Re: Does anybody have an answer?
Pete D
"sambarluc" <samb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e71398a-2723-44bc...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> 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
Because it would not be simple, lightweight or cheap, just like MF.
Charles
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4a296a8e$0$32358$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "sambarluc" <samb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e71398a-2723-44bc...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> 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.
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.
N
news:4e71398a-2723-44bc...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> 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
> 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.
> 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
It isn't cheap.
http://www.red.com/
--
N
Roy G
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4a296a8e$0$32358$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> news:4e71398a-2723-44bc...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the
>
>
Because then it would need to be about the same size as your desktop
computer's base unit.
Roy G
footless crow
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.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
nospam
<footle...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.
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.
nospam
<acea401b-d42a-49ec...@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
sambarluc <samb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Eric Stevens
<footle...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>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.
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
Pete D
>
>>
>> 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.
Bob Larter
> 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?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
footless crow
On 6-Jun-2009, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
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
> >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.
Not even incorrect.
You sound more like a gadget freak than a photographer.
Eric Stevens
<footle...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>On 6-Jun-2009, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> 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.
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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>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
>> >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.
>
>Not even incorrect.
Double-negative = 'correct'.
>
>You sound more like a gadget freak than a photographer.
Eric Stevens
ASAAR
> 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
Pat
> Reading all the mess about DP2, and expectations on Olympus, and the
> 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
> modular camera, that you can build on your needs like a PC. You don't
> 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
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.