-resin composite (most likely the former, of course, since a body shell is a pretty complex shape). It is better than metal in every way for this kind of application.

--
Japan: http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/