Why hasn't someone made a DSLR with classic shape and controls?

[jsrockit]

i'm talking scene modes ... to n00bs i would imagine the shutter speed and aperture rings are like huh? like ooh i'm taking a picture of something fast, i should use the running man mode. or i'm taking night pictures so i'm using moon mode. as much as we hate it, it seems like a must for any "consumer" camera these days to have scene modes. how do you fit scene modes into this type of camera.

I can't see this throwback SLR being a consumer camera or being a low end camera.

who else is out there that would invest in a new SLR system at this point? most of the large electronic companies with any imaging background are already engaged in the camera space. at this point any DSLR system would have to have at least decent live view focusing which means it would have the functionality of a mirrorless. then all the additional complexities of a DSLR with its moving parts.

It would have to be someone like Pentax, Sigma, or Olympus... though I would hope for a FF model which none of these have made yet.

i don't see it but not to say it couldn't happen.

Yeah, unfortunately, I feel the same way.

 

[Luddite Frank]

A better question is why manufacturers continue to use a system where:
1) a smaller number means less light
combined with
2) a larger number means less light?

It is totally confusing to most new users. Almost impossible for most beginners in a photo class.

What, sir ? You would turn 150 years of photo-graphic tradition on its head ?!! Pfaugh !!!

😉

 

[jschrader]

1) Why hasn't this type of DSLR been made?

Very simple, because the K1000 OM1 FM type of SLR was long out of fashion when the digital technique was introduced.

Pity, if You ask me.

But nobody would buy a K1000 today even if there were no DSLRs

 

[Spanik]

I'd order one. A digital Prakatica MTL-3...

 

[Luddite Frank]

New ain't necessarily better than old.😎

Here-here ! + 100 back at you !


That's one of the reasons my ride of choice most days is an un-modified 1928 Ford Model A.

Just as the banking and investment industry did with "credit default swaps" and "futures derivatives", we keep creating things that far too complex to understand and maintain... we just "press the button", and most of the time "it works", and "that's good enough for most people".

I grumpily maintain that the downfall of the automobile ( and motoring in general) began with the invention of the self-starter, 100 years ago... 😉

 

[daveleo]

I never understood why DSLR's changed the basic shape from film SLR's -
they threw away 70 years of evolution for what reason ?

Anyway - I don't think there is a large market for such a thing. When I bring
my Fuji X100 someplace to make pictures, friends and family are always
asking me why I didn't bring my "good" camera (the Nikon D5100 and the
kit 18-55 zoom ! ! ) - that's they way people see things. Big and new
looking is way better than small and old looking, right ?

Actually, I would only buy such a thing if it used Nikon's F-mount, just to screw around with my old Nikon lenses.

 

[semilog]

The Pentax K7/K5/K5II are awfully close to that description. Sure, they use control wheels for aperture settings but with that single exception they almost completely fit the bill. Lovely cameras, and with a terrific lens line including compatibility with every K- and M42 MF lens.

If Pentax were to make a FF K5 I think they'd have a(nother) serious winner on their hands.

 

[sig]

Maybe it is because the current interface is better for most people?
The 1-2 wheels are prob much better when handling all the other thingies in dslrs.......

 

[jsrockit]

I never understood why DSLR's changed the basic shape from film SLR's

They didn't really... the Nikon F4 and 8008 were closer to DSLR shape than to the Nikon F3 and FM2. They made blobs before digital too.

 

[jsrockit]

Do you mean like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_100

Probably the very first DSLR, and based on a classic film camera, with a dedicated shutter speed control and aperture control via the f/stop wheel on the lens.

No, not like that... a retrofitted camera with a huge box is not what I'm after. 😉

 

[jsrockit]

Maybe it is because the current interface is better for most people?

Yes, most likely. However, there is a minority that obviously like the older way.

 

[jsrockit]

The Pentax K7/K5/K5II are awfully close to that description. Sure, they use control wheels for aperture settings but with that single exception they almost completely fit the bill. Lovely cameras, and with a terrific lens line including compatibility with every K- and M42 MF lens.

If Pentax were to make a FF K5 I think they'd have a(nother) serious winner on their hands.

I agree... they are close, but are not simple enough. However, if I was to buy a DSLR today, it would be a K5II.

 

[back alley]

it was the canon t90 that changed the shape of things...afaik...

i loved that camera!!

 

[OlliL]

Lets start a petition!
"Pentax, please give us a digital MZ-3"
😀

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/fengwei/PentaxGear/PentaxMZ3_FA43_2.jpg

(Preferably full-frame of course!)

 

[jsrockit]

True, BA, true.

 

[jsrockit]

Lets start a petition!
"Pentax, please give us a digital MZ-3"
😀

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/fengwei/PentaxGear/PentaxMZ3_FA43_2.jpg

(Preferably full-frame of course!)

I'd much rather have a FF digital Pentax LX. 😀

 

[OlliL]

Oh sure, but that's even less likely to happen 🙁

 

[Godfrey]

I never understood why DSLR's changed the basic shape from film SLR's -
they threw away 70 years of evolution for what reason ? ...

Style and fashion. Film SLRs were moving in this direction. Most DSLRs are derivative of film SLR designs. The hard-edged, simple shapes of the 1960s to early 1980s went more and more rounded and ergo as film SLRs moved into the 1990s. The DSLRs that came after just went a bit further. It has all been a continuous evolution. The goal on the part of the manufacturers has been to make the cameras ergonomic and more capable, easier to work.

RF cameras were essentially dead in the water by 1980 (except for Leica M), and saw very little change or development for 20+ years. Then they went through a small revival in the late 1990s. That's why the current RF cameras and mirrorless-faux-RF cameras look like the older 1960s-1970s RFs.

I admit to my own like of older, simpler cameras, and I love my Nikon F. But that's mostly nostalgia. In all honesty and practicality, the E-1 DSLR is a far better design in use than the Nikon F or any other classic SLR was. It's simple, has all solid and useful features, and has little cruft and glitz in the way of convenience automation features that complicate understanding it.

G

 

[daveleo]

They didn't really... the Nikon F4 and 8008 were closer to DSLR shape than to the Nikon F3 and FM2. They made blobs before digital too.

Come to think of it, you're right !

 

[Ronald_H]

A Nikon FM2 with a full 35mm frame interchangable back for digital, including an optional Wi-Fi unit to be able to see the pics on my phone if I would want to (sometimes I would). Keeps costs down (no screen) and I have a smartphone with me anyway these days. RAW only, with a decent RAW converter in the box.

That's it, that's the camera I want, that suits me best. Stripped to the bare essentials. Oh, and add the fllippable tab to allow mounting of non Ai lenses.
that the FM has, but the FM2 does not.

Yes, I would pay quite immoral amounts of money for that.