Old fashioned digital camera?

Phall82

Phall82

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,254
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All!

I've been thinking, which can be dangerous :thinking:

Why is it so difficult for the geniuses/genii of the camera design world to create a 'proper' old fashioned style camera with a digital sensor?

What I mean is, there's always something we want extra, but its always been done before. I have an X100 which, apart from maybe the Leica M9, is the closest they have come to a real old fashioned feel camera with all the mod cons that we expect... but it has its flaws.

The manual (by wire) focus is nothing short of irritating, there are still big issues with the control menu layout and lack of necessary buttons (from my point of view, an easy access auto ISO is essential).

It also has slow autofocus which most mirrorless camera's seem to suffer from. I have yet to find anything close to the speed of a DSLR in an alternative.

Obviously a DSLR is similar in a way to an old fashioned camera but I like the idea of old fashioned looking, true quality build, manual dials for aperture and shutter speed etc but with fast auto focus, true manual focus, full frame, bright and accurate viewfinder. Is it really that difficult?

Anyway, rant over :nuts:

What are other people's views?

Cheers

Colin
 
Last edited:
Phall82 said:
Hi All!

I've been thinking, which can be dangerous :thinking:

Why is it so difficult for the geniuses/genii of the camera design world to create a 'proper' old fashioned style camera with a digital sensor?

What I mean is, there's always something we want extra, but its always been done before. I have an X100 which, apart from maybe the Leica M9, is the closest they have come to a real old fashioned feel camera with all the mod cons that we expect... but it has its flaws.

The manual (by wire) focus is nothing short of irritating, there is still big issues with the control menu layout and lack of necessary buttons (from my point of view, an easy access auto ISO is essential).

It also has slow autofocus which most mirrorless camera's seem to suffer from. I have yet to find anything close to the speed of a DSLR in an alternative.

Obviously a DSLR is simile in a way to an old fashioned camera but I like the idea of old fashioned looking, true quality build, manual dials for aperture and shutter speed etc but with fast auto focus, true manual focus, full frame, bright and accurate viewfinder. Is it really that difficult?
Click to expand...


Not really, it's been around for years, it's called film.

But I know what you mean, however I don't really care what I use, as long as I can get the result I'm looking for in a photograph, to me it's all about composition and controlling light.

:)
 
As another X100 fan, I've had exactly the same, dangerous thoughts!
 
I have a Nikon F80 with digital sensor, will that do you?
 
The x100 and M9 are RF stylee cameras, not typically "old fashioned"
Whilst you can argue they are old fashioned, they're only really as old as SLR's.

I suppose the spec of RF stylee cameras will get better the more demand there is for them.

The Nikon 1 is supposed to have fast AF....:shrug:
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
I have a Nikon F80 with digital sensor, will that do you?
Click to expand...

Maybe :-) I've had a very quick search, and is this not a film camera?
 
joxby said:
The x100 and M9 are RF stylee cameras, not typically "old fashioned"
Whilst you can argue they are old fashioned, they're only really as old as SLR's.

I suppose the spec of RF stylee cameras will get better the more demand there is for them.

The Nikon 1 is supposed to have fast AF....:shrug:
Click to expand...

I think they are old fashioned. 70's and 80's is old fashioned in photography.

They have similar looks, build quality, viewfinder style and manual control, but the fine tuning of autofocus speed and manual control is lacking, along with basics of ease of menu navigation.

I don't want an old camera, I want one with the style and physical controls but with the benefits of an LCD, hi ISO, auto focus and digital processing. This shouldn't be difficult for top camera manufacturers and there is a definite market for it.
 
Last edited:
The F80 is an SLR, it doesn't look like an RF
 
Phall82 said:
Hi All!

I've been thinking, which can be dangerous :thinking:

Why is it so difficult for the geniuses/genii of the camera design world to create a 'proper' old fashioned style camera with a digital sensor?
Click to expand...

Because unfortunately, there is no real demand for it. While it might be something discussed on photography forums the normal photographer in the street wants as many features as can be crammed in.

The only way you would get something like you describe would be to commission it yourself and pay the £100 million R&D and manufacturing costs, there would never be a profit in it for any of the manufacturers to launch something like a digital FM2.
 
joxby said:
The F80 is an SLR, it doesn't look like an RF
Click to expand...

But you've got one with a digital sensor?
 
No it's not difficult, just not popular enough to produce I suspect.

One of the things that made digital photography so popular was the fact that most of the cameras are pretty well idiot proof, even real dummies can get a half decent picture, if you made it more difficult only the real enthusiasts would be able to use them properly.
 
I'm not sure how you put proper old fashioned controls and autofocus in the same criteria.

The answer is proper rangefinder of course, with manual focus.

The AF ability of non SLR's is full of compromise and will likely never truly catch up with the instant AF we expect from a 'proper' camera.

The problem with your scenario is that most film cameras had moved away from traditional controls before digital came along. So a modern DSLR is the equivalent of an old fashioned manual SLR. And Leica rangefinders had resisted too much modernisation, so when they went digital they kept an old fashioned analogue feel.
 
Dave1 said:
Because unfortunately, there is no real demand for it. While it might be something discussed on photography forums the normal photographer in the street wants as many features as can be crammed in.

The only way you would get something like you describe would be to commission it yourself and pay the £100 million R&D and manufacturing costs, there would never be a profit in it for any of the manufacturers to launch something like a digital FM2.
Click to expand...

Really? Well, I would have thought that the success of camera like the X100 and X10 would show that there is demand but they are flawed on what should be the simple side of the design.

Other brands, such as the Nikon 1 etc have improved the autofocus speed on a similar sized body and the menu layout of any DSLR is much better.

It's the detail that is missing. Theyve got the style, image quality and build spot on. I just think the user interface could be improved. I still love my X100 by the way :-)
 
Phall82 said:
I think they are old fashioned. 70's and 80's is old fashioned in photography.
Click to expand...


Well, they're certainly more stylish, RF's are the best looking of camera designs imo.
Mirrorless tech is relatively new in high end bodys, so I suppose if there is demand for performance, manufacturers will develop it....eventually
 
I think what I'm trying to get at is, I love my Pentax ME Super and there is no comparable digital camera on the market.

It's fun, hands on and relatively compact (compared to my 5DII) to carry around. I also want a camera you can carry in a leather case around your neck with way access, like the X100 and ME Super with more manual control but with the basics in digital technology such as LCD and auto focus (although not strictly digital).
 
Phall82 said:
Really? Well, I would have thought that the success of camera like the X100 and X10 would show that there is demand but they are flawed on what should be the simple side of the design.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately so, the x100 and x10 are at best niche market cameras and are only successful from that point of view.

Have you seen an x10 or x100 in Argos? Tesco? Fuji only holds about a 5% market share with all it's cameras sold, I wouldn't be surprised if the x10/x100 account for even 1% of Fuji's sales.
 
Phall82 said:
Why is it so difficult for the geniuses/genii of the camera design world to create a 'proper' old fashioned style camera with a digital sensor?
Click to expand...

I mostly use a Panny G1 with manual lens and the rear screen turned to the camera body and despite the EVF and in view histogram it's a very film like experience IMVHO. The size and weight is much closer to a 35mm SLR than that of the big fat heavy bloated DSLR's.
 
Last edited:
lol..

right well it sounds like the new M9.5 Spotmatic 5D will be right up your street


if they ever make it

:lol:
 
joxby said:
lol..

right well it sounds like the new M9.5 Spotmatic 5D will be right up your street

if they ever make it

:lol:
Click to expand...

I even like the name, it's catchy :-)
 
Phall82 said:
Maybe :-) I've had a very quick search, and is this not a film camera?
Click to expand...

No, it's a film camera body with digital innards, as requested in the OP:

"
Why is it so difficult for the geniuses/genii of the camera design world to create a 'proper' old fashioned style camera with a digital sensor?"

It's not 'old fashioned' though in that it was a last generation film camera, I'd still rather have an OM4Ti with a digital sensor.
 
There are plenty of these old fashioned cameras in the modern dSLR market place, which is why the modern dSLR looks and feels like an old fashioned camera. That is what photos wanted.

My 7d has manual control knobs for aperture and SS, my lenses have propoer manual focus, it has a 100% view finder, ok it is a crop but if I wanted to spend another $2,000 I could have had that to.

Just because it also has lots more buttons and menus does not mean I have to use them.
 
will69 said:
There are plenty of these old fashioned cameras in the modern dSLR market place, which is why the modern dSLR looks and feels like an old fashioned camera. That is what photos wanted.

My 7d has manual control knobs for aperture and SS, my lenses have propoer manual focus, it has a 100% view finder, ok it is a crop but if I wanted to spend another $2,000 I could have had that to.

Just because it also has lots more buttons and menus does not mean I have to use them.
Click to expand...

And it's twice the weight and size of an older style camera which is critical to the fun of using it.

It's not even nearly discreet an I don't like taking my 5DII out or a family day out, whereas my X100 is perfect.
 
has anyone given any thought to why cameras are shaped the way they are?
its pure function over form, well the good old film cameras anyhow.
it like why are engines shaped the way they are??? because that's the most efficient shape to make them, very few everyday motors are given ascetically pleasing engines. maybe some funky shaped cowling's or ducts but the block is formed to function.
take a look at an average 35mm slr, all very much the same yes? ergonomic? no!
but with the advent of evolving cameras and lenses we have become accustomed to the shape and now yearn for it once again, there is nothing wrong with this yearning, i gutted a broken om10 to retro fit some digital guts (ongoing project lol) for the same reason.
the olympus OM-D range is producing some rather good looking cameras right now and have more in the pipeline.
quality build? well the om10 i stripped down revealed some interesting finds. the top plate is plastic! the shutter curtain is pulled by bits of string and dont even consider taking it anywhere wet, or damp, there are more gaps and holes in them than you would care to imagine. the olympus e30 e3 and e5 as well as most modern cameras these days are out engineered, out built and 100% tougher than their 35mm counterparts.
i still love old cameras though, and my little collection of film burners is growing all the time but they shoot film, they aint ornaments or jewellery they are there to do what i want them to do for me.
 
A digital version of a (for example) Pentax ME Super would struggle to get all the controls on the top plate, meaning lots of adjustments through the menu. The need for autofocus would make either the body bigger, or the lenses disproportionately large.

If you take a small DSLR (Nikon D40, for example), look how thick the body is in comparison.

It's things like this that make me wish that "digital film cartridge" wasn't just an April Fools joke.
 
I had an OM10 (mainly just to look at) and while it looked nicer than a DSLR and it was nice to use it was clearly not as comfortable to hold or use for a long time as a modern DSLR.

The modern DSLR does all the things the OM10 did, plus a lot more, and that is what the majority of people probably want.
 
Thom Hogan reckoned the Nikon FM3D made it into prototype, but was abandoned before reaching production. I assume they didn't think it was commercially viable. Pity.
 
And as for weight and size, why use a 5D as a comparison as that is a heavy and large DSLR.
OM10 with 50 1.8 weighs 645 grams
1100D with 50 1.8 weighs 580 grams

Yes, the 1100D and 50 1.8 are low end and plastic but nothing wrong with modern plastics and it performs well enough to compare to a old SLR with basic functions.
 
The main reason that some people prefer analog photography is that you actually can get a better picture quality with film than you can with a digital camera. The major caveat on this is that in order to do this you need to actually be a skilled photographer
 
That may have been the case in the early days of digital but I think digital has surpassed film once is got to 8MP+ or something like that.

I know what the OP is saying as I would also like an old style camera with a digital sensor, even if they are not quite as comfortable to actually hold and use so this is heart ruling head territory!

Give me an OM10 with a digital sensor and I would be happy. Aperture priority and manual focus and don't even need a rear screen as I will review the images when I get home just like with film.

However, if I had a modern DSLR sat next to it the odds are I would start picking up the DSLR after a few weeks...
 
milad93 said:
The main reason that some people prefer analog photography is that you actually can get a better picture quality with film than you can with a digital camera. The major caveat on this is that in order to do this you need to actually be a skilled photographer
Click to expand...

I didn't think that anyone still actually believed things like this. Well done for hanging on to myths that should have died years ago.
 
milad93 said:
The main reason that some people prefer analog photography is that you actually can get a better picture quality with film than you can with a digital camera. The major caveat on this is that in order to do this you need to actually be a skilled photographer
Click to expand...

You get a different response curve from film to digital, with digital having a sudden cut off (clipping) rather than a much more gradual drop off with film.

However, as sensors dynamic range improves, and with skill on the part of the photographer (and using things like ND grads, or HDR) this can be counteracted.

Better - not any more, just different.
 
I suppose the Olympus OM-D EM-5 is close to what I would want but it's so damn expensive an the only option.

I haven't handled one but it seems it may tick most boxes.
 
With the references made to the OM-D, I googled for some images - had to take a second look at the mode dial - I thought they had painted a film rewind crank onto it; turned out to be the 'Auto' mode, lol. I keep thinking I can see a film advance lever behind the shutter release button too :nuts:
 
Ah, if you are looking for fake buttons and levers you need this cute little thing;

$(KGrHqRHJDME63ZMVcgsBO09!pC2eQ~~_35.JPG
 
i use a camera that looks old fashioned.
the Leica Digilux 2 :naughty:

yeah its a bit slow & the EVF isn't the best BUT it has a great lens & you get some lovely shots from it.
all the controls exactly where you want them & it looks great :thumbs:

frontview.jpg
 
I use the M9 and it's a nice blend of classic design and old fashioned build quality with modern performance. It's not only nice to use it's nice just to look at from a design point of view. Fuji seem to be taking the risks with their retro styling right now, but it seems to be paying off for them so the demand is there.
 
Laudrup said:
I use the M9 and it's a nice blend of classic design and old fashioned build quality with modern performance. It's not only nice to use it's nice just to look at from a design point of view. Fuji seem to be taking the risks with their retro styling right now, but it seems to be paying off for them so the demand is there.
Click to expand...

But the mM9 is just the evolution of the M series its not been styled to look like an M it is an M
And the only reason they look that way is the rangefinder configuration.
Still jealous as **** at anyone who owns one though lol
 
Phall82 said:
I suppose the Olympus OM-D EM-5 is close to what I would want but it's so damn expensive an the only option.

I haven't handled one but it seems it may tick most boxes.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, you want it old style, small and cheap.... Well I want a D4 for £25 as well, not going to happen to either of us though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top