what would you leave out of a k1000d model?

A lot of folks seem to think that Pentax will put out an entry-level dSLR model

later this year, to sit beneath the k200d in the line-up. This kind of makes

sense, since there is certainly a market for sub-$500 dSLRs which other

companies are targeting.

 

I'm wondering though what Pentax would strip out of the k200d in order to make

it cheaper and more entry level. Build-quality and weather-sealing is an obvious

one. I'd guess they would want to make the camera smaller and lighter.

 

But other than build/sealing I'm at a bit of a loss to see what they would get

rid of. They surely won't go back below 10Mp in the sensor. They could

intentionally cripple it by removing advanced features like mirror lockup, but I

don't think this would save them any money on costs and doesn't seem like

Pentax's style.

 

Unless they were going for an ultra-light body they wouldn't remove shake

reduction. So what's left? They can't give it a smaller buffer or a smaller

screen, or fewer frames per second. It seems to me that they can only compromise

on build quality and sealing.

 

So, feel free to speculate on what Pentax could do to produce a sub-$500

entry-level dSLR. Or will they not bother with one at all? Seems to me that they

should have just kept selling the k100d.

Hmmm... I was gonna say shake reduction. That's what they did with the K110D, right?

 

Also I think they *could* give it a smaller buffer or slower continuous mode, but it'd be annoying.

 

I'd say shake reduction is a goner, no sealing, no secondary LCD (the K100D's second LCD was considered a luxury compared to the D40 and Rebel XT!!!), no TV-out, smaller pentamirror viewfinder, *maybe* no hot shoe.

 

I too am a bit mystified by them not keeping the K100D Super. I'm also surprised at how the K200D is basically a more-expensive K10D in a smaller body. Presumably the market will sort out and lower the prices on all these in a few months!

I'd model it after a Program Plus/MX type camera.

 

No frills. Basic body. Small, light. Maybe even lacking a large LCD.

 

Potentially I'd allow it to run on 2AA batteries. Maybe even a single CR-V3. Without an LCD this would be probably be possible. A 1 inch OLED display would eat almost no power.

 

Size, same as the Program Plus or smaller.

 

Since we don't have aperture rings anymore, two control wheels are required. Thats non negotiable and won't make the camera any bigger.

 

It would be bare bones, nothing that isn't needed. Requirements, mirror lockup, center point AF, spot/center metering (no crappy matrix metering). If SR requires a larger body, scrap it. I shot for years without SR, I still use my ist D without it, I can work around it.

 

It should be weather sealed, it should be metal. Just like the old days. I want to be able to bounce it off rocks and see little dents after years of use.

 

What am I asking for. A no frills, Program Plus/MX with a digital sensor that sacrifices modern features for superior size and build. I figure if you strip out all the fancy gizmos, you can build a more compact and rugged camera for less money.

"I'm also surprised at how the K200D is basically a more-expensive K10D in a smaller body"

 

Not really, the K200D is more a K100D Super in a larger body with some extra sealing. Remember, the sealing on the K10D is NOT the same as the K200D, that alone is a reason to separate the two. Like all camera brands Pentax trickled down technology but the K10D is still a superior camera in almost every area. Just like the Rebel XT wasn't a 20D, the K200D isn't a K10D.

 

That said, I agree, removing the K100D Super doesn't make sense, as you no longer compete with the D60/D40 of the world. Seems like a weather sealed version of a K100D Super was worth a little more money, and a CMOS version of a K10D with live view was worth a little more too. There you have 3 tiers.

 

Also, I'm doubtful the lack of SR will be the thing to remove, afterall the SR doesn't really add hundreds to the cost, but gives it a competitive edge or at least tie with Nikon/Canon now that SR kit lenses hit the market.

 

I'd agree with removing SR if they, to any degree, did something like what I asked for in the post above, aka. a really well built Olympus 410 but for photographers, and not digital compact users who want an SLR.

Okay, so the K200D is more-expensive, INFERIOR K10D ;-)

 

I agree that they should have kept the K100D Super. I don't get why Pentax seems to not want to make more than 2 camera models at once. Do they have a less capable manufacturing and distribution system than Canon/Nikon/Olympus?

 

I know that similar things can wreak havoc in other industries. For example, whenever AMD makes better processors than Intel, they've been consistently unable to produce and ship enough of them...

Pentax is smaller than the other companies. I don't know how much bigger Oly is in terms of production capacity.

 

Canon is significantly bigger than the others, Nikon isn't even nearly as big as Canon but still quite a bit bigger than the others.

 

Pentax does things on it's own pace. I did see some mention of a even smaller DSLR than previously made some time ago, from a Pentax interview where the word "miniaturization" was used. This was around the time of the K10D release. but at that time they seemed to be leaning towards higher end bodies.

 

Now I'm thinking maybe they reversed direction at least for the time being, I would not be suprised to see an even smaller DSLR than the Olympus mini. This might sell for less than the K100D sold for and be that pocket street/mountain camera many of us have been hoping for.

 

One last thing, Herbet Keppler spoke of his conversations with Pentax higher ups about a digital K1000, he was asking them to build a digital camera for beginners that was barebones, something like a K1000 without film.

 

This wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.

KISS - a K1000 wasn't a K2, or even a KX or KM. It was just a light-tight, fully-mechanical box with a lens mount and viewfinder prism.<p>In theory a K1000D should offer no programming, automation of focus, exposure, aperture, white-balance (imagine having to choose filters again), flash, or anything else, for that matter. It should just be a light-tight <i>digital</i> box with a lens mount and viewfinder prism. <p>AA batteries. No image-view LCD, just the settings LCD on top. No green button - DIY. No DOF preview, no MLU, meter-only viewfinder information, no ports to transfer files, just remove the card. Keep the 2 wheels to set aperture and shutter speed (Pentax won't make lenses with aperture rings soon), but you have to look at the top LCD. No in-camera Scenes processing - just DNG and JPEG outputs (put Walgreens/Kodak back in the print business as co-marketing partners - work some sort of license/partnership with Adobe). Probably can't do P-TTL flash.<p>Keep SR. 64-3200 ISO with NR, best metering (that's different) and the best sensor economically feasible (prob. 10Mp).<p>All the cost should be centered on digital image-production and durability - sealed, metal body.<p>High build-quality, quick-shift manual focus lenses would be equivalent to mounting an A-lens on a K1000.

Unfortunately, lack of mirror lockup would kill it for me.

 

No whitebalance is necessary. I'd assume it would shoot in RAW. If so, filters are completely unnecessary. I never bother with white balance anyway on any of my RAW shooting cameras.

 

So we can have SR but not, MLU? If your going truly retro SR wasn't on the K1000, so it shouldn't be on a digital K1000D.

 

MLU does more for stabilization and IQ than SR, and it was the most important missing thing on the K1000. I'll trade the SR for the MLU. As far as AF, I can live without it, but looking at my ist 35mm it was AF and still smaller than the ist D, so I'm thinking the motor for AF isn't a big size killer. Doesn't have to be fast or big the AF motor but something that gives the eyes a break would be fine. Plus, basic autofocus would appeal to older shooters with less than ideal eye , simple but accurate single point.

 

No DOF? Another knock on the K1000. how bout we make a compromise, old school button action DOF, like on the older SLRs. The type that actually worked because you could stop it down slowly letting the eyes adjust.

[No image-view LCD]

 

I'll go out on a very sturdy limb and say that is never going to happen. No live-view, ok. But no LCD on the back to review the picture or histogram of the image you've just taken? The LCD adds weight/size to the body, but I don't think many people would be willing to make the tradeoff... it's just too useful to be able to see what you've just shot. Personally, I think the LCD is the best thing about dSLRs. Sure, it doesn't contribute directly to image quality, but as a learning tool it is invaluable and it's also hard to put a price on knowing you've got the shot/exposure that you were aiming for.

Ashley, how did we do it before the LCD? And it's not like with film were you were paying per shot!!! With digital you delete the failures anyway without spending more then a few millipennies on electricity to charge the camera, or put in single use AAs.

 

I don't have a problem with an LCD(or without one) but at most I'd like to see a 1.5in LCD or even a 1in. The cameras have gotten bigger in part because of the need to put bigger LCDs on. As a result they have also lost buttons to make room for the LCD. You could put a loupe to magnify it if necessary but no need for the new 3in LCDs which are still too small for critical focus evaluation of complex scenes anyway.

[Ashley, how did we do it before the LCD?]

 

We took the shot and hoped we'd exposed, focused, framed correctly and (in the case of people shots) that no one had their eyes closed or a stupid expression on their face. ;-)

 

Seriously, of course a camera without an LCD is perfectly good. It isn't necessary for taking photos, and contributes nothing to image quality. But its advantages for the average user are undeniable and the only time you'll be seeing a dSLR without one is if there's a limited 'retro' special edition made of a classic camera to celebrate an anniversary. And IMO the chance of anyone putting an LCD smaller than 2.5in on any new dSLR body is pretty much zero. It just wouldn't sell.

If Pentax does ANY strategic thinking then they are ready to drop the price of k200 into the "sub $500" market......and, perhaps the bare bones Pentax will be in the $300 slot......

Marketing reality means there's no way they can do without an LCD, or a JPEG processor. And there's no sensible reason to cut out essentially software features, because that doesn't save significant costs -- even if it would be more like a 1970s camera.

 

So, one thing they could cut is the internal focus drive motor. This'd cause some howling as with the D40, but it'd still work with all those old manual lenses just fine, and also with new SDM lenses (make the upcomiing 30mm the kit lens?).

But it would make all those designed for digital limited lenses obsolete, and also make the non SDM Limited road mapped lenses obsolete.

 

While those lenses are decent manual focus, that is superior manual focus AF lenses, they are not manual focus. Plus, cost wise the motor may add cost, but in terms of making a miniature camera, people who haven't held the ist 35mm have no idea how much smaller the ist 35mm was over the "compact" digital bodies. And the ist 35mm did have an AF motor.

 

I don't even think Nikon cut the motor out of the D40 because it was trying to cut cost, but rather to force people to buy G series AF-S lenses. Also, it kept pros from just stocking up on a perfectly fine backup.

 

Pentax, doesn't have the infrastructure to start screwing people at this time. Leaving a motor out, or going FF without a crop mode, would definitely screw people who just bought in to the system in the last few years. It would also kill the seemingly hardcore approach to backwards compatibility that Pentax has not only taken but also advertised on it's own.

I mentioned this a long time ago, I'd say that it would be VERY difficult to sell a non AF

camera in today's market, so I'd say something similar to the features of a PZ-10: A very

basic AF camera. One focus zone, one metering mode. Give it a good screen for manual

focusing (diagonal split screen), and give it a COMBO KNOB to set the shutter speed and

ASA (ISO), just like the K1000's & Spotmatics. Maybe a special series of lenses with

aperture rings and a good manual feel in 18mm, 32mm, and 87mm to emulate the good

'ole days of the 28/50/135 kit.

 

Oh, yeah. Scrap the TTL flash metering too, it sucks anyway. Just a basic hot shoe AND

NO POP-UP FLASH.

 

I still say that there should be a 'student mode' that locks out all automatic features with a

password.

 

Even with a pair of K10s, I'd buy one of these...

In 1976 much of the technology was in the film and developer, the rest was in the lenses; little technology was in the K1000 body. One compensated for the properties of film with filters and camera settings, and manipulated the final image in the chemical and printing processes. Any photographer could make a competent image with a K1000 - that was its principal appeal - it met the least-common-denominator of all photographers.<p>The sensor, body processing, PC and post-processing software completely change the paradigm, and quite possibly make a K1000 equivalent impossible.<p>A professional photographer was often also a professional developer and printer, or used a custom lab and ordered the developing and printing process. Today a professional needs every pixel of information in all layers from the sensor to post-process. A professional photographer of the time would likely have <b>chosen</b> a K2 and the best lenses, but could have used a K1000.<p>An accomplished amateur photographer <b>may</b> have had a basement b&w darkroom, but rarely a color darkroom. An accomplished amateur today probably wants some in-camera processing and the ability to quickly produce competent images, either in the PC or directly from the card at a converter/printer, so RAW output is important, but less so. An accomplished, price-conscious amateur might have <b>chosen</b> a KX and nice lenses, but could have effectively used a K1000.<p>A full amateur probably couldn't use a DSLR to any advantage today, since P&S cameras export decent JPEG's, and dedicated software interprets them well enough, but a full amateur (who wanted more than an Instamatic) would likely have <b>chosen</b> a K1000 and a kit lens, and lots of them did.<p>So the real debate should be, what is the least-common-denominator set of features that a pro, an accomplished amateur and a true amateur <b>could</b> use to produce competent images in the digital world. Would enough people buy that camera? I've read that the K1000 was not very popular at first, but was used as a "learning" camera when people took photography courses - and gained a "cult" following thereafter.<p>Maybe what Pentax needs to recreate is the ideal digital body for High School journalism classes and community-college photography courses.

We no longer live in the era of P/S film models with alternatives of high end/low end SLRs, with MF bodies (K1000) for students. We live in a high tech computer age of students. And that is the nature of the competition Pentax now faces. High tech oriented students do not look for strip-down models. Soccor moms look at a brand name (recognition) and say- "Oh, it's a Nikon, it must be good, it's 10mp, and it's *only* $600 with a kit lens, which I will never change." The student, however, will know it does not have DOF preview or MLU, and cannot AF with many lenses, or take MF lenses, while the S. mom or dad will not know what all that means.

 

This is why the Pentax K100D has been so successful. It offered P/S simplicity for S. mom and dad, yet a full array of advanced features in a sturdy body with a top LCD for the student, all at a bargain price. But evidently, it was determined by Pentax to discontuniue this fine performing model for a higher mp design to compete. There goes higher ISO performance.

 

If the competitive need really is to keep it at 10mp, the simplest thing would be to offer a K150D, a version of the K200D without the weather sealing and high DR control, as well as other updates from the K100D. Essentially, it would be a 10mp K100D super with no ISO 3200. It could probably sell at about $550-$600 with kit lens.

I should also add, the SR was also a major factor for success of the K100D at its price point.

Isn't the whole point of of entry-level dslrs to make it as easy as possible for entry-level dslr owners? So if Pentax releases such a model we will end up with a model with the usual do-it-all scene buttons and what-nots these cameras come with. But that's not the point of this thread I guess.

 

So here goes, MY wishes for the k1000d, an anti-entry level dslr :-)

 

NO scene modes

 

The smallest possible body to match the pancakes, not in metal, which inevitably will drive up cost, but sturdy rubber-covered plastic as in the k10d, doesn't get icy-cold to hold and can take a punch.

 

Spot metering, spot focus.

 

Mirror lock up

 

Small lcd which at least can show the histogram.

 

No flash, doesn't even need the hotshoe.

 

Weather sealing a plus, but not essential, same for the SR, if it adds to size or weight, forget it.

 

In camera AF-engine is a must.

 

IMO they can keep the sensor and processing from the k100d for jpegs, as I think they were really really good.

 

The point is to make as small and minimalistic camera as possible so you can bring it everywhere. It would be perfect for street and hiking. With a small energy effecient lcd or oled screen the power consumption would also be lower, allowing for smaller size.

 

Does this look like an entry level camera? It would probably be one of the more demanding ones out there.

 

Fredrik

@Michael: I haven't made my point clear. The K1000 was a fluke of its time. It will never happen again. Your k100D or K150D idea is spot on, but Pentax/HOYA can't seem to project a way to make a profit at it..<p>My daughter was Photography Editor in 2002, then Editor-in-Chief in 2003 of her HS Yearbook, a consistent national champion in a standout HS J-program (she's now at a national network news bureau). Darkroom was a for-credit journalism course in 2001 in the J-curriculum - not any more.<p>As E-i-C in 2003 she managed the process of replacing 20 K1000's and associated lenses with Canon EOS digital bodies (I think she chose the 1D) and lenses, projecting new bodies every third year with the savings from the film developing and printing budget. By design that program will stay Canon for a decade, and those students will grow up Canon buyers.<p>This change only worked economically because the School District purchased 40 high-end Mac workstations and associated scanners and printers for the newspaper and yearbook production department. Yearbook printers require digital spread submissions. The newspaper is printed on-site on high speed, large format laser printers. SJ-1 (student journalism classroom #1) - formerly lecture tables and chairs - is all computer workstations now.<p>My younger daughter, Design Editor and Managing Editor for the same yearbook, brings home a school-issue MacBook Pro to finish up the page layout submissions (score and return) that she didn't complete during the day.<p>Granted this is a leading public high school journalism program, but the world has indeed changed dramatically. Could Pentax develop and make a profit on a body/system that our high School J-program would commit to for a decade?

Paul

 

That should be another thread altogether. You should post it.

The first system you buy into is likely to be the one you stick by, so your point is as valid as they come, and important.

 

Fredrik

"The smallest possible body to match the pancakes, not in metal, which inevitably will drive up cost, but sturdy rubber-covered plastic as in the k10d, doesn't get icy-cold to hold and can take a punch."

 

Fred, when do we sit down with the Pentax people to design our camera.

 

If you look at my wish list, and yours, we are only off on the metal vs. plastic issue. I can live with plastic, but I guess I'm all nostalgic for the metal SLRs I grew up shooting. BTW, I don't need titanium and magenesium. Just give me a nice steel chasis, with aluminum (I assume the program plus is actually aluminum) casing and I'm golden.

Justin

 

Mr. Ned Bunnell doesn't seem to answer the phone during easter :-)

 

Anyhow, We would probably have to have a sit down with the people over at Hoya now I guess, And my Japanese is terrible, a simple "thank you" never gets You anywhere these days.

 

I think there would be a niche market for such a product. If it can be produced cheaply enough. I certainly would get one.

 

If they made it in metal I would only sit and fiddle with it all day, getting no work done. :-)

 

Fredrik

After reading this thread, I'm reminded of what is supposed to have happened to American Motors Corp. George Romney insisted that there be very few car platform options, as the company's "best chance for survival lay in smaller cars that had a high degree of interchangeability in parts to keep tooling costs and production complexity to a minimum." After Romney left, Roy Abernethy took over and decided that the company needed to compete head-on with its bigger rivals to expand market share, so he introduced more platforms with less common parts. Unfortunately, it turned out that Romney was right and that AMC couldn't amortize the design and tooling costs across enough of these new models and parts to become profitable. AMC finally had to join with Renault to stop from going bankrupt, and ceased to exist entirely with the Chrysler buy-out in 1987.

 

The lesson? Small companies need to have a laser-like focus on the bottom line. Pentax just may not sell enough cameras to allow it to invest in an entirely new set of tooling (or to keep the K100D's tooling and dies in production) for a model that will have a very low profit margin. And, they may think that taking the existing K200D and cheapening it may just lower the perception of the brand in the marketplace without significantly lowering production costs enough to earn enough of a profit.

 

Ultimatley, I doubt that Pentax can sell a cheaper DSLR than the K200D without hurting their bottom line.