Pentax LX in Mirrorless

[DougOB]

The answers have been helpful to understand what current issues exist and why Pentax may not consider it as the best idea. I can also understand why people who appreciate extensive customizable buttons and good ergonomics may not want to straddle along a Pentax KP successor, just for looks.

I think K3 Mark III form factor is great. A KP form factor would impact the whole DSLR experience. Either Pentax should make a truly retro and thin but highly capable mirror less lineup, or they should continue making their excellent DSLRs. A juxtaposition of both might be more Frankenstein than cute.

I don't really understand nostalgia for old technology. I mean, I understand it if it's an object one bought a long time ago and kept preciously, why not, but I don't get why one would want something new with a look (and often bad or limited ergonomics and features) from the past.

I mean, if it's a passion for very simple cameras with stripped down controls, one can just buy a GoPro ? :-D

It takes very little extra R&D for Pentax to pull this - they have a production line, 90% of parts are same, an EVF can simply be bought from a vendor and the software already has a lot of features from other mirrorless cameras. If Ricoh GR can be successful, maybe a Pentax MILC Lx can be as well. But I guess it is not Pentax engineers but Ricoh management that ties their hands.

Pentax might have to look for another owner if they have to reinvent themselves(again!).

No, no, there is one cardinal "obstacle" to go mirror-less! And it is the K mount. Pentax will (they have to) stick with this mount forever! This is their the only way to survive! This is what makes them so unique! And this is what prevents them to go mirrorless. Unless they would want to repeat another K-01 fiasco :-( .

The K-01 did not fail because of the K-mount. It was a style design disaster that meant nobody took it seriously. There were a few performance limitations that could have been worked out with a mkII version. The biggest weaknnes (for me) is no EVF, back screen only. It is difficult to use on a sunny day. Although a new mount is technically preferable for a MILC it is still perfectly possible with a k-mount.

Doug

Doug, one important advantage of mirror-less cameras is, that they are flatter. At least, this would be my main reason to get such a camera. And with the existing K mount there is no way to make any flat camera :-( .

The flatter advantage is overhyped, it helps with marketing. Put on pretty much any lens and the advantage is gone. On the other hand Pentax were looking at XS lenses that could make use of the space.



Doug

 

[flektogon]

Doug, one important advantage of mirror-less cameras is, that they are flatter. At least, this would be my main reason to get such a camera. And with the existing K mount there is no way to make any flat camera :-( .

The flatter advantage is overhyped, it helps with marketing. Put on pretty much any lens and the advantage is gone. On the other hand Pentax were looking at XS lenses that could make use of the space.



Doug

Oh yes, it's a beauty!

--
Regards,
Peter

 

[JeremieB]

The answers have been helpful to understand what current issues exist and why Pentax may not consider it as the best idea. I can also understand why people who appreciate extensive customizable buttons and good ergonomics may not want to straddle along a Pentax KP successor, just for looks.

I think K3 Mark III form factor is great. A KP form factor would impact the whole DSLR experience. Either Pentax should make a truly retro and thin but highly capable mirror less lineup, or they should continue making their excellent DSLRs. A juxtaposition of both might be more Frankenstein than cute.

I don't really understand nostalgia for old technology. I mean, I understand it if it's an object one bought a long time ago and kept preciously, why not, but I don't get why one would want something new with a look (and often bad or limited ergonomics and features) from the past.

I mean, if it's a passion for very simple cameras with stripped down controls, one can just buy a GoPro ? :-D

In this shrunken camera market, there seem to be only two ways to survive - compete to be the best or offer something different in a niche. There's a third route too - connect to the internet and bring an Android like open platform for cameras that allows third party app development and quick sharing. But Japanese companies are obstinate in not pursuing this so I'll disregard it.

You talk about an "Android like open platform for cameras that allows 3rd party app dev and quick sharing" as if it was something easy to do

If I was them I wouldn't use any variant of Android - too slow. And adds another dependency on a big one, after Sony sensors ...

Linux is fine. I'd also like to see an extended SDK and sharing interfaces, but it's probably too small a niche for this kind of things.

Competing aggressively with CanikSony is a ship that sailed long ago for Pentax. So the other option is niche, which they already do well for DSLRs. I'm obviously not asking for a full replacement of DSLR lineup with mirror less. Just make a one line of simple full frame camera that is 24-30 Mp and six or seven small primes - 23/35/40/50/75/90. Like those small Voigtlanders.

Note that I was only talking about the nostalgia thing, not even the mirrorless thing ! :-D

Even a small company like Voigtlander has diversified from just M mount lenses to other mirrorless manufacturers, and now they even make APS-C lenses specially for Fuji.

Classic design has worked well for Fujfilm and Olympus Pen(E-P/PL) series. Classic design actually fits well with ergonomics of small primes. It is only with larger lenses that problems arise.

Well, that's for the size, but also regarding controls, I wouldn't want less buttons and dials on my K3III. I use most of them, most of the time, and it's so much better (for me) to use physical dials than to dig into the menus all the time.

We also must see why manufacturers moved to mirrorless. Because it saves them money. It is actually much easier to make mirrorless cameras, compared to making a custom pentaprism and aligning the mirror etc perfectly. It makes cameras lighter, less complex, and latest sensors are fast enough to even forego mechanical shutter.

It takes very little extra R&D for Pentax to pull this - they have a production line, 90% of parts are same, an EVF can simply be bought from a vendor and the software already has a lot of features from other mirrorless cameras. If Ricoh GR can be successful, maybe a Pentax MILC Lx can be as well. But I guess it is not Pentax engineers but Ricoh management that ties their hands.

Ok, now on the mirrorless thing - that was discussed a billion times. I don't think it's a good strategy for Pentax, with the zillion amazing MILCs out there ...

And the Ricoh GR is a good example, it's not an SLR, but if I wanted a pocket camera with a prime lens and a stylish design, I'd probably buy that. I really like it, but with my DSLRs it seems overkill - I have way too many cameras already ... :-D

Pentax might have to look for another owner if they have to reinvent themselves(again!).

Well, I don't think mirrorless is such a big thing ultimately. It's great of course, but it's not like film versus digital, to my eyes, that was a revolution. I'd have hopes for a DSLR niche where Pentax would incrementally include more and more computational features (not on image processing, but on AF, live view, or things like the astrotracer type 3).

 

[Skip py]

The answers have been helpful to understand what current issues exist and why Pentax may not consider it as the best idea. I can also understand why people who appreciate extensive customizable buttons and good ergonomics may not want to straddle along a Pentax KP successor, just for looks.

I think K3 Mark III form factor is great. A KP form factor would impact the whole DSLR experience. Either Pentax should make a truly retro and thin but highly capable mirror less lineup, or they should continue making their excellent DSLRs. A juxtaposition of both might be more Frankenstein than cute.

I don't really understand nostalgia for old technology. I mean, I understand it if it's an object one bought a long time ago and kept preciously, why not, but I don't get why one would want something new with a look (and often bad or limited ergonomics and features) from the past.

I mean, if it's a passion for very simple cameras with stripped down controls, one can just buy a GoPro ? :-D

It takes very little extra R&D for Pentax to pull this - they have a production line, 90% of parts are same, an EVF can simply be bought from a vendor and the software already has a lot of features from other mirrorless cameras. If Ricoh GR can be successful, maybe a Pentax MILC Lx can be as well. But I guess it is not Pentax engineers but Ricoh management that ties their hands.

Pentax might have to look for another owner if they have to reinvent themselves(again!).

No, no, there is one cardinal "obstacle" to go mirror-less! And it is the K mount. Pentax will (they have to) stick with this mount forever! This is their the only way to survive! This is what makes them so unique! And this is what prevents them to go mirrorless. Unless they would want to repeat another K-01 fiasco :-( .

The K-01 did not fail because of the K-mount. It was a style design disaster that meant nobody took it seriously. There were a few performance limitations that could have been worked out with a mkII version. The biggest weaknnes (for me) is no EVF, back screen only. It is difficult to use on a sunny day. Although a new mount is technically preferable for a MILC it is still perfectly possible with a k-mount.

Doug

Doug, one important advantage of mirror-less cameras is, that they are flatter. At least, this would be my main reason to get such a camera. And with the existing K mount there is no way to make any flat camera :-( .

The flatter advantage is overhyped, it helps with marketing. Put on pretty much any lens and the advantage is gone. On the other hand Pentax were looking at XS lenses that could make use of the space.



Doug

An updated K-01 rebranded by Ricoh as a GR FF ? The GR is already cool. Take the ergonomics of the GR II & III that makes them so great for street photography, add modern AF capabilities if needed, keep modern DSLR design and the KAF mount with XS FF lenses : that could compete with the good old Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-RX1R II at a fraction of the price with a 36 or 42 Mpx sensor. I'd like it, but I'm not sure it could find its niche though.

On the other hand, a rugged one with D/FA lenses and filters inside - in place of the mirror almost like Benro's Aureole - could be another niche for lanscape photographers. With the sensor system Pentax used for their KP / K-1 / 645Z IR flavors (sensitivity ranging from 350nm to 1100nm or less ?) even with a classical END USER UV/IR CAMERA APPLICATION like for the Fuji XT1-IR ... I would get one in a heartbeat : more convenient than a full spectrum converted camera with its usual limitations and the need to change filters for each lens, or unmount the current lens and replace the clip-in filter in the field for a different bandwidth ! Automatic WB with the selected encoded filter could be another benefit. This would be easier and could even lower the prices for museums, forensic and medical customers if Pentax/Ricoh could build some "downgraded" ones for us on the same production lines ? Astro with dedicated filters and the new GPS should be interesting too !

Anyway, while "retrofit" is a buzzword these days, I guess that a true digital LX or K1000 is still not back ... ;-)

Regards, Fred

 

[Skip py]

The answers have been helpful to understand what current issues exist and why Pentax may not consider it as the best idea. I can also understand why people who appreciate extensive customizable buttons and good ergonomics may not want to straddle along a Pentax KP successor, just for looks.

I think K3 Mark III form factor is great. A KP form factor would impact the whole DSLR experience. Either Pentax should make a truly retro and thin but highly capable mirror less lineup, or they should continue making their excellent DSLRs. A juxtaposition of both might be more Frankenstein than cute.

I don't really understand nostalgia for old technology. I mean, I understand it if it's an object one bought a long time ago and kept preciously, why not, but I don't get why one would want something new with a look (and often bad or limited ergonomics and features) from the past.

I mean, if it's a passion for very simple cameras with stripped down controls, one can just buy a GoPro ? :-D

In this shrunken camera market, there seem to be only two ways to survive - compete to be the best or offer something different in a niche. There's a third route too - connect to the internet and bring an Android like open platform for cameras that allows third party app development and quick sharing. But Japanese companies are obstinate in not pursuing this so I'll disregard it.

You talk about an "Android like open platform for cameras that allows 3rd party app dev and quick sharing" as if it was something easy to do

If I was them I wouldn't use any variant of Android - too slow. And adds another dependency on a big one, after Sony sensors ...

Linux is fine. I'd also like to see an extended SDK and sharing interfaces, but it's probably too small a niche for this kind of things.

Linux base and a GPL SDK would be great but unfortunately I haven't seen lots of communications about Pentax latest SDK on github or such.

Competing aggressively with CanikSony is a ship that sailed long ago for Pentax. So the other option is niche, which they already do well for DSLRs. I'm obviously not asking for a full replacement of DSLR lineup with mirror less. Just make a one line of simple full frame camera that is 24-30 Mp and six or seven small primes - 23/35/40/50/75/90. Like those small Voigtlanders.

Note that I was only talking about the nostalgia thing, not even the mirrorless thing ! :-D

Even a small company like Voigtlander has diversified from just M mount lenses to other mirrorless manufacturers, and now they even make APS-C lenses specially for Fuji.

Classic design has worked well for Fujfilm and Olympus Pen(E-P/PL) series. Classic design actually fits well with ergonomics of small primes. It is only with larger lenses that problems arise.

Well, that's for the size, but also regarding controls, I wouldn't want less buttons and dials on my K3III. I use most of them, most of the time, and it's so much better (for me) to use physical dials than to dig into the menus all the time.

I guess that phyisical dials are some of the most useful one on Pentax cameras. I couldn't do without it either.

We also must see why manufacturers moved to mirrorless. Because it saves them money. It is actually much easier to make mirrorless cameras, compared to making a custom pentaprism and aligning the mirror etc perfectly. It makes cameras lighter, less complex, and latest sensors are fast enough to even forego mechanical shutter.

It takes very little extra R&D for Pentax to pull this - they have a production line, 90% of parts are same, an EVF can simply be bought from a vendor and the software already has a lot of features from other mirrorless cameras. If Ricoh GR can be successful, maybe a Pentax MILC Lx can be as well. But I guess it is not Pentax engineers but Ricoh management that ties their hands.

Ok, now on the mirrorless thing - that was discussed a billion times. I don't think it's a good strategy for Pentax, with the zillion amazing MILCs out there ...

Pentax has yet to play on the DSLR niche. MILC will only be usefull when Pentax can bring something new to the market (something like their Translucent mirror with adjustable transmission rate, for which they have a patent, a more ruged camera with rear filters in the body for wide lenses and harsh weather, or something else we still have no clue of).

And the Ricoh GR is a good example, it's not an SLR, but if I wanted a pocket camera with a prime lens and a stylish design, I'd probably buy that. I really like it, but with my DSLRs it seems overkill - I have way too many cameras already ... :-D

Pentax might have to look for another owner if they have to reinvent themselves(again!).

Well, I don't think mirrorless is such a big thing ultimately. It's great of course, but it's not like film versus digital, to my eyes, that was a revolution. I'd have hopes for a DSLR niche where Pentax would incrementally include more and more computational features (not on image processing, but on AF, live view, or things like the astrotracer type 3).

Mirroless is game changing only for specialized use cases. I can think of stacked sensors for blackout free viewfinders (ie sports, events and wildlife photography), or experiments with unusual wavelengths where human vision and current DSLR AF systems can't cope (IR photography for example: optical viewfinder with DSLR is then mostly useless ; liveview is your only way to focus correctly and this type of AF isn't very fast yet. Then, adapted WB gives you live overview closer to your expected post processed image).

 

[Wallace Ross]

I am all in on the optical viewfinder. Ricoh made a choice to diverge from the herd and that suits me fine. Now a digital camera with some ground glass you’ve got me interested.

 

[KPM2]

Hello kamerakiri and JeremieB

The answers have been helpful to understand what current issues exist and why Pentax may not consider it as the best idea. I can also understand why people who appreciate extensive customizable buttons and good ergonomics may not want to straddle along a Pentax KP successor, just for looks.

I think K3 Mark III form factor is great. A KP form factor would impact the whole DSLR experience. Either Pentax should make a truly retro and thin but highly capable mirror less lineup, or they should continue making their excellent DSLRs. A juxtaposition of both might be more Frankenstein than cute.

I don't really understand nostalgia for old technology. I mean, I understand it if it's an object one bought a long time ago and kept preciously, why not, but I don't get why one would want something new with a look (and often bad or limited ergonomics and features) from the past.

I mean, if it's a passion for very simple cameras with stripped down controls, one can just buy a GoPro ? :-D

In this shrunken camera market, there seem to be only two ways to survive - compete to be the best or offer something different in a niche. There's a third route too - connect to the internet and bring an Android like open platform for cameras that allows third party app development and quick sharing. But Japanese companies are obstinate in not pursuing this so I'll disregard it.

You talk about an "Android like open platform for cameras that allows 3rd party app dev and quick sharing" as if it was something easy to do

If I was them I wouldn't use any variant of Android - too slow. And adds another dependency on a big one, after Sony sensors ...

Linux is fine. I'd also like to see an extended SDK and sharing interfaces, but it's probably too small a niche for this kind of things.

Competing aggressively with CanikSony is a ship that sailed long ago for Pentax. So the other option is niche, which they already do well for DSLRs. I'm obviously not asking for a full replacement of DSLR lineup with mirror less. Just make a one line of simple full frame camera that is 24-30 Mp and six or seven small primes - 23/35/40/50/75/90. Like those small Voigtlanders.

Note that I was only talking about the nostalgia thing, not even the mirrorless thing ! :-D

Even a small company like Voigtlander has diversified from just M mount lenses to other mirrorless manufacturers, and now they even make APS-C lenses specially for Fuji.

About this

Classic design has worked well for Fujfilm and Olympus Pen(E-P/PL) series. Classic design actually fits well with ergonomics of small primes. It is only with larger lenses that problems arise.

Well, that's for the size, but also regarding controls, I wouldn't want less buttons and dials on my K3III. I use most of them, most of the time, and it's so much better (for me) to use physical dials than to dig into the menus all the time.

On film cameras, we used a fixed ISO and we had two variance: aperture and shutter speed. Than some design of the classic film cameras made sense and a Tv or Av mode was natural. But now, where we have three variance, aperture, shutter speed and ISO, the old classic camera concept makes often not much sense. Why do some need a wheel for the shutter speed on to of the camera ? Pentax made to my mind the best out of the three variance situation:

They add to the classic Tv,Av Modes like Sv, TAv. We can run our Tv and Av in the classic mode, with a fixed ISO or in Auto and can tell the camera, how quick it is allowed the change the ISO.. So, going back to the classic design makes for me personally no sense, all what the three variance situation need now are good program modes, like the TAv....and the wheels in front and back of the camera for to set the aperture or shutter speed or ISO.

And when you like to use the M mode, having a third wheel for to set the ISO is great...like the KP,K1 and K3 III have now.

We also must see why manufacturers moved to mirrorless. Because it saves them money. It is actually much easier to make mirrorless cameras, compared to making a custom pentaprism and aligning the mirror etc perfectly. It makes cameras lighter, less complex, and latest sensors are fast enough to even forego mechanical shutter.

It takes very little extra R&D for Pentax to pull this - they have a production line, 90% of parts are same, an EVF can simply be bought from a vendor and the software already has a lot of features from other mirrorless cameras. If Ricoh GR can be successful, maybe a Pentax MILC Lx can be as well. But I guess it is not Pentax engineers but Ricoh management that ties their hands.

Ok, now on the mirrorless thing - that was discussed a billion times. I don't think it's a good strategy for Pentax, with the zillion amazing MILCs out there ...

And the Ricoh GR is a good example, it's not an SLR, but if I wanted a pocket camera with a prime lens and a stylish design, I'd probably buy that. I really like it, but with my DSLRs it seems overkill - I have way too many cameras already ... :-D

Pentax might have to look for another owner if they have to reinvent themselves(again!).

Well, I don't think mirrorless is such a big thing ultimately. It's great of course, but it's not like film versus digital, to my eyes, that was a revolution. I'd have hopes for a DSLR niche where Pentax would incrementally include more and more computational features (not on image processing, but on AF, live view, or things like the astrotracer type 3).

best regards. KPM2

 

[Lahmajunior]

I would buy another (original) KP in a heartbeat! I still regret that I didn't buy two of them right the way :-( .

Me too. I also regret never buying a GXR. That's another early mirrorless effort that Ricoh canned. It was fabulous.

It'd be great if Ricoh could find a way to bring it back to market. With certain updates, it would likely be more appreciated now.

 

[robbo d]

Q. Would I be interested?

A. I'd be intrigued... read the reviews and consider my cash flow options.

By design I'd say it's going to be a solidly built but fairly stripped back camera which should make it cheaper.... ?

I actually like my film cameras, mz-60 and mz-5 particularly, so the idea of walking around with a film sized camera which I could throw on old k mount lenses at a cheap price is actually a cool idea, but;

Does the market see that and I mean the total market big enough to build such a thing...

You and I can reminisce about LX or K1000 etc but will Nikon's zfc sell enough or get killed off like other similar efforts.

If it came with an auto / program function and Av plus enough features to make enthusiast amatuers happy without turning into Frankenstein then yes.

But Pentax current ethos is film esque retro looking DSLR'S with a high degree of usability that exceeds old cameras.

 

[hikerdoc]

Pentax has yet to play on the DSLR niche. …..

…

…

…

That is because it is not yet a niche. Their pipeline is hopefully active enough so that when it is a niche they have the products to be noticed. While either stated or assumed in their departures from DSLR market I suspect both Canon and Nikon still sell more new and low mileage DSLR than Pentax. In five years every currently available DSLR from Pentax, Canon, and Nikon will be available only as used cameras. Every currently available MILC from Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc will be available only as used cameras. With the present models, Ricoh can only hope to hold current Pentax users and slow the seemingly natural transition/addition of MILC to the gear lists of Canon and Nikon DSLR users. Only whatever Pentax releases in the future will define that niche. The K1-III, K3-IV, and K70-II and beyond will be the ones to watch. The generation behind most of us will be the ones that decide.

 

[BryantP]

Just a hypothetical question. If Pentax were to make mirrorless cameras inspired from its classic SLRs, would anyone be interested?

Kinda like Fuji X-T series, but full frame only.

Maybe a new mount will be needed, but a good adapter with backward compatibility can keep K mount viable.

Pentax DSLRs already have some presets like "Miyabi" and "Satobi" which fit in with retro vibe. Full disclosure: Pentax SLR owner. I don't own Pentax DSLR. If they made a mirrorless version kinda like old SLRs, it would really interest me.

I am all for Pentax going mirrorless with good backwards compatibility options for old K-mount lenses. Unfortunately I cannot see them surviving without doing do.

But for retro design, no thanks. It puts completely artificial and unnecessary constraints on product design - why do modern mirrorless cameras have to look like rangefinders from 1950s or SLRs from 1970s, when the technology allows to experiment with completely unprecedented and innovative form factors?

Pentax could distinguish themselves in this precise field, in the times when nobody else wants to.

Sigma has come out with such form factors & it doesn't appear to have worked out very well for them....

I suspect a K-02 that is more modernized, with more conventional appearance & ergonomics probably would find a viable market.


Bryant P.
Indianapolis, Indiana USA

 

[RBIV]

Does the market see that and I mean the total market big enough to build such a thing...

You and I can reminisce about LX or K1000 etc but will Nikon's zfc sell enough or get killed off like other similar efforts.

Many of the Zfc owners anxiously await a FF version. If that comes out down the line the "sell enough" question will be answered.

If it came with an auto / program function and Av plus enough features to make enthusiast amatuers happy without turning into Frankenstein then yes.

There seems a lot of confusion about what a "retro" designed camera can or cannot do. The Zfc has all the PASM auto modes, Auto ISO capable, front and rear programable dials, and a few programable buttons. It functions every bit as good as a KP in auto modes, but offers the option of a nicer (semi) manual shoot experience, as there is no aperture ring.

And no OVF, which is why I'd like Pentax to blah blah blah, you all know the rest

 

[sprocket-docket]

I'd much rather see a compact FF DSLR than a mirrorless with a new mount. The K-1 II is awesome, but I think a second version that emphasizes smaller size would be even more fun. You can only go so far towards lessening the depth due to the flange distance and the electronics behind the sensor, but the camera could be slimmed down in other ways, such as the way the KP was designed. Imagine that with the 43 Limited.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

[No message]

 

[GossCTP]

I'd much rather see a compact FF DSLR than a mirrorless with a new mount. The K-1 II is awesome, but I think a second version that emphasizes smaller size would be even more fun. You can only go so far towards lessening the depth due to the flange distance and the electronics behind the sensor, but the camera could be slimmed down in other ways, such as the way the KP was designed. Imagine that with the 43 Limited.

The old film cameras used horizontal cloth shutters which allowed them to be pretty squat in the vertical direction. I would think it would be easier to just drop the mechanical shutter at this point.

 

[iso rivolta]

Full disclosure: Pentax SLR owner. I don't own Pentax DSLR. If they made a mirrorless version kinda like old SLRs, it would really interest me.

So, let me understand: you care more on how the camera looks than how it is used and its inner workings. This seems strange. I would understand maybe wanting a "retro" DSLR or a DSLR with interchangeable viewfinders like the LX...

Or let me put it the other way: if a company started producing a film camera somehow using a TTL EVF and looking old on the outside, would you prefer that instead of your Pentax film SLRs?

If you want only the external controls like the knobs for shutter speed and ISO/exposure compensation, I believe these were more appropriate for analog (mechanical or electronic) cameras, not even for film cameras with digital electronics such as most 90s SLRs.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

If you want only the external controls like the knobs for shutter speed and ISO/exposure compensation, I believe these were more appropriate for analog (mechanical or electronic) cameras, not even for film cameras with digital electronics such as most 90s SLRs.

Its how Fuji digital cameras looks. Just saying.

 

[iso rivolta]

If you want only the external controls like the knobs for shutter speed and ISO/exposure compensation, I believe these were more appropriate for analog (mechanical or electronic) cameras, not even for film cameras with digital electronics such as most 90s SLRs.

Its how Fuji digital cameras looks. Just saying.

And Nikon Zfc. I know and don't like this design philosophy. Let's put the old style knobs but for increased functionality we also have to add these e-dials...

My preference is for either the real vintage object or the modern one and form should follow function.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

If you want only the external controls like the knobs for shutter speed and ISO/exposure compensation, I believe these were more appropriate for analog (mechanical or electronic) cameras, not even for film cameras with digital electronics such as most 90s SLRs.

Its how Fuji digital cameras looks. Just saying.

And Nikon Zfc. I know and don't like this design philosophy. Let's put the old style knobs but for increased functionality we also have to add these e-dials...

My preference is for either the real vintage object or the modern one and form should follow function.

I think this is a bit too narrow minded. If it is OK for the real vintage object it might be OK for a digital camera, and many think it is, and buy Fuji.

If you think image control of aperture and exposure time is THE MOSR IMPORTANT thing, then this user interface is brilliant.

--
/Roland
Kalpanika X3F tools:

GitHub - Kalpanika/x3f: Tools for manipulating X3F files from Sigma cameras

Tools for manipulating X3F files from Sigma cameras - Kalpanika/x3f

github.com

 

[iso rivolta]

If you want only the external controls like the knobs for shutter speed and ISO/exposure compensation, I believe these were more appropriate for analog (mechanical or electronic) cameras, not even for film cameras with digital electronics such as most 90s SLRs.

Its how Fuji digital cameras looks. Just saying.

And Nikon Zfc. I know and don't like this design philosophy. Let's put the old style knobs but for increased functionality we also have to add these e-dials...

My preference is for either the real vintage object or the modern one and form should follow function.

I think this is a bit too narrow minded. If it is OK for the real vintage object it might be OK for a digital camera, and many think it is, and buy Fuji.

If you think image control of aperture and exposure time is THE MOSR IMPORTANT thing, then this user interface is brilliant.

If it's OK for the vintage object it might be OK for the modern one, but ideally has to be done in a way that uses the same principle of functioning, not only the form. Otherwise, the form better change to adapt to the new way of working (function).

The old dials had preset positions because they used analogue discrete positions, either mechanical or electrical contacts. In the time of the analogue stepless shutter ('70s - mid '80s), you could use aperture priority for a fine grained exposure, while the shutter speed could be reserved for special requirements.

With digital control, 1/3 of a stop was deemed fine enough but then the dial should either have too many positions to be practical or needs a sub e-dial. The solution was to get rid of the marked knob and use an e-dial and a display. I believe this is also better ergonomically with regards to hand holding while changing parameters.

I agree that it could be nice to have a setting that is visible before switching on the device but it's not my preference for a digital camera. I respect other people views on this and I agree that for some people the classic interface might be the most important thing, but I often suspect it's just for the vintage look.

The OP asked for our opinions, that is mine: I don't like a digital camera with retro dials, either DSLR or mirrorless.

Regarding aperture control, I prefer to use an e-dial but to have the backup of a mechanical aperture ring if possible, so I like Pentax A lenses and the original FA lenses.