Old fashioned digital camera?

swanseamale47 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A D4 for £25 is ridiculous whereas asking for and option that is as good image quality as the most basic DSLR in a solid and compact body shouldn't cost over a grand for body only.

The X100 is so close to being perfect for this purpose but is let down by what should be the more basic aspects of design. That cost £645 ish with a fixed lens. This isn't particularly cheap but I feel it is a realistic value.

I didn't ask for cheap, but I don't see why a better value option can't be made.
 
Pricing comes down to demand and potential sales to recoup the development costs.
If the number of people after a camera such as the one you want is in the .0n% then nobody is going to make it.
You may have to accept that your requirements are in the minority these days and minority items generally cost more.
 
ernesto said:
Pricing comes down to demand and potential sales to recoup the development costs.
If the number of people after a camera such as the one you want is in the .0n% then nobody is going to make it.
You may have to accept that your requirements are in the minority these days and minority items generally cost more.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I just thought there'd be more demand for this type of thing, particularly the way Fuji and Leica have been developing in recent years.

My point is that they seem to keep making critical usability mistakes.
 
Phall82 said:
Fair point. I just thought there'd be more demand for this type of thing, particularly the way Fuji and Leica have been developing in recent years.

My point is that they seem to keep making critical usability mistakes.
Click to expand...

To you they are making critical usability mistakes, to the majority maybe not or maybe they are not big enough mistakes to concern people.

The problem is that everyone has different requirements and a mass produced camera by it's nature is a very one size fits all offering. The best we seem to get is a customizable button or two.
 
ernesto said:
To you they are making critical usability mistakes, to the majority maybe not or maybe they are not big enough mistakes to concern people.

The problem is that everyone has different requirements and a mass produced camera by it's nature is a very one size fits all offering. The best we seem to get is a customizable button or two.
Click to expand...

It's a generally accepted fact among users and reviewers of the X100 that there are some obvious difficulties in its design such as autofocus speed, manual focus usability and Auto Iso selectability. I doubt any owners of it at all would disagree with that.
 
Phall82 said:
It's a generally accepted fact among users and reviewers of the X100 that there are some obvious difficulties in its design such as autofocus speed, manual focus usability and Auto Iso selectability. I doubt any owners of it at all would disagree with that.
Click to expand...

But, back to what I said earlier*, autofocus speed and manual focus ability are limitations of the design principles of this type of camera. If you want a camera to focus well, Rangefinders and SLR's are the best way to achieve that right now. In just the same way that a 4wd tractor makes more use of the torque produced by the engine than a 2wd one.

You're up against physics and the limits of current technology, until someone designs a better autofocus system for off the sensor focussing. It'll happen at some point because that technology would benefit all non camera users. Unless you believe that it's available but the manufacturers hold it back to sell DSLR's:naughty:.

Auto ISO is relatively new as a concept, so manufacturers are still experimenting with it's implementation.

*In the post you ignored:thinking:
 
Phall82 said:
It's a generally accepted fact among users and reviewers of the X100 that there are some obvious difficulties in its design such as autofocus speed, manual focus usability and Auto Iso selectability. I doubt any owners of it at all would disagree with that.
Click to expand...

Maybe Fuji are working on those things for the X200, although auto ISO could presumably be a firmware issue the autofocus speed and manual focus approach are harder to fix and again a generally accepted fact to you and a few reviewers and forumites may still not be worthy of Fuji's development time.
 
Phil V said:
But, back to what I said earlier*, autofocus speed and manual focus ability are limitations of the design principles of this type of camera. If you want a camera to focus well, Rangefinders and SLR's are the best way to achieve that right now. In just the same way that a 4wd tractor makes more use of the torque produced by the engine than a 2wd one.

You're up against physics and the limits of current technology, until someone designs a better autofocus system for off the sensor focussing. It'll happen at some point because that technology would benefit all non camera users. Unless you believe that it's available but the manufacturers hold it back to sell DSLR's:naughty:.

Auto ISO is relatively new as a concept, so manufacturers are still experimenting with it's implementation.

*In the post you ignored:thinking:
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it. I took on board what you said. But as I've also stated other manufacturers, such as Nikon, get the things right that Fuji seem to have got wrong, or at least, not done as well with. This means that the technology exists in mirrorless cameras to do what I'm asking.

I know it won't match a DSLR but it could be quicker.
 
ernesto said:
Maybe Fuji are working on those things for the X200, although auto ISO could presumably be a firmware issue the autofocus speed and manual focus approach are harder to fix and again a generally accepted fact to you and a few reviewers and forumites may still not be worthy of Fuji's development time.
Click to expand...

Maybe.
 
The olympus pen, the ep-1 i think is reportedly supposed to have the fastest autofocus of all mirrorles cameras, or did have. They are not exactly classic styled but considering the seem olympus om-d em5 and the fact they are releasing a new micro 4/3s range in the next 10 months with a rumoured pen model having a built in viewfinder in a rangefinder stylee then you may be in luck.

Thinking about all this though got me to the realisation that if there was enough interest in classic styled cameras with new world tech inside then we would have already seen it and seen it done well but manufacturers also exist to push the envelope, evolve designs. and while the light tight box hasn't changed much in the last 50 years or so all cameras look the way they do due to the way they function and for no other reason.
To get the workings from say, a nikon d3 or canon 1d which in my mind is the performance your after into something the size of an olympus om or a nikon f series would be impossible.
Most of these film cameras body's are taken up by the mirror housing, film canisters and pentaprism, open one up! Any spare room is taken up by tiny cogs, levers and springs and there ain't much room for them.
Every piece of space in a flagship digital slr is crammed with circuits and cable plus all the other stuff that makes them whirr. Look at the size comparison, do the maths and it won't work. Even without the monster batteries lol it still makes me laugh when i see my 35-rc next to my brothers d3 and think that digital cameras have had to grow that big to achieve the same quality!
So for now your stuck with small sensors, poor autofocus.
I beg to ask. Why not just shoot film with a film camera, that was state of the art when it was released?
 
I think it would be possible to get digital into an old film body, keeping in mind it would only have the same simple controls. An all in one unit that included sensor, battery, memory and all the electronics in an extended film canister shape.
No rear screen, no extra buttons, just a simple write to memory instead of film and look at the images when you get home.

Would still be a lot of time and effort and would need a different solution for each camera model. And this would only appeal to 0.0n% of camera buyers.
 
Simon photo said:
The olympus pen, the ep-1 i think is reportedly supposed to have the fastest autofocus of all mirrorles cameras, or did have. They are not exactly classic styled but considering the seem olympus om-d em5 and the fact they are releasing a new micro 4/3s range in the next 10 months with a rumoured pen model having a built in viewfinder in a rangefinder stylee then you may be in luck.

Thinking about all this though got me to the realisation that if there was enough interest in classic styled cameras with new world tech inside then we would have already seen it and seen it done well but manufacturers also exist to push the envelope, evolve designs. and while the light tight box hasn't changed much in the last 50 years or so all cameras look the way they do due to the way they function and for no other reason.
To get the workings from say, a nikon d3 or canon 1d which in my mind is the performance your after into something the size of an olympus om or a nikon f series would be impossible.
Most of these film cameras body's are taken up by the mirror housing, film canisters and pentaprism, open one up! Any spare room is taken up by tiny cogs, levers and springs and there ain't much room for them.
Every piece of space in a flagship digital slr is crammed with circuits and cable plus all the other stuff that makes them whirr. Look at the size comparison, do the maths and it won't work. Even without the monster batteries lol it still makes me laugh when i see my 35-rc next to my brothers d3 and think that digital cameras have had to grow that big to achieve the same quality!
So for now your stuck with small sensors, poor autofocus.
I beg to ask. Why not just shoot film with a film camera, that was state of the art when it was released?
Click to expand...

Some fair points there. I prefer digital because I like the fact that it doesn't cost a fortune for films, processing etc and it's more flexible in editing and easier to use by email without having to scan again etc.

Just to note, I wouldn't expect 1D/D3 quality and performance, just something like a 1100D with a good prime. Basically replacing the film with a sensor and the related electronics that come with it.

A Fuji X100 with a better firmware for menu control and the Olympus auto focus would be near perfect. And that seems, to me, to be possible because all it is is combining two manufacturers styles, not actually creating anything brand new.
 
ernesto said:
I think it would be possible to get digital into an old film body, keeping in mind it would only have the same simple controls. An all in one unit that included sensor, battery, memory and all the electronics in an extended film canister shape.
No rear screen, no extra buttons, just a simple write to memory instead of film and look at the images when you get home.

Would still be a lot of time and effort and would need a different solution for each camera model. And this would only appeal to 0.0n% of camera buyers.
Click to expand...

I understand now that I'm on the minority wanting the style and physical control of an older style camera and thats fair enough. I wouldn't expect Canon et al to create a camera that has no real demand. It just seems that the route that Leica and Fuji have take seemed popular but it seems not.
 
Simon photo said:
The olympus pen, the ep-1 i think is reportedly supposed to have the fastest autofocus of all mirrorles cameras, or did have. They are not exactly classic styled but considering the seem olympus om-d em5 and the fact they are releasing a new micro 4/3s range in the next 10 months with a rumoured pen model having a built in viewfinder in a rangefinder stylee then you may be in luck.

Thinking about all this though got me to the realisation that if there was enough interest in classic styled cameras with new world tech inside then we would have already seen it and seen it done well but manufacturers also exist to push the envelope, evolve designs. and while the light tight box hasn't changed much in the last 50 years or so all cameras look the way they do due to the way they function and for no other reason.
To get the workings from say, a nikon d3 or canon 1d which in my mind is the performance your after into something the size of an olympus om or a nikon f series would be impossible.
Most of these film cameras body's are taken up by the mirror housing, film canisters and pentaprism, open one up! Any spare room is taken up by tiny cogs, levers and springs and there ain't much room for them.
Every piece of space in a flagship digital slr is crammed with circuits and cable plus all the other stuff that makes them whirr. Look at the size comparison, do the maths and it won't work. Even without the monster batteries lol it still makes me laugh when i see my 35-rc next to my brothers d3 and think that digital cameras have had to grow that big to achieve the same quality!
So for now your stuck with small sensors, poor autofocus.
I beg to ask. Why not just shoot film with a film camera, that was state of the art when it was released?
Click to expand...

The Nikon J1/V1 focus faster than a Nikon D3. Shooting with film is too laborious and expensive now. I can take 500 shots a day if I want, process the good ones and have them displayed online whilst the film would still be in the developing tank costing me money.

Companies like Canon play it too safe with their dull designs like the EOS-M. Companies like Pentax and Fuji are pushing the design boundaries and the X series from Fuji had to be one of the most hotly anticipated cameras of 2011/2012. There is a market there to tap into. The first company to release a full frame mirrorless camera (the M9 is discounted) along the lines of the NEX/X-Pro and design it well will be onto a real winner.
 
The M9 is crazy money and the likes of the X10/X100 (can't comment on the X1-pro as I've not played with one) are great the X10 is a bit point and shooty, it is a REALLY nice compact though IMHO (bought the wife one and I think its almost perfect as a take everywhere 'handbag' camera).

Personally I'd like to see Voigtlander have a bash at a digital body and I'd expect something along the lines of a budget M9, manual control with a digital sensor using manual lenses. Something VERY similar to the Epson R-D1 (are they still available?) as that was a Cosina product too.
 
You can pick a Leica M8 up for about £1,400 these days, add in some nice Zeiss glass for about £500 and you have a very nice set up.
 
puggie said:
Something VERY similar to the Epson R-D1 (are they still available?) as that was a Cosina product too.
Click to expand...

The Epson RD1 is a very good example of a camera with a proven lack of market, i.e. how many did they sell, why did it get discontinued without a newer model etc,.

I am in stuck record mode here but I really do think the market for this type of camera is so small that it is just left to Leica so you basically have to really want one!
 
Its a small market but its very much there, I mean how much is the OM-D for a MFT sized camera. The X1/10/100 all seem to be selling very well. The epson was not discontinued, it is still available in Japan, now the R-D1xG a snip at 299,800Yen (about £2440), Its a manual focus only camera, very specialist really so an even smaller market!
 
But the OM-D, X1/10/100 are not fitting the requirement. I know there is a market (there is a market for almost anything with a population of 4 billion people) the question is does the market bring a return on investment for the camera manufacturers and if it doesn't why would they make the camera.
Leica can do it as they charge £5000 so can have very low production numbers. Can the same be done for £1000?
 
ernesto said:
But the OM-D, X1/10/100 are not fitting the requirement. I know there is a market (there is a market for almost anything with a population of 4 billion people) the question is does the market bring a return on investment for the camera manufacturers and if it doesn't why would they make the camera.
Leica can do it as they charge £5000 so can have very low production numbers. Can the same be done for £1000?
Click to expand...

The thing is, the X100 in particular is so close o being right but it's got too many 'quirks' but having said that, it's still more enjoyable to use than my DSLR. It's just a shame it hasn't been fine tuned with existing tech that is already out there.
 
If you could buy a digital back for a film camera, what would you be prepared to pay? Really simple maybe just an on/off and ISO setting on there, no screen etc, and utilise the mechanical shutter of the camera. It is a viable product but costs would be quite high (especially if you wanted a FF sensor in there).
 
There was quite a bit of forum discussion about the feasibility of retrofitting digital clockwork into SLRs back in the transition period before digital became dominant and a lot of photographers were still using 35mm film. IIRC, a lot of people thought it was technically possible but wasn't going to happen because the manufacturers were committing to digital, and didn't think there would be enough demand to justify the R & D costs, or were simply following a business strategy that offered more profit from selling new - and constantly developing - cameras than a solution that gave the older ones a new lease of life.

I'd be very happy with a digital 'converter' for my F2 but, then again, I'm not at all unhappy with it as a film camera. It comes from another era, and mine has a lot of memories to go with it.
 
Its definitely viable, I've been looking at camera guts for work (mainly high speed stuff) but I would think your looking at something in the region of the Fuji X100 price for just a simple digital back. Like many others though, I like the way my film camera uses film. I have a 5D and can appreciate how good it is as a digital camera, I can't help fancying a Leica M3 :)
 
puggie said:
Its definitely viable, I've been looking at camera guts for work (mainly high speed stuff) but I would think your looking at something in the region of the Fuji X100 price for just a simple digital back.
Click to expand...

I would actually add at least a 0 to the end of your suggested price, the demand would be so low as to make it very niche which would make the price stratospheric.
 
Agree. Yes it is possible, nothing to stop it being possible. But it would almost be at a bespoke level unless a manufacturer was only going to make it for a specific camera or two and which camera would they choose as everyone would have their favourite old camera.
Also no opportunity to sell lenses and other accessories as they are not selling a camera body so additional, sideline product profits would not be found.

So the question is, you want a digitally equipped old camera but are you willing to pay £1000+ for the privilege?
 
ernesto said:
Agree. Yes it is possible, nothing to stop it being possible. But it would almost be at a bespoke level unless a manufacturer was only going to make it for a specific camera or two and which camera would they choose as everyone would have their favourite old camera.
Also no opportunity to sell lenses and other accessories as they are not selling a camera body so additional, sideline product profits would not be found.

So the question is, you want a digitally equipped old camera but are you willing to pay £1000+ for the privilege?
Click to expand...

Well, my original thought when I posted was a camera very similar to an X100 but with faster autofocus like found on similar priced cameras such as the Nikon versions.

A more sensitive manual focus system, based on the existing, but tweaked so that you don't have to turn it multiple times to get from macro to infinity, like on a 'normal' lens.

This should not cost much more, if any, than the original X100 to produce and it has a proven market.
 
Phall82 said:
Well, my original thought when I posted was a camera very similar to an X100 but with faster autofocus like found on similar priced cameras such as the Nikon versions.

A more sensitive manual focus system, based on the existing, but tweaked so that you don't have to turn it multiple times to get from macro to infinity, like on a 'normal' lens.

This should not cost much more, if any, than the original X100 to produce and it has a proven market.
Click to expand...

Yes, back to your original point and I agree that those two specific changes could be accomodated in the next version of the camera.
But that leads to the area on how do these enhancements get trapped by the manufacturer, which do they decide to progress and why etc,.
You may find the next model has a load of new features of which leave you scratching your head wondering who the hell would want them :)
 
I'm getting a bit confused now. Are we talking about a modern camera with fully manual controls similar to a camera from the film era, or some way of converting or retrofitting an older film camera to digital?
 
MartynK said:
I'm getting a bit confused now. Are we talking about a modern camera with fully manual controls similar to a camera from the film era, or some way of converting or retrofitting an older film camera to digital?
Click to expand...

both, the thread seems to have split in two.
 
Epson R-D1 - I've got one! Ticks all the boxes, except I'd prefer it if it was an SLR - a faff to get used to the RFF (purists will disagree!). If a SLR had the advance lever, manual controls accessible with dials (including ISO) with Automatic override (as the R-D1 has) then it'd be perfect. How can it be so hard? Also its a timebomb waiting to break...
 
Last edited:
puggie said:
If you could buy a digital back for a film camera, what would you be prepared to pay? Really simple maybe just an on/off and ISO setting on there, no screen etc, and utilise the mechanical shutter of the camera. It is a viable product but costs would be quite high (especially if you wanted a FF sensor in there).
Click to expand...

Leica already did it with the Digital Modul R (DMR), but it cost a pretty penny.
 
Just to update an old thread I started. I've found a three camera combination that suits my needs. I now have:

Fuji X10 - for travelling light
Fuji X100 - for when I want to test myself a little more and for the love of using it.
And finally, the answer to my original post (with acceptable differences):
Olympus OM-D EM5

The Olympus, although I didn't realise it at the time, is the camera that ticks enough boxes to be as perfect as it gets for me.

I thought the focus would let it down but it's more impressive than any of the DSLRs I've owned. With fast glass it looks the business and never let's me down. I don't miss the OVF as the EVF a is so smooth to use.

It's also smaller and lighter than a DSLR and all my gear now fits in one relatively small bag.

Couldn't ask for more... Personally :-)
 
Well things have moved on since the original post both in models released and the tech available.

Whilst I still am in favour of the OP's concept as I love having a shutter speed dial and aperture dial that work properly there are alternatives out there.

The Fuji x100s & X20 have answered a lot of the questions as far as fast AF goes, both employing a hybrid system with both contrast detect and on sensor phase detect, the combination has given them very fast focus speeds.

As for the OP's concept it was pretty much realised with the X-Pro1 as it meets most of his criteria,the AF speed has continually speeded up with body & lens firmware updates the future updated models will no doubt feature the same focus system's as the X100s and the manual focus has been much improved over the original X100's slow effort.
Direct access to ISO is via an assignable Fn button or the rear Q menu, though I would still love to see an ISO dial on the left hand side of the top plate.

Auto ISO? Not interested, it comes with constraints such as not being able to use manual exposure compensation in manual mode, you need to be in a set ISO to be able to adjust the shutter speed or aperture to compensate your exposure otherwise the auto setting just shift the ISO to compensate for the setting you use and you get a "correctly" exposed image rather than one with the exposure compensation you want.
Yes it can be handy on a changeable day with fluctuating light levels but its not important to me personally.

Manual focus though not as bad can be sidestepped by using an adaptor and various manual lenses, including Leica's, so thats really not an issue.

For years I'd longed for a digital version of the nikon FM, the X-Pro1 is the nearest I've found to it so far.

I also still think if fuji came out with a retro styled DSLR with top plate controls such as shutter speed dial and aperture rings on the lenses it would sail off the shelves.
 
part of the problem is that the "Best Technology" is spread thinly between all the manufacturers and Locked from each other by "Patents"
There was a time when scientific advances were not patented but published in scientific Journals and so free for any one to use.

Patent law slows down the spread of innovation and prevents rapid change.

Some vital photographically useful patents are owned by the non photographic industry and are held as a ransom.
 
If I had my x100s with the same aperture and shutter speed controls and the Exposure compensation dial replaced with an ISO dial I'd be happy. I'd like to keep the back LCD screen for image review but other than that get rid of everything else!

Not sure that would infringe on many patents, it sounds like most of us are after a simpler digital camera not a more complex hi-tech one?
 
If I could buy a camera that looked exactly like, and operated exactly like a FM2, or F3, and had the same 36MP sensor as the D800 I'd be all over it like a cheap suit. It would be a MUCH better studio camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top