good idea or a flop?

[voodoo_child]

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)

 

[D-50]

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.​

 

[rmh159]

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.

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.

 

[KevinR]

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.

 

[Big Mike]

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.

 

[voodoo_child]

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.

looks very nice, its a shame it costs about the same as a small car though!

 

[boris152]

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.

 

[JIP]

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?

 

[Iron Flatline]

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.

 

[Arch]

Simply capturing a raw file is not good enough, you need to exert some control over the image.

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.

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.

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.

 

[JIP]

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.

 

[Arch]

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:

 

[JIP]

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)

these were the points I was talking about. The last 2 bullets seem to contradict each other "smaller, lighter" "decent metal casing no plastic crap" so I'm not sure the guy even knows what he wants. But again what "auto nonsense" would you give up.. white balance control, color space (just learning ab this sorry if I said it wrong), ISO setting, image compression, seems to me these manual settings give you more creative control in-camera for "artistic types" than any film camera. Any one of the settings mentioned above can be set on auto but it would not make a cheaper or better camera to make them all manual.

 

[Iron Flatline]

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.....

No, I think you understood the point I was making. I was saying that if you use all the presets correctly, you won't have to spend the time later on the computer - nor developing film. That's what is so impressive in my mind.

But don't get the wrong impression. I end up processing my images later anyway. I'm not that good, and I usually don't shoot in a controlled environment. In a studio I could set up with a specific white balance, sharpness, etc, and be done with that part in processing.

The point I tried to make was in response to the original question:

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?

The pro-modes are easy to set up, and as a creative/artistic enthusiast I've come to appreciate them considerably. I also enjoy using Photoshop, but that isn't really photography - that's sitting in a chair at home. It's certainly part of it (as is standing in a dark room, breathing fumes and fretting over wate temperature) but why not use the same tools that are actually now available IN THE CAMERA! I don't think people are really aware of some of the features that are there, ready to be explored for creativity. Want your images to look like Velvia, or Tri-X? Well, you're starting to be able to if you exercise control. Do I want that Doofus "Portrait" or "Landscape" mode on my dial at the top of the camera? I don't use it, but I can see how it takes about 12 seconds of programming to enable that for newer photographers. I personally just ignore it - and my 5D doesn't even have them. It's a semi-pro model, so they left that stuff off.

 

[Rob]

I certainly think that the transition from film to digital would be much easier, and camera operation more simple with say aperture control on a lens dial, EV buttons the way they used to be, ISO on a dial etc.

However, digital cameras are currently at a stage where they're kind of emulating film cameras, but with a whole bunch of stuff thrown into tricky menu systems.

I believe it's simply an interface issue, rather than a control issue.

I'd like a camera like the Leica which is more traditional in layout, but would I spend money on a camera which essentially is "dumbed down" to act like a film camera?

As people have said - there are new digital features worth considering and controlling such as WB, JPG manipulation etc. You can't really market a product without them, unless you're someone like Leica - the Rolex of the camera world!

That was a ramble wasn't it?

Rob