Will there ever be a manual DSLR?

[molested_cow]

From what I've read, Rick is right that the D70 and D50 won't work well with manual lenses. Apparently Nikon has crippled these models so that the light meter won't function unless you use a modern autofocus lens with it.

Just a note on manual focusing. I am used to focusing manually and my F501 has a big view finder that provides the clarity. When I tried to use my friend's D70S, it was horrible. The view finder is small. It's really hard to tell if I am at the right focus and I am usually off. That forces me to use the auto focus, which I have a hard time using when I am trying to do macro shots.

I think I should just invest in a film scanner instead.

 

[Unimaxium]

There's also this.

 

[Jeff Canes]

That little Rollei is sweet but it’s only 2mpix

 

[Unimaxium]

Yeah but it's so darned cute!

 

[Alpha]

A manual DSLR? That's just silly. It would contradict everything that DSLR's are designed to be: big, technologically advanced, expensive point-and-shoots with interchangeable lenses and resolutions that sometimes rival a 6x7

 

[Unimaxium]

resolutions that sometimes rival a 6x7

I dunno about that. DSLRs are still competing with their film equivalents in terms of resolution, not to mention with those of larger formats. I can't think of a DSLR that would come close to the clarity and resolution offered by 6x7, except for perhaps the Hasselblad H2D. But even that's a 4.5x6.

As for your other point, I think the main reason for a DSLR is the convenience of not having film to process and the advantage of having an instant preview of your image. I find manual mechanical controls on my K1000 a lot more intuitive to work than the dials on my Canon. I would actually like to get a feel of that Panasonic SLR; it looks like it would make for fun shooting.

 

[ThomThomsk]

Leica is working on a digital M rangefinder, which will likely be very manual but the cost is going to be pretty high - I've seen guesses of $4,000 to $6,000, but guesses is all they are.

The Epson RD1 takes Leica mount manual lenses and if it weren't for the reliability problems I think I'd have seriously considered it. Mind you, it isn't cheap either.

I went back to film for a whole range of reasons, but a manual dSLR might tempt me again. Ideally it would be no bigger than my FM2n, accept manual lenses and have a self cleaning sensor (because I'm used to getting a brand new 'sensor' after every 36 shots...).

Thomsk

 

[ThomThomsk]

A manual DSLR? That's just silly. It would contradict everything that DSLR's are designed to be: big, technologically advanced, expensive point-and-shoots with interchangeable lenses and resolutions that sometimes rival a 6x7

Ah, the perennial question - which is more fruitful, debating digital vs. film resolution, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...?

One day we might see large format resolution from a dSLR, although it sounds like a really difficult think to achieve and you have to wonder why anyone would want it. I'm looking at second hand medium format cameras, but perhaps I should go straight to 4x5?

Thomsk

 

[Alpha]

Don't go straight to 4x5 if you want to be able to take shots indoors. The decision to purchase a 4x5 or larger size camera is a very expensive one. Aside from higher costs for film and developing (if you don't develop yourself), you can't flash sync with a 4x5 lens. That means you have to shell out for a strobe setup if you want to be able to photograph indoors. On the plus side, 4x5 cameras are really becoming extremely affordable. My local shop has some beautiful ones in the $300 range with lens, and even better, used lenses are actually very cheap.

BTW I calculated last night that a 6x7 negative scanned at optimal resolution has about 42,000 square pixels.

 

[ThomThomsk]

Don't go straight to 4x5 if you want to be able to take shots indoors. The decision to purchase a 4x5 or larger size camera is a very expensive one. Aside from higher costs for film and developing (if you don't develop yourself), you can't flash sync with a 4x5 lens. That means you have to shell out for a strobe setup if you want to be able to photograph indoors. On the plus side, 4x5 cameras are really becoming extremely affordable. My local shop has some beautiful ones in the $300 range with lens, and even better, used lenses are actually very cheap.

BTW I calculated last night that a 6x7 negative scanned at optimal resolution has about 42,000 square pixels.

No problem there, because I only do available light photography. I think the sensible approach would really be to start with MF (there are lots of SQAs out there for quite reasonable prices, and I've got 6x6 inserts for my enlarger). I've seen some breathtaking work on LF, but even MF is a big step up from 35mm for landscape, which is mostly what I do, so that has to be the way to go.

And wow, 42,000 x 42,000 is a lot of pixels, and that's not even large format. I've never seen any of the really big sizes, like 8x10 (which isn't actually the biggest that Ilford make - they had a special order a while ago for sheet film up to 20x24), but they must be incredible.

Thomsk

 

[Alpha]

My bad, my math phrasing was off. It's a little over 42,000 pixels squared. A 6x7 is 14.3 square inches times approx 3000 pixels per square inch.

I've done a lot of research on 645's recently in my price range. I'd say stay away from Bronica, as the company doesn't even exist anymore. My personal preference body-wise would be the Pentax 645. The Mamiya 645, however, has slightly better glass, and more available lenses.

However, if you're willing to put up with a bulkier camera, 6x7 would definitely be the preferred format for landscape or relatively motionless portrait work, in which case I would highly recommend the Mamiya RB/RZ 67. My local shop actually has some amazing prices that kill anything on eBay. Pentax 645 outfit for $400, and I think Bronica and Mamiya outfits for about $450, with the RB/RZ being about $450 or $500 for the full outfit (body, lens, prism, back). I'm always willing to hook anyone up with any of those, because I know eBay is much more expensive for a full outfit, and you can trust the quality of the cameras coming from this shop. If you're interested, or want an exact quote on anything, i'd be more than happy to help out (just PM me). I promise i don't get anything out of it. Just trying to help out fellow photographers on a budget

 

['Daniel']

that panasnic looks nice. Wonder what the image quality is like. A cool thing I noticed was the onboard flashcan point straight on or 45(ish) degrees up.

 

[ThomThomsk]

I'm always willing to hook anyone up with any of those, because I know eBay is much more expensive for a full outfit, and you can trust the quality of the cameras coming from this shop. If you're interested, or want an exact quote on anything, i'd be more than happy to help out (just PM me). I promise i don't get anything out of it. Just trying to help out fellow photographers on a budget

Apart from being on the wrong continent that sounds great . I know what you mean about eBay being more expensive, and I'll definitely try the better dealers first. If I can explain to my wife why I need another camera, and such a big one at that...

Thomsk