Are camera manufacturers giving you what you want?

<p>I've reached a point where I will no longer "trade up" to get the latest digital body. I've decided to stand pat until someone makes a digital body that looks, feels and operates along the lines of a Nikon FM3a...a simple, manual focus body with a large, clear viewfinder, and a full frame sensor. </p>

<p>I realize there is not a large market for this type of body, but there are certainly enough pros and dedicated amatuers who would snap one up in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>I suspect many digital shooters are migrating back to film because they not only prefer the film look, but they enjoy handling the bodies of old that hold the film.</p>

<p>I very much enjoy digital photography. But for me, I don't get the same pure enjoyment from it by using the current digital equipment. So for now, my only digital body is the lowly (but very competent) Nikon D60. My FM3a and Hassy Xpan will fill in the gaps.</p>

<p>So, are the camera makers giving you what you want...or are you feeling a bit left out?</p>

<p><em>So, are the camera makers giving you what you want ...<br /></em><br />Pretty much, yes.<br /><br /><em>...or are you feeling a bit left out?<br /><br /></em>No, not really. <br /><br />The number of people who would actually buy a small, manual focus, full-frame DSLR would be so vanishingly small that companies like Nikon and Canon would have to decide that it was for some reason worth substantially losing money in making, marketing, and supporting it. Which seems unlikely.</p>

<p>The new camera's that are coming out do not appeal to me. A native ISO 100 is required for me to even consider purchasing a camera. ISO 50 would be even better. A lot of the new features that are being brought out do not appeal to me and I do not want them, so I am just not going to buy them. I guess I will just shoot what I have and watch the market and see what develops.</p>

<p>Digital cameras have changed the way I take photos. When I was using film - slides, color, and B&W, I wasn't taking a whole lot of "casual" photos because each and every one would cost me money. Or I had to spend a lot of time in the darkroom to get something out of B&W.</p>

<p>A first point and shoot digital with all of 1.3MP was mostly out of curiosity. But I found I was using it all the time, even with its limitations - fixed lens (!), low resolution and not many controls. It brought fun in photography back to me. I've kept on upgrading, and think I'm on my 10th digital since then (I have 3 on the go now., one DLSR, a superzoom and a pocket one). Sold all of my film gear except the autofocus lenses. </p>

<p>I think nothing of shooting 75-100 shots of flowers and birds in our backyard at a time these days. With film, I'd be lucky to shoot half a dozen. Then wait to see how they turned out. Not the same with digital, it's what I do want these days!</p>

 

<p><em>are the camera makers giving you what you want</em><br /><em></em><br />Mostly yes.</p>

<p>Cameras, old or new, always seem to lack some desirable features while offering some unnecessary ones. A lot of that is based on personal preferences, of course, but some instances do tend to make you scratch your head wondering "What were they thinking?"</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a feeling that you've already bought your last camera. I don't think it's likely that anyone will ever make the camera you want.</p>

<p>You'll have to like what they give you, or keep using what you have.</p>

<p>i sincerely doubt that photographers are migrating back to film simply because of the feel of a camera body.<br>

and...what Bob said.</p>

<p>lets face it, we are all getting old. i am 34 as i type. you are perhaps older. as we grow older and spend less on cameras, the younger and bolder folks who had not known the good ole' days of film cameras feel less of a need to harp on about such things. they would spend the money on the latest and most up to date products. the manufacturer, like any business would cater for their need. let us go quietly into the night.</p>

<p>Jim: I am with you. I want an FM3 that has a 25mp full size sensor, and a minimum of "menus". Better yet, on the body switches for B&W or color, auto or manual focus and exposure, and for color temp. A lovely if unlikely possibility would be for Nikon to make a rangefinder DSLR body to do all that and take Leica lenses. </p>

<p>I am not looking for a manual DSLR, but I would like a "simple" full frame DSLR. I shoot Nikon FM's and a Canon EOS 3. I've been watching the Canon line-up for a full-frame DSLR to jump to one day. I was getting excited, but I was disappointed by the move to add HD video capabilities - to keep the prices high? It's like 95% of the junk on my cell fone I don't need or use. Maybe next year the 5D III will come out with the ability to pop popcorn off the hot shoe - might go well with the movies! (I have several wide angle lenses keeping me away from the Rebel line-up). At this point, with my manual Nikon lenses and my Canon AF 'film' lenses better suited to full frame, I am beholden to none as I prep my move to the digital SLR world - if the camera companies gave me what I wanted, I wouldn't be reading with such interest about the new Olympus micro 4/3rds set up! </p>

<p>I would like a small rangefinder camera in 120 size, built like a Leica and as reliable, with a quiet and responsive shutter (between the lens shutter or (better) a focal plane shutter allowing spot meter readings), a wide choice of lenses 40 mm to 200 mm and a reflex viewing attachment for a macro or long lens. The Mamiya 6 was a good try, but not robust enough or with a wide enough range of lenses. 6 x 6 is the preferred size as larger makes smallness and lightness improbable (even the Mamiya 7). Automatic exposure would be nice, but manual exposure and focussing is a must. </p>

<p>It should also be convertible to digital with a digital back, when those become more affordable. The lenses should be top notch and compatible with both digital and film photography. </p>

<p>A small affordable gyro attachment would be a welcome accesory when shooting slow films, or shoting from vibrating vehicles (car, aircraft or helicopter shots).</p>

<blockquote>Are camera manufacturers giving you what you want?</blockquote>

<p>Until they give me free equipment, no.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not looking for a manual DSLR, but I would like a "simple" full frame DSLR. I shoot Nikon FM's and a Canon EOS 3. I've been watching the Canon line-up for a full-frame DSLR to jump to one day. I was getting excited, but I was disappointed by the move to add HD video capabilities - to keep the prices high?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look at the original EOS 5D. No video and a lot cheaper than the MkII. It's probably going to be the most "basic" full frame DSLR you'll find. From here on they're just going to get more complex and add more features you don't want.</p>

<p><em><strong>The number of people who would actually buy a small, manual focus, full-frame DSLR would be so vanishingly small that companies like Nikon and Canon would have to decide that it was for some reason worth substantially losing money in making, marketing, and supporting it.</strong> </em></p>

<p>I don't think so, Matt. Based on conversations I've had with other photographers, the same folks that buy a D700 or D3, or a Canon full-frame would be potential customers. Now that's not the lion's share of the camera business, but it's an important share.</p>

<p>I'd really like a D700x and a 24-70mm with VR in time for X-MAS.</p>

<p>Also, it doesn't have to be Nikon or Canon that makes such a model. Panasonic and Oly have some exciting new products.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure it will happen. Everything that is old is one day new again...that's marketing.</p>

<p>No, they are not giving me what I want. I think that I would be more proud of camera companies if they would also make and market a small number solid manual film camera designs. Those were good products, and I think companies could show a little more moxie by getting out there and making a reasonable number of them. In today's manufacturing environment, I believe that it would be plausible to plan and carry out such an operation. You don't have to stake the whole line and the whole quarter's profits on any one thing that can be made. </p>

<p>As far as film cameras go, I think that there is, and will continue to be, a sustained, small number of people, particularly newer photographers, who will become interested in it, and maintain an interest in it, solely out of personal curiosity and a desire to expand their skills. </p>

<p>For the DSLRs, they are already amazing technological achievements. They'll get even better. What's next? That they'll fold your underwear that they laundered, and put away and sort your socks? I really need an automatic car wash function built into this thing. </p>

<p>I would, however, like to see more and more cameras with improved durability and longevity in those camera bodies. I admire the build quality of the film cameras I use: their low price, their sound optics, and their overall toughness. Let's see more "built to last" and a little less of "the latest thing." </p>

<p>Oh boy. Wait and see what happens when Red Scarlet or some serious combo rolls out. That's the direction the market will roll. Cameras as we know them will be very different. I for one welcome such a beast. Until then, I'll have to settle for a 40d and 1Ds as they arn't quite there yet, (and now looking a little dated actually).</p>

<p>The problem with the idea that you don't want to pay for all these "unwanted" features, is that if you buy a Canon EOS 5D mk 2 you really are not paying anything for those extra features. Although I don't have the exact figures in front of me, I'm pretty sure that the 5Dmk2 cost less in constant dollars, anyhow, than the 5D with its basic features did when it was introduced.</p>

<p>Anyhow, I would love to have video, sort of, but doubt I would actually use it much. So I did exactly what Bob suggested-- I bought a nice, "minty" 5D from a little old Leica collector who only drove it on weekends. ;)</p>

 

<p>JDM...I'm willing to pay more for less features!</p>

<p><em>i sincerely doubt that photographers are migrating back to film simply because of the feel of a camera body</em></p>

<p>That's not quite what I wrote, John.</p>

<p>No, not really. I'm not too upset by DSLR body prices. They seem to get cheaper every go round of an upgrade with the same model....ie 5D to 5DMKII, $3200 vs $2700 intitially, respectively. And forgetting the megapixel race, the options added are pretty good....14bit RGB, self cleaning sensors, HD video....But the price of some of Canon's lenses is just totally out of the ball park for me. I've wanted a 24mm TSE for years, so when they come out with the MKII of it, they up the price like $900. Something just ain't right with that.</p>

<p>Jim, I know what you mean. I feel like they've built all this great technology from 10 or more years ago (metering, viewfinders, etc.), but they just dole it out, $500 and 2 years at a time. All I want is a DSLR that gives me medium format image quality with the ability to switch which film I want to emulate (film grain, tonal range, etc.), or just digital. If Nikon can build snapshot digital cameras with the ability to tell when everyone is smiling, before the shot is taken, then imagine all the stuff they could be adding if they wanted to. Most of all, I want a modular camera with interchangeable finders and sensors. I'm tired of tossing away old cameras. And while I'm ranting, why can't the king of lens technology, Nikon, give us a whole range of fast lenses. Gawd I love my old Hasselblads.</p>

<p>I'd like a dSLR the size of the Olympus E-420, but from Nikon. I don't want to start over again with another system. Even the D90 is bulkier than I'd like. I don't really need the palm swell grip, unless it's the only way to house a battery with enough oomph to last several hundred shots.</p>

<p>Ideally, a 6-8 megapickle fool frame dSLR the size of the E-420 or D90, with outstanding high ISO performance instead of high resolution. Good AF performance in dim lighting. Doesn't need high framerates, 3 fps is enough.</p>

<p>Lessee... able to shoot raw and max rez JPEGs simultaneously. No near-IR effect crappy skintones under artificial lighting, thank you.</p>

<p>Sure they are, as an amature I think they're giving me more than I really need. I do want a lot of things though.</p>