 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / June 2009Does anybody have an answer?
Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the dissatisfaction of many (or at least me) with the building philosophy of present day digital cameras, I came up with a thought. Camera world seems a bit like the world of computing these days. Companies sell always new, more powerful hardware to stay up to date with new and more demanding software, which in fact very seldom improves user experience. At least for software there's the open source community, much more sensitive to a minimalist/high productivity approach, but what about cameras? I have a silly idea: a modular camera, that you can build on your needs like a PC. You don't buy the 73rd autofocus point, if you don't need it. You don't buy smile detection if you only use Av. You can keep it simple and lightweight, or make it look like (Concise) Oxford dictionary, with as many functions as MS Word. If cameras and electronics have to merge, why not going all the way? A bit like Leica a la carte, but less stupidly useless. Now, why nobody came up with something like this? Why something like this exists for medium format but not for more compact formats? Shall I found a new company? ;-) Hey, anybody from Canon or Nikon listening? I would really like to have a serious answer. Andrea > Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the > dissatisfaction of many (or at least me) with the building philosophy [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I would really like to have a serious answer. > Andrea Because it would not be simple, lightweight or cheap, just like MF. >> I have a silly idea: a >> modular camera, that you can build on your needs like a PC. You don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> why not going all the way? A bit like Leica a la carte, but less >> stupidly useless. A PC can easily be assembled from major and add-on parts. A digital camera cannot. A digital camera with plug-in boards would be tough to carry around. >> Now, why nobody came up with something like this? Why something like >> this exists for medium format but not for more compact formats? Shall >> I found a new company? ;-) Hey, anybody from Canon or Nikon listening? >> I would really like to have a serious answer. >> Andrea Andrea, there is no reason why different software options could not be offered for a given digital camera. You have something there. But, the folks who build cameras rule here and they are currently selling new cameras as fast as they can and changing models as fast as they can. >> Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the > >>SNIPPED Because then it would need to be about the same size as your desktop computer's base unit. Roy G > Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the > dissatisfaction of many (or at least me) with the building philosophy [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I would really like to have a serious answer. > Andrea It isn't cheap. http://www.red.com/  SignatureN > It isn't cheap.http://www.red.com/ > > -- Who ever said it has to be cheap? If it's worth, there will probably be a market anyway. Otherwise, red wouldn't exist. >> It isn't cheap.http://www.red.com/ >> >> -- > > Who ever said it has to be cheap? If it's worth, there will probably > be a market anyway. Otherwise, red wouldn't exist. The OP did by inference, if you don't need it then don't buy the feature he said. I'm not too sure about the practicalities of the modular idea but I certainly think that the DSLR manufacturers are missing something. It would be good to see a digital version of an utterly simple but very high quality camera such as the Nikon FM. Personally, I have no use for many features e.g. the tft display as I re-take the shot if I'm unsure of exposure etc. This is less time consuming than fiddling about with the tft display controls. As modern DSLRs are festooned with controls, it's too easy to accidentally put the camera into an unintended mode and it's not possible to use an ever-ready case due to the controls on the back of the camera. > I'm not too sure about the practicalities of the modular idea but I > certainly think that the DSLR manufacturers are missing something. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mode and it's not possible to use an ever-ready case due to the controls > on the back of the camera. it already exists. get any nikon dslr and set it to 'm' mode, disable autofocus and don't use the rear lcd for anything. the front and rear control wheels should be accessible with any type of case that lets you still shoot. it's also not that easy to accidentally switch modes. That's more or less what I'm doing, but it's like using a tank to go to the supermarket. > it already exists. get any nikon dslr and set it to 'm' mode, disable > autofocus and don't use the rear lcd for anything. the front and rear > control wheels should be accessible with any type of case that lets you > still shoot. it's also not that easy to accidentally switch modes. In article <acea401b-d42a-49ec-b06c-bc6e3d069f45@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > That's more or less what I'm doing, but it's like using a tank to go > to the supermarket. except that many dslrs are roughly the same size or even smaller than something like a nikon fm and you don't need to carry dozens of rolls of film either. not all dslrs are behemoths like the d3 or 1ds. > except that many dslrs are roughly the same size or even smaller than > something like a nikon fm and you don't need to carry dozens of rolls > of film either. not all dslrs are behemoths like the d3 or 1ds. I have a Pentax k10, probably one of the more compact dslr around, at least in its class. Ah, and before I had a Nikon D40, very compact, but I re-sold it after few months because, guess what? I couldn't stand its thousands useless fucntion, lacking instead the exposimeter for old manual lenses. Anyway, I don't want to start a fight, clearly we have different parameters in evaluating cameras, and that's perfectly ok. >I'm not too sure about the practicalities of the modular idea but I >certainly think that the DSLR manufacturers are missing something. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >re-take >the shot if I'm unsure of exposure etc. Clearly you have never used one of the modern cameras. There is no easier way to check the exposure than by viewing the histogram or having the burned out high-lights indicated. >This is less time consuming than >fiddling about with the tft display controls. By using the display properly you are not left unsure, you 'know' and you know both what and why. Thats better than taking another shot on the grounds that you weren't sure of the last one and hope to be more sure of the next. >As modern DSLRs are festooned >with controls, it's too easy to accidentally put the camera into an >unintended >mode and it's not possible to use an ever-ready case due to the controls >on the back of the camera. You are writing rubbish and I strongly suspect you are a troll. Eric Stevens > Clearly you have never used one of the modern cameras. There is no > easier way to check the exposure than by viewing the histogram or > having the burned out high-lights indicated. Clearly, you lose plenty of shots by messing about with histograms. Yes it's easy to check for over exposure - there's nothing clever about that- but you still have to correct the shot if you discover over exp. in the histogram. > >This is less time consuming than > >fiddling about with the tft display controls. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the grounds that you weren't sure of the last one and hope to be more > sure of the next. Useless knowledge if your subject has walked, crawled or run away. > >As modern DSLRs are festooned > >with controls, it's too easy to accidentally put the camera into an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are writing rubbish and I strongly suspect you are a troll. Not even incorrect. You sound more like a gadget freak than a photographer. >> Clearly you have never used one of the modern cameras. There is no >> easier way to check the exposure than by viewing the histogram or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >about that- but you still have to correct the shot if you discover over >exp. in the histogram. And of course you don't if you have doubts about the first one. :-( >> >This is less time consuming than >> >fiddling about with the tft display controls. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Useless knowledge if your subject has walked, crawled or run away. Yet you say "I re-take the shot if I'm unsure of exposure etc.". I suppose you have to walk, crawl or run after your subject. >> >As modern DSLRs are festooned >> >with controls, it's too easy to accidentally put the camera into an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Not even incorrect. Double-negative = 'correct'. >You sound more like a gadget freak than a photographer. Eric Stevens > I'm not too sure about the practicalities of the modular idea but I > certainly think that the DSLR manufacturers are missing something. > It would be good to see a digital version of an utterly simple but > very high quality camera such as the Nikon FM. I thought that was the idea behind the Leica/Panasonic digital? SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > I have a silly idea: a modular camera, that you can build > on your needs like a PC. You don't buy the 73rd autofocus > point, if you don't need it. Thom Hogan (who has considerable inside information about all things Nikon) has been talking up modular cameras from Nikon as well as a modern FM2. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&thread=31642287&page=1 No real proof, but he thinks it's something being considered. If it is produced it won't be as you envision it. You wouldn't buy autofocus points. You *might* be able to buy different AF assemblies, different sensors, etc. Thom was, BTW, a co-designer of one of the first digital cameras and also the QuickCam (it's possible that these are the same). > Yes. Logitech bought the business from us after we proved there > was actually a market there ;~). I was told by everyone in the > industry we showed it to that we'd never sell it at a profit (we > did, even though it's initial price was US$89) and wouldn't sell > more than 5,000 (we sold 1 million units in two years). But that's > a different story for a different time... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31853148 Ah, interesting, thanks! (I know that my idea was a bit exagerate, it was just to give a "feeling" of what I mean) > > I have a silly idea: a modular camera, that you can build > > on your needs like a PC. You don't buy the 73rd autofocus [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31853148 > Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the > dissatisfaction of many (or at least me) with the building philosophy [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I would really like to have a serious answer. > Andrea I responded in another NG but somehow it didn't make it over here. So I'll repost here. The answer to your questions in simple: cost. You idea would never work because it would make cameras prohibitively expensive. Let's say you have AV, TV, & Manual modes and that's it. Right now there is one switch and one computer. You are suggesting 7 switches and computers so people can buy a la carte. AV AV & TV AV & TV & Manual AV & Manual TV TV & Manual Manual Now you need 7x the engineering; 7x the parts; inventory. You go to the store to get your AV & Manual and they don't have that model, what do you do -- you order the AV & Manual & TV and are happy. Pretty soon, all the stores stock is the "everything" camera to keep their inventory down. It is cheap to add features -- that's why they do it. ----------- The second answer is, of course, hacking. If you produced a "cheap manual" camera and the same basic camera with all the bells and whistles, it wouldn't take long for someone to hack the more advanced camera and port the operating system over the the cheap camera -- then you could just buy the cheap camera and "upgrade" the operating system. Of course they could design completely different cameras for the different functions, but that would involve designing multiple new cameras (which would be very expensive). On the other hand, if all of the cameras were at the same price point, almost everyone would buy the one with all of the bells and whistle -- why not? So the best of all worlds is to give everything to everyone and let everyone decide the functions that they want to use. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.