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

[jsrockit]

...Olympus who seems to be stuck in a rut of non-innovation.

Wasn't micro 4/3 innovative in a way?

 

[Luddite Frank]

After the mention of the Fuji X-series cameras yesterday, I spent some time studying them on-line...

At first I was REALLY drawn to the X-100s by the overall design, construction, and control lay-out... seemed to be the best of of both worlds for a "traditionalist" like me... then I checked the price, and choked. 😱 $1,100 ( or so) MSRP for a fixed-lens digital RF ? Granted, there is an auxillary lens for wide-angle shots ( for a couple more hundred $$$)... 🙁

Sheesh. At those prices, I would be inclined to wave a teary farewell to the X-100s, and opt for the P&S X-20 with the zoom lens for $500 +/-... (still not "cheap")

My digital experience began and continues with an "ancient" Canon Powershot G-1 camera, obtained at a local antique mart about three years ago for the princely sum of $15.

It is only 3 MP, but has a zoom lens, optical VF/zoom, auto/manual exposure, etc. It has served me well. The limitations are a fussy viewing screen ( now works only when folded-out), short(?) battery life, and limitations on macro photography... AND, it is bulky and heavy: the "brick", of digi-cams. 🙄

Over the last year, I have found myself shooting more and more in the manual expoure mode, and frequently manual focus as well...

In terms of the "next lgical step" for my purposes, an interchangeable-lens DSLR is the way to go, blob or not... ( and I didn't like the "blobby" way film cameras were heading...)

When faced with that sort of choice, I certainly can't justify $1,100 for the Fuji X-100s ( no matter how cool it looks / good it feels), when that sum almost buys a decent DSLR outfit...

How about a digital Exakta VX ? 😀

 

[jsrockit]

When faced with that sort of choice, I certainly can't justify $1,100 for the Fuji X-100s ( no matter how cool it looks / good it feels), when that sum almost buys a decent DSLR outfit...

Sure, you can look at it that way, or you could say it is dirt cheap when compared to a digital M with a 35mm summicron. 🙂

There's no doubt about it, DSLRs are the best bang for the buck and versatility, so if you like them, spend there. However, for those of us who don't like DSLRs, thankfully we have Fuji.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Sorry mate, it pains me to say that while I absolutely love the old Olympus when geniuses like Y. Maitani ruled, I have slowly grow to hate the current Olympus who seems to be stuck in a rut of non-innovation.

Uh? Just to remind you a few: sensor SSW cleaning (E-1), in camera stabilization (E-510 and later E-3), tilting screen (E-330), live view (E-330), "mirrorless" (Micro 4/3 Pen), in camera effects (not sure about this it might have been at the same time with other brands but I think the first appearance was in the E-610), "porro prism" (not really a new invention but a unique feature of E-300, E-330 to have compact DSLR cameras before EVF were around), split image prism (yep, very similar to the so much talked about translucent mirror of Sony, it was already in the E-10). What I don't like of them is that they start a great system, then they stop production with no advice and for no apparent reason. I bet that once the Micro 4/3 is going to be "too small" compared to APS and the already cheapish full frames they will just stop and maybe go back to microscopes for a decade, then they will come out with a super camera which will disappear in a few more years. Also it seems they decide to implement only some (random?) features and not using their huge know-how in its full potential. They make some of the best super-hi-speed cameras for ballistic research but have some of the slowest DSLR around. I am an OM and E-1 fan, still using both system almost daily, but they lost me as a customer long ago. ah, and I didn't even mention their corrupted administration...really pity for a company which could be so incredibly good.

GLF

 

[Harry Caul]

+1

And they've further improved in-camera IS by leaps and bounds with the new 5-axis mechanism. So much so that Sony is supposedly licensing it for their future full-frame A-mount camera(s).

 

[semilog]

+2

And Oly research microscopes absolutely kick ass. Beautifully designed frames and optics on par with any in the world.

 

[Frida]

When faced with that sort of choice, I certainly can't justify $1,100 for the Fuji X-100s ( no matter how cool it looks / good it feels), when that sum almost buys a decent DSLR outfit...

Consider the x100. You can find them used on forums for around $650. I'm saving up for an x100s and will sell all of our DSLR gear once I have it. As much as I love the image quality of my D700, I'm tired of dealing with the size and weight. I'm looking forward to the x100s.

 

[oftheherd]

Perhaps Fuji will step up and reintroduce this in digital... 😉

Except I think the M42 Fujinons were better lenses. The ST series seems better build as well.

 

[oftheherd]

Well not exactly 1000 is actually 1/1000th -- there is the rub...

1/1000 is a smaller number than 1 -- but the dial is marked 1000, so a "larger" marking is less light, even though it is actually a smaller number. Explain that in class. 😀

The f-stops are marked with whole numbers and indeed while they are also fractions of the focal length of a lens. no one has as much trouble with them. It is always enjoyable to explain that "1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6" is half as much light per stop. Good luck with that.

My experience teaching is -- that many master it, but few have even a vague understanding how the math [science] applies to the numbers.

Any discussion of DOF on the RFF soon turns from math [science] to the "religion" of bokeh.

I used to take in an MF lens in so they could easily see what happened when the settings went from f/3.5 to f/22. I could also show them how an in-lens shutter worked by setting it open and moving it slowly. I would explain how both were fractions. The students I had seemed to grasp that when I went from speeds of 1 to 1/500 or 1/1000.

They're both marked with the denominator of fractions, so the ordering is the same—larger number shown is a reduction. Exposure time selector ("shutter speed is so imprecise ...) goes up by factor of two to cut light one half. Aperture f/number is a little trickier, but the relationship of the numbers is that each larger one is squareroot of two times the last ... difference is that it's an area measure, not a linear measure.

Just explain that to the noob who has questions. ;-)

G

My point of view was to teach them how up or down, was half or twice the adjacent number, and why that was important. Seemed to make it simpler, and they seemed to get it right away. They didn't need to know the complex math.

Not that I am so smart, but that was how I was taught by my instructor in the US Army in the late 60s.

 

[j j]

But our hands have evolved over thousands of generations to work well with tools, and none of those tools were designed to actually *fit* our hand.

We made tools to fit our hands not evolved hands that fit tools. Pick up a stone axe sometime. It sends a shiver up my spine to hold a tool made 1,000s of years ago that fits my hand perfectly.

 

[Luddite Frank]

We made tools to fit our hands not evolved hands that fit tools. Pick up a stone axe sometime. It sends a shiver up my spine to hold a tool made 1,000s of years ago that fits my hand perfectly.

Boy... that kind of humbles us smug, 21st-Century techno-geeks, doesn't it ? 😉

The thing I love pointing-out about stone-axes ( or steam locomotives, Victrolas, Model A Fords, manual typewriters, Monitor-Top refrigerators, etc.) is that they still usually work as well as they did when they were new... 😛

🙂

 

[Sparrow]

... a D70 with a ais lens so close to a un-metered SLR that even I can use it, and much like a stone axe

 

[Aristophanes]

We made tools to fit our hands not evolved hands that fit tools. Pick up a stone axe sometime. It sends a shiver up my spine to hold a tool made 1,000s of years ago that fits my hand perfectly.

Not true.

The evolution of our hands is now thought to be in line with our use of tools.

The pinkie finger acting as a second thumb is especially thought to have evolved from extensive tool use. This is what allows us to maintain a grip while still using our thumbs and index fingers. Think sewing. Also human hands are extremely sensitive with nerve endings compared to our ape cousins, meaning we have much finer motor control. Again thought to have evolved from tool use.

They evolved together.

As for camera design, scroll wheels and toggles are now common because on average they ergonomically require less effort with more fine control.

 

[bwcolor]

So, hands and tools develop together. I wonder what the cellphone user of the future will look like?

Sony is dropping the DSLR. The market size is shrinking as people move to cellphones. EVF and sensor based phase detection autofocus will improve.
So, it is unlikely that at this late date a classic DSLR will appear.

If niche manufacturers Fuji, or Leica don't produce such a beast, then it will never be manufactured.

 

[David Hughes]

Um, Leica Digilux-3 anyone? No penta-prism lump but controls as requested...

Regards, David