Reading mode: Light Dark

Pentax, here is an idea

Go to last post
R

rwl408

Senior Member
Messages
1,890
Solutions
1
Reaction score
636
Location
CA, US
You have tried very hard to have a hit product but have not been successfully yet. Being a small player, you have had a hard time to compete with big players (Canon, Nikon and Sony), or even niche players (Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic) in the technology front to win new users. You know your users are price-conscious, to say it nicely, but if you look deep into them, you should have noticed that the majority of them are photography savvy too and don't always overvalue technology or brand name. Here is an idea that may just give you that hit product - a digital version of K1000. Yes, a low-technology FF DSLR. No AF, no auto ISO, no auto-anything. Simple metering and only "M" mode. (Av mode can be considered but highly discouraged.) It will be low priced because it is simply to design, use fewer parts and easy to manufacture. But the main selling point isn't the low price, which is nice, but being a proud owner who has the skill to use it. Imaging what would one feel when shooting along-side someone with a auto-everything Canon or Nikon?

Instantly such a digital K1000 will be very popular among photography students just like the old film K1000, especially if you pair it with low-cost new manual lenses coating for digital sensor.

What do you think?
 
rwl408 said:
rwl408 wrote:

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Three major issues:

1. Once the logic chips are designed and in production, they're the cheapest thing in the camera. That's why digital photography has advanced so far so fast. Removing all the Sv,Av,Tv functions removes lots of function, for very little actual manufacturing cost savings. Especially when

2. Auto-focus, auto-aperature lenses are already in the line-up. A new camera that just ignores all that is likely to feel lke a horse and buggy.

3. If someone really wants to go full manual for the geek cred, why wouldn't they just go down and buy a film SLR? Plenty of those around.

bob
 
bob5050 said:
bob5050 wrote:
bob5050 said:
rwl408 wrote:

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Three major issues:

1. Once the logic chips are designed and in production, they're the cheapest thing in the camera. That's why digital photography has advanced so far so fast. Removing all the Sv,Av,Tv functions removes lots of function, for very little actual manufacturing cost savings. Especially when

2. Auto-focus, auto-aperature lenses are already in the line-up. A new camera that just ignores all that is likely to feel lke a horse and buggy.

3. If someone really wants to go full manual for the geek cred, why wouldn't they just go down and buy a film SLR? Plenty of those around.
Click to expand...
Can you spell instant feedback? Apparently you never shot film.


bob5050 said:
bob
Click to expand...
 
Hi Rick,

People have tossed this concept around over the past few years, but I don't think it's that popular - not enough to produce sales in sufficient number to be a business success. As someone else has already mentioned, many of the standard technologies like AF, PASM+ metering, TTL, scene modes, face recognition and so on are now thoroughly built into the hard and soft ware. It would probably take investment to actually remove them for no advantage other than some sort of 'stripped down anti tech' kudos.

In a way, I think Sony's experiment with their early FFs, the A900 and A850, attempted very sound, well made, no-nonsense DSLRs. They sold, but not that well. Perhaps lens range and brand support had a bearing in that, but I don't think the concept, features or service persuaded FF buyers to depart from Canon & Nikon. I don't think Pentax would fare any better. The cameras Pentax has to compete with are the likes of the D600 and 6D, and they aren't bare bones cameras. People aren't going to buy an FF camera for occasional use - they're buying them to deliver imaging outcomes. Modern cameras simply do it better, faster and more efficiently.


If there's any camera system where I think a modest approach to the features will work it's in mirror-less. Leica eke out an existence with a well made, digital RF system and a range of great lenses at a premium price. No-one makes an AF FF mirror-less system. Yet. We're almost there - you can feel it coming....... I think we'll see an AF FF CSC within two years. I don't know whether Pentax are considering one. Their view last year was that CSC should be limited to APSC, but they never gave a reason for this position. It's certainly not a technical limitation. Fuji and Sony are already looking at compact FF so they must see business in it. Personally I think the right FF CSC would sell like hot cakes. Someone's going to get there first.......

Cheers, Rod
 
I really like my K1000, but I'll boo this idea, its dead before arrival IMO... there is no market for a training(student) camera that has no features anymore. Exposure isn't an important thing to teach anymore aside from unique situations. most cameras in most situations will get it right and therefore what if far more important is (has always been important) is composition, FOV, DOF, Lighting etc. and let us not forget the very important ability to edit a photo to its best possible result, a concept lost on many people on these forums. Not trying to pick on those who are older and not used to editing but many are in this group. As long as one has the ability to get the right shot the only other thing they need is the ability to edit it to its full potential. The art of exposure is all but dead except in special circumstances but the art of editing is absolutely essential. If you want to keep playing with the old arts of film like i do then do it with film!

Clearly i think the idea of a digital K1000 is worse idea then both the Q and K-01 put together... however I appreciate your willingness to consider and present such different ideas.
 
I thought of a similar proposition for a while, but I admit, it wouldn't work. Retro styling is fine, but the camera must be fully capable. It helps with the ROI, development cycle, shared cost, economy of scale, etc. An off beat product would be an impediment for Pentax, not an advantage.
However, one detail that may clearly separate such camera from its DSLR brethren, and yet keep it fully modern, is to de-cripple the K-mount.
 
The nostalgia thing might work, but not the no AF thing. Half the population today is near blind and needs assistance of some kind, glasses, contacts, etc. As for copying the K1000, the Olympus OM-D is a kind of copy of the OM-10, but the finish is a much cruder painted finish, not the satin chrome over brass you used to see on high-quality SLR's of the 1970's. They simply won't be able to afford a real copy of the K1000, only an approximation.
 
rwl408 said:
rwl408 wrote:

You have tried very hard to have a hit product but have not been successfully yet. Being a small player, you have had a hard time to compete with big players (Canon, Nikon and Sony), or even niche players (Fujifilm, Olympus and Panasonic) in the technology front to win new users.
Click to expand...
Olympus and Panasonic, niche players? The m4/3 is nowhere near "niche".
rwl408 said:
You know your users are price-conscious, to say it nicely, but if you look deep into them, you should have noticed that the majority of them are photography savvy too and don't always overvalue technology or brand name. Here is an idea that may just give you that hit product - a digital version of K1000. Yes, a low-technology FF DSLR.
Click to expand...
When the others can't stop cramming features and technology into their cameras.
rwl408 said:
No AF,
Click to expand...
That would make it niche. Who is the target, people who only have few old MF lenses, and won't buy new ones?
rwl408 said:
no auto ISO, no auto-anything. Simple metering and only "M" mode. (Av mode can be considered but highly discouraged.)
Click to expand...
The auto modes are cheap to implement - some buttons/dials and software. Even basic SLRs like the Me had Av mode.
rwl408 said:
It will be low priced because it is simply to design, use fewer parts and easy to manufacture.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you're overestimating the cost reductions. And, by making it a niche product in the end the price could be higher, just because only a few will be sold.
rwl408 said:
But the main selling point isn't the low price, which is nice, but being a proud owner who has the skill to use it. Imaging what would one feel when shooting along-side someone with a auto-everything Canon or Nikon?
Click to expand...
A proud owner of a crippled camera. Yeah, right ;)
rwl408 said:
Instantly such a digital K1000 will be very popular among photography students just like the old film K1000, especially if you pair it with low-cost new manual lenses coating for digital sensor.
Click to expand...
Photography students would rather go for the cheaper APS-C cameras, or for a cheaper second hand FF.

I don't believe in a product which could only succeed if it would be cheaper (and I mean, much cheaper) than the competition's.
rwl408 said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...
That, unfortunately, it can't be made cheap enough for it to work.
 
It's a romantic idea, but I think it doesn't add up in practice.

Still, I think they should think of the 'spirit' of the k1000. What would be the equivalent nowadays?

I loved my k1000 and still keep it out of sentimentality, but never use it.

A handsome no nonsense, practical and affordable FF camera sounds lovely.

Ian
 
Having been a photography student within the last decade and with some of my good friends and class mates, now gone on to be lectures in Photography, and having done some photography teaching myself, I think you radically underestimate what students these days want. There are two schools of photography (over simplisation) students out there, Art and Commercial. The art students are shooting with entry level DSLRs because they are cheap, and holgas and the like because they have art credibility. The commercial students are shooting with entry level DSLRs because they are cheap, or the better off ones are shooting with your mid level cameras, (D300, D7000, 7D, 5D, D700, 5D, 6D ect) because that is what they are planning to use when the start working.




The course I did, two years at technical college, was a commercial one, I spent a portion of it using the *ist DS and the rest using the K10D, most of my friends were shooting with 30D and D200s. We did some film, using view cameras, and that is about it, now the course does a small film section in the photography history glass. The simple no frills cameras for the students to learn on were Pentax 67s and Nikon F3s i think, which was a pro level camera.




The basics of exposure were taught to us using M modes with duct tape, with lectures checking EXIF of the files when submitted.




There is no advantage in the camera you want, the add ons of features as we call them for the most part are worth nothing, the big ticket items in a DSLR are the sensor, and the mirror box assembly, everything thing else would be fairly minor. As such removing things that don't cost wouldn't reduce the cost and the low volumes of such a model would mean that your tooling costs would be spread amongst a lower volume and as such increase the per unit cost.




Want to go all manual, there is a dial on top of the camera that has a spot called M and there is a switch on the front that says MF. Anything else would be both foolish and stupid.
 
Zvonimir Tosic said:
Zvonimir Tosic wrote:
But still, I would not trust them entirely. Maybe they were denying, to hide their plans.

If the MX-1 provides any clue, it is possible they are working on a more retro-looking DSLR.
Click to expand...
Slightly off topic.. but I tried an MX-1 in store. If you want to shoot RAW then do yourself a favour and forget the MX-1, it's next to useless due to long RAW processing times and/or write times during which time the shutter is inoperable.

--

Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar
 
Last edited:
see my sig . . .




seriously, I'd love this to happen (with a de-crippled K mount as Zvonimir suggested) but I don't think it will :-(

Rod
 
Ian J G said:
Ian J G wrote:

Still, I think they should think of the 'spirit' of the k1000. What would be the equivalent nowadays?
Click to expand...
... probably the K-30 or something very similar: perfectly capable as a photographic tool but cheaper, simpler and less sophisticated than the K-5 family or what is about to appear (whatever it turns out to be).
 
If your target market is a niche of students, old people and camera hipsters, you're gonna crash and burn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top