Fully manual

[Garbz]

I'm thinking more along the lines of building a dSLR that does not have to compensate for that R&D budget. Even if it where built like a thirty year old tank, with out the the additional technology companies could put a fully functional dSLR into the $150-$200 price range.

You would think so but no. Just removing buttons and features would constitute a whole re-design. Most of these things are handled by one integrated chip. Simply remove AF and metering, and you'd need to completely redesign the control chip, image processing chips, circuit boards, cases, need new moulds for cases, new body, and new software just to name a few. Contrary to popular belief companies do not spend their entire R&D budget on a sensor and magically a body appears around it. An even minor change could cost a fortune by the time the camera hits the shelf.

They would sell. Contrary to popular belief people still have a hard time justifying $500+ on a used dSLR with kit lens. Sacrificing program modes, auto modes and whatever modes for $200 dSLR with kit lens new, compatable with whatever current lens linup is an easier decision to make. This could bring dSLR ownership to a wider range of buyers.

Without taking this one too far further I think we should agree to disagree straight up on this point. I think there would be a handful of people around the world (dedicated photographers who are tight on money) who would pick a feature-less manual SLR over an automatic point and shoot with manual controls which can be had for the same price. I would bet my last dollar that 90% of the people who want an SLR would either just grab a $20 film body like the Nikkormat F of ebay or would rather wait to get a D40. You definitely would not get a single consumer buying one of these. It really appeals to a niche portion of an already tiny target market and is still competing with film SLRs.

This would be a better business practice than blowing more R&D budget on super zoom P&S's.

Now that's a crazy quote. You mustn't realise how popular these superzooms are. I think you're getting business sense confused with common sense. We may not like the super zooms, but they are the bees knees of the business and I'm sure the 18-200mm would have contributed highly on the Nikon's last profit statement.

 

[Battou]

You would think so but no. Just removing buttons and features would constitute a whole re-design. Most of these things are handled by one integrated chip. Simply remove AF and metering, and you'd need to completely redesign the control chip, image processing chips, circuit boards, cases, need new moulds for cases, new body, and new software just to name a few. Contrary to popular belief companies do not spend their entire R&D budget on a sensor and magically a body appears around it. An even minor change could cost a fortune by the time the camera hits the shelf.

Yes, I know there is more than just sticking it in a box and that R&D does go into than sensors and you do have a point. I misspoke considerably. There are a lot of corners that can be cut and gotten away with. It's the production costs that would take the hit not R&D my mistake. Not having to pack as much more expencive multifunction chips into the device, recycling a bunch of components, screens, body and whatever else possible. Can be done effectivly

Now that's a crazy quote. You mustn't realise how popular these superzooms are. I think you're getting business sense confused with common sense. We may not like the super zooms, but they are the bees knees of the business and I'm sure the 18-200mm would have contributed highly on the Nikon's last profit statement.

I know full well the popularity of the things. I am also aware of their potential. I have always maintained that if you can not afford one additional lens in addition the the body with kit lens one is getting the wrong SLR. When you can sell a product that enables versitility throught the purchasse of additional components, You do it, no ifs ands or buts. SLR/dSLR owners spend hundreds and thousands on glass. The S5 has an equivalent 36-432mm 2.7/3.5, an owner merely needs to push a button to get up to 400mm. The SLR/dSLR owner wants 400mm they go out and spend roughly $1100 USD on a useable 400mm 5.6 or $7000 (USD)on a 400mm 2.8 in addition to what ever they spent on their body. Now if we round the focal range of the S5 off to say...35mm to 400mm, How many lenses be they prime or zoom fall in this focal range and are not being sold with this camera on the market?

You take away all the production costs, all the shipping costs, and what not it's still going to taks a lot of S5s to account for the missing profit from those who use this focal range, hell even half of that focal range. Yes the super zoom may not compare optically to a prime L, but if it's all one ever knew, how will they know what they are missing? The Superzooms are killing the SLR market, so much punch in one tidy little package. In a world where less is more it comes as no suprise that the superzooms are making huge sales.

At this rate fifty years down the road the SLR be it film or digital will be little more than the box camera is today, just a toy for eclectic collectors to take out and play with just to say they did it. Fewer and fewer people are willing to spend the kind of money it takes to own and truly use an SLR, eventually they will be to costly to produce.

Without taking this one too far further I think we should agree to disagree straight up on this point. I think there would be a handful of people around the world (dedicated photographers who are tight on money) who would pick a feature-less manual SLR over an automatic point and shoot with manual controls which can be had for the same price. I would bet my last dollar that 90% of the people who want an SLR would either just grab a $20 film body like the Nikkormat F of ebay or would rather wait to get a D40. You definitely would not get a single consumer buying one of these. It really appeals to a niche portion of an already tiny target market and is still competing with film SLRs.

disagreed then.


That said, I think I am probably done here, a manual dSLR is obviously moot, so....I'll stick to what I can afford.

 

[JHF Photography]

Having a thumb wheel as well as a front-facing wheel on the body(Which the D50 lacks) - this is something I personally could not be without and I imagine it causes you annoyance as well.

And see, I shoot with a D50 and love the camera. I think it's all a matter of what you're used to. Now, I'm definetly not saying I wouldn't love to have the front wheel that all the higher models have. But even though I shoot manual like 90% of the time, I don't find that only having the one wheel inconveniences me or slows me down at all.

Dial M for Manual

Exactly.

Fewer and fewer people are willing to spend the kind of money it takes to own and truly use an SLR

Wait, are you serious with this one? DSLR's are being bought left, right and centre! Most of them by people who don't have a clue what it can do, and never take it off of auto, but they're everywhere. I went to an outdoor show in Toronto for a festival last month, and I saw more DSLR's than I had ever seen before. I think there were more DSLR's than P&S's!

 

[Garbz]

At this rate fifty years down the road the SLR be it film or digital will be little more than the box camera is today, just a toy for eclectic collectors to take out and play with just to say they did it.

I know what you mean. I expect Apple will make a killing selling tiny interchangeable lenses for the iPhone of that era.

 

[Bifurcator]

I don't understand the constant snobbism about "fully manual."
Get over yourselves...

Bravo!

I don't think there is snobbism in "fully manual".

Yeah, I don't think it's "snobbism" either. I think it's a mile stone that when freshly arrived at is something to be a little proud of. Iron is probably misinterpreting that pride as snobbism. The two look pretty similar in text.

 

[RMThompson]

The only benefit to a fully manual DSLR would be what? The cost?

I don't see a company making a lower cost product that only can appease a small percentage of the marketplace. Especially because it would have the look, feel and technical abilities of their much more expensive cameras, and possibly then would cannabilize their own sales!

 

[391615]

While I've just started to use manual more and like it, It pays to be able to go to a aperture or shutter priority for sport shots. I'm always using aperture for everything, even sport, portraits, because I'm sort of at the point, where I know what shutter speed I need for certain moving objects anyway, so why bother changing to shutter priority.

Times I'll use Manual, are night time, can't get auto focus anyway half the time. I also will use it for macro, i set focus closest distance and lean in or out of the shot. Not sure if anyone else uses that method, but it works for me. I am picking up the focus with my own eye and not really needing the red focus points. It is definitely hard using Manual focus with moving objects at wide apertures. I pretty much always spot metre.

As with the discussion, I agree. I'd like to see cameras in the advanced section come more manual. I'll die before I ever use auto mode, how can you get the desired image in auto, I used it for 1 day when i first got the camera. I'm not sure about exposures, in manual, but I've been experimenting with manual portrait exposures, using flash compensation and experimenting adjusting the aperture, I guess its what you like in a shot.

I guess the mroe advanced you get the more you will rely on manual settings.

 

[monkeykoder]

I'd say the more you rely on manual settings the better you get at understanding what it is that your camera is doing.

 

[KD5NRH]

Besides, get a hand held light meter, Mr. All-Manual.

What are you, some kind of gadget junkie? Light a candle and compare the levels like a real manual man.

 

[Bifurcator]

LOL!!! Manhood seems to measured in lumens these days.

You guys are too funny!

 

[ksmattfish]

What are you, some kind of gadget junkie? Light a candle and compare the levels like a real manual man.

I'm using a Watkins Bee Exposure Meter F/-Dial.

http://www.boxcameras.com/watkinsbee.html

No electronics. You stick a piece of photo paper in it, and count how long it takes for it to turn dark.

 

[RMThompson]

I'd say the more you rely on manual settings the better you get at understanding what it is that your camera is doing.

I agree with this, but much like the cartoonist who must learn anatomy before he can exagerrate it correctly... are all photographers supposed to use manual because they can?

It seems to me that once you KNOW what your camera is trying to do in whatever mode you use (I prefer aperture prirority) then you can combat it how you want.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Manual Everything is the Bees Knees sometimes - like when I'm doing macro work or anything in the studio. But honestly, Aperture and Shutter priority with autofocus are much more useful in any situation where time efficiency is important.

And Pentax's TAv mode, Oh God! What a beautiful thing! Set your aperture and shutter and the ISO varies to compensate. You can then quickly set upper and lower limits on the ISO and shoot away. All you do then is tweak the exposure compensation from shot to shot, depending on if your subject is backlit or whatnot. For weddings, it's all I use.

 

[djacobox372]

What on Earth are you guys talking about??? Every manufacturer puts out a fully manual ONLY camera.

They just all neglect to provide the proper instructions. But any dummy can figure out how to superglue the mode wheel in the M position so I guess I don't blame them.

Beat me to it.... frankly I might just do that one day, but these days good digital bodies are still too expensive to molest.