good idea or a flop?

Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by voodoo_child, Sep 26, 2006.

  1. voodoo_child

    voodoo_child TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    A fully manual dslr :greenpbl:
    Just a light meter, aperture, shutter speed, ISO (and maybe an LCD) with manual focus lenses
    Aimed towards creative/artistic enthusiasts who want total control and no auto nonsense.
    Why pay for setting and modes you never use?

    Advantages of manual dslr:
    -Less electronics = longer battery life + less chance of things to go wrong
    -cheaper - less electronic components needed
    -Smaller, lighter
    -Money saved in production could be used to design a decent metal casing, no more plastic crap

    If you could save some $$$ would you buy a dslr with only manual settings?
    (I know it will never be made, just want to hear your opinions)
     
  2. D-50

    D-50 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,043
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Personally I like some of the auto features. I could do without the auto settings like night mode, sprts, etc but Manual, Aperature and shutter priority are what I use most. In a quickly changing evironment using aperature priorty is very convienient, I dont miss shots adjusting both the aperature and shutter. If they could take away the fully automated setting to reduce the price I would be all for that but I dont want to loose my aperature priority setting. ​
     
  3. rmh159

    rmh159 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I agree completely... Shutter / Aperture Priority I would miss but other than that I don't think I've ever used the other automatic settings.

     
  4. KevinR

    KevinR TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,204
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    I think I would agree with most of what you said except the lighter part. You'll probably find most fully manual cameras to be pretty robust.
     
  5. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,818
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Would the Leica M8 be something along these lines? It's not an SLR but it looks to be a fantastic digital camera with the look & feel of an old Leica.
     
  6. voodoo_child

    voodoo_child TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    looks very nice, its a shame it costs about the same as a small car though!
     
  7. boris152

    boris152 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I disagree with the premise that less automation will bring the price down all that much. Specialized components are expensive to make (like sensors), but stuff that basically amounts to algorithms costs more to develope than to actually make. Remember, even cheap Canon point and shoots are highly automated. Those Leicas can be insanely marked up because of their build and reputation, not their gizmos.

    Back to the issue at hand, sure, I think it is a feasable idea. But I think such a camera, marketed to the artistic niche, will end up as the kind that we all go goo-goo about but won't be able to afford. :)
     
  8. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    Waht's the difference between a fully manual Dslr and a Dslr with the capability to be fully manual. I have a D-70s and have to charge the battery probably once a month granted, I probably currently don't use it as much as I might when I am doing steady weddings battery life is not a problem. As far as automatic functions are concerned don't use them if you don't want them! the current crop of Dslrs are pretty sturdy in my opinion the D-200 is a rock but you pay for that but with all the electronics required to make a digital image any Dslr is going to be relatively delicate. I'm sorry to tell all you purists out there gone are the days of buying an all manual SLR that felt like a brick and could take any and all abuse thrown at them. But I think those days have not really existed for some time as soon as auto focus came in the sturdy cameras have been full of electronics consider the F-4, N-90, and whatever Canon came up with. Yes I know you always had Leica and Nikon came up with a recent manual Slr but if you want digital you have to take the electronics. I don't think the money you pay for Dslrs today goes into auto focus, auto exposure, or auto advance wich is where it did in the past with the progression in price of film SLRS. I guess basically what I'm trying to say is before digital the lens was more important than the light tight box that you attached to it now, the body is equally if not more important. Great deal for the camera companies huh?
     
  9. I mean there to be no condescending tone here, but I think you make some rather naive assumptions about how a digital camera gets manufactured, and how it works. Although a camera still works with shutters and apertures, it is effectively a small computer. Adding pre-set functionality is literally 0.5% of the effort involved, and makes up even less of the cost. On the contrary, as you become a better digital photographer you're going to WANT some of the presets. This goes beyond the few settings that are there on the top dial. In an effort to control the image (and emulate film to some degree) there are a myriad of settings such as sharpness, contrast, saturation, color shifts, hues, white balances etc etc etc that you will WANT to control. They are buried deep in your menu system, but as you get more serious you can set quick access controls that allow you to change some of you presets. I shoot softer and less saturated when I work on portraits, and sharper with more color when I work on architecture. You can use some of the manufacturer's presets, or you can create your own. I highly recommend doing that. Furthermore, these settings NEED to be controlled, or you will have to do all your work in Photoshop afterward. Simply capturing a raw file is not good enough, you need to exert some control over the image.

    That's the main difference between digital and film. In the good old days, we had to worry about capturing the image correctly, and the type of film and how we developed had a much bigger effect. As much as everyone tells you that digital photography is somehow easier, the fact is that it requires a lot more attention if you're going to do it right the first time, and not spend 15 minutes per exposure in front of you monitor and keyboard.
     
  10. Arch

    Arch Damn You! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,487
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    locked in the attic
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Personally i think photoshop does a much better job of sharpening your image, as well as colour balence, saturation etc..... the RAW file is certainly enough. Remember the RAW file has had no presets attached to it.... and photoshop is more advanced than your built in camera settings.

    To me, these two things are the same thing.... your processing the image... whether it the dark room or on your computer..... imo there is nothing wrong with spending time to process your image on a computer.... although i understand for some it can be a tedious in comparison to being more physical in a dark room.
     
  11. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    I think your missing the point Archangel the original poster asked about a Dslr that gave you total creative control over your image without all that "auto nonsense" . I think the point that flatline was trying to make is that Dslrs now give us more creative control over the image. Regardless of how you choose to get to your final product the extras in Dslrs give us more control not less.
     
  12. Arch

    Arch Damn You! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,487
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    locked in the attic
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Hmmm im not sure i did..... i may have gone off track from the original question but my first part reads ok to me....

    All i was trying to say with the second paragraph is that it sounded like iron was saying that you should be able to get a finished image by just using a digitial camera (and its presets).... and not having to spend 15 mins processing on a computer..... but to me spending the time on the computer is similar to having to spend time in the darkroom. So digital hasnt advanced the end result.....

    With film you can choose to shoot a roll and take it to a shop and get it processed..... or you can develope them yourself.....
    With digital you can choose to keep the images 'as shot'.... or you can edit them yourself.... so to me there isnt much difference.

    Maybe im not making sense.... its late here.... :greenpbl: :mrgreen:
     

Share This Page