A Simple Nikon camera - If you build it I will come!

<p>"...Perhaps the other smaller manufacturers."</p>

<p>Leica M9. That's the market for the simplicity crowd.</p>

<p>Edmond</p>

<p>Charles, Petrana: what you're talking about already exists. It's called a Nikon FM. Buy yourself a scanner or keep wet printing, and be done with it.</p>

<p>Yep an FM-FE with no screen on back. No chimping. Raw only so you're not diddling with WB settings. 10 MP image quality to match my D200 would be sufficent. Weld on a 28 2.8 AIS and be happy forever.</p>

<p>I think possibly the original poster was thinking of something along the line of the Leica M9, only a DSLR Nikon body. Obviously Nikon is not going to make a different type of camera. The market is unlikely and the design and tooling probably would be to much. Nikon is locked into the gimmick war with the other manufacturers and I am sure they cannot see anything else. A person just has to look at the current market and find a camera that best suits their needs. I have a D200 that is fairly basic. It does not have live view, vidio or a sensor wiggler. You can pretty much use the camera with the LCD turned off and shoot AIS lenses or AF lenses as you please. I like the camera a lot but still prefer 35mm actually as I find it to be more fun to use. </p>

<p>Pentax K1000 with digital sensor :-p</p>

<p>Dan Brown - I know some of the original Rockwell guys. Were you a member of the club?</p>

<p>"Nikon is locked into the gimmick war with the other manufacturers and I am sure they cannot see anything else."<br>

What gimmicks would those be exactly? Better performance at high ISO? Better IQ? Video? (bash it all you want, but there are a lot of people doing some very creative, cool stuff with it). 'Sensor wiggler?' You mean...like...so you don't have to clean your sensor as often? Yeah, I can see how that's a completely useless gimmick. Or live view? So you can shoot over your head, or at low angles more accurately? You're right. Totally useless.</p>

<p>Either buy a Leica, turn off all the annoying features on your digital, or continue indulging your fantasies</p>

<p>Video is kind of a gimmick on a DSLR. Some photographers even seem to consider it compulsory nowdays, as if it was a glaring ommison all these years, just because it is progress. Since the actual results are great even with today's limited implementations, what each company should do is make a dedicated video body without compromises and without being limited by the needs of a still camera. It will take all your lenses and give you true pro quality - within sensor limits - at a price lower than say a D300 (and dedicated still camera prices might just go down a notch too).</p>

<p>So buy the old style Nikon of your preference, shoot film, and drop it off at the lab to have it scanned and/or printed. I heard film was equal to a gazillion megapixels anyway, so you should be ahead of the game. ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In A and B size toner based copy machines some have a BIG button to place the menu in dumb mode. The text on the menu is way larger; and one has a subset of options; say the ones most folks use each day. If one wants to use an invert image with mirroring and us the side feed tray plus place one 4x6 image as four 5x7 on one 11x17; and reduce the yellow you turn off the dumb mode. Once can zoom in dumb mode and mirror image or invert in dumb mode. The few employees who use the dumb mode usllay quiicky turn it back to smart/complex mode due to not wanting to look too stupid. In the rare cases dumb mode is used; folks will backtrack to the machine like they forgot the original to turn the dumb mode off. With a digital B&W toner 11x17 copier; the manual just the FAX portion is the size of a paperbook novel; with a zillion pages of options. There is actually about 250 pages in one language English that is usefull technical info on using the FAX option.</p>

<p>One can always not add new features on consumer products and then alot of folks will go to the other makers products. Look the gimicks with cars; turn signals were once an option and even heaters too in the USA. With cameras one could look at a self timer being a gimick; or an exposure meter; or auto exposure; or auto focus; or motor drive; or digital; or video. Older folks get their brains full; any new feature becomes a grummy thing to complain about.:)</p>

<p>Many better consumer products today have a route to use it in more basic mode; with a simpler menu. This would reduce the frustration that some folks have with their current digital camera(s). There was a time when even admitting one used a camera with a built in meter was not done by pros. A 1960's pro would often say they used a Nikon F instead of a Nikkormat FT or Nikon F with a meter prism like the FT.Thus Nikon F meant the series and not always a plain Nikon F with unmetered prism. Look at all the crap one had to do shoot with a Nikon F in high speed mode. One has to remove the camera from ones tripod to load it; then replace it on a tripod usually for sports; then add ones long lens. Then one focused; then one locked up the mirrors; then one shot a high speed burst. Then to unload the film one had to remove the body from the tripod.<br>

<br /> So what is it to be with a device? Do you want few buttons like an Apple and all menus? or do you want more buttons so one has a lessor menu to fart around with? Reducing the number of features is not going to fly; many are basically abit free since it is a software programming issue.<br>

Dropping features in cameras like video would be a marketing gig like dropping accepted things in cars like a radio; cup holder; heater. At some point the grumpy attitude sets in; old folks do not want another new feature; young folks seek them out. One could market cellphones with cameras; video; MP3 players too; these are usually the base models.<br>

<br /> The quest for a simpler buttonology and menu is good one; one with a logical layout and less hunting and wasting time. This will happen more than dropping features like video; that some actually want. It costs alot more to make a variant of camera to please 2 percent of folks. It is easier to just hide the feature then remove it.<br /> With my Epson RD-1/S I just flop the LCD 180 to hide it when shooting; I often never use the LCD at all. This type of design where one has actual dials and wind knob got blasted by many; who crave a menu based ratmaze.:) The reason RD-1/S cost so much is its production volume is radically less thn a dslr.<br>

<br /> A maker could make a FM like dslr with simple controls and less features. A car maker could make a variant without AC; with no power steering; with no sound deadning; with no heater; with no cupholder.<br>

In the make believe world of most photo.net dreamers; a variant costs really nothing extra in cost. Thus on the Leica boards there have been many threads asking why an RD-1; M8 or M9 costs so much compared to a dslr. One is made in the few thousands; another in the millions. Dreamers on photo.net like to ignore reality like massive tooling costs being worked out over a few number of units. I like manner; a dreamers brain might think that health care costs are zero in the USA; or cars run one water</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What gimmicks would those be exactly? Better performance at high ISO? Better IQ? Video? (bash it all you want, but there are a lot of people doing some very creative, cool stuff with it). 'Sensor wiggler?' You mean...like...so you don't have to clean your sensor as often? Yeah, I can see how that's a completely useless gimmick. Or live view? So you can shoot over your head, or at low angles more accurately? You're right. Totally useless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even though those are all popular features they are the very things the OP would prefer not to be on the new never to be built camera. Consumers generally purchase the things they want. I think the OP is talking about a camera that would fit his personality and needs. I think is sounds like a good idea. </p>

<p>A quick reference from the Pentax guy. I'm using a K100D (6mpix) and will probably upgrade to the K-X (seems like the same sensor as in D90 and D5000 + shake reduction).<br>

I'm solely using it with manual primes, including Nikon (pre-AI will not bring problems with the bottom collar but post-AI can work, too).<br>

The viewfinder is allright for me and you can change matte screens to your liking.<br>

There's only AV-, M- and B-mode. The K-X is even smaller than the K100D.<br>

It really is like a film camera except the film camera has auto-aperture - on the Pentax it's just manual stopping down while you click in the stops (except K-mount lenses but then you'd have to stop-down meter before you shoot). Out of the cam JPG's are very good and I keep using JPG in good light.<br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2621/3985213460_2762a892d7_o.jpg"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2621/3985213460_d549f3edee.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /> </a><br>

Full open Contax Planar 1.4/50 on K100D 800ISO 1/15 handheld no crop no PP tungsten JPG</p>

<p>I can live with this camera very well<br>

Georg</p>

 

<p>Menus are the biggest compromise between cost and functionality. Dedicated knobs and dials on a digital camera would be nice, but would drive up the cost tremendously. Not only is there the cost of the hardware itself, but ideally the microprocessor would be able to handle multiple input changes at once in real time.</p>

<p>You're looking for the Olympus E-P1 "digital pen."<br>

Under $800, inexpensive adapters for Nikkor, Canon, and other glass. Works just like a Leica rangefinder but a fraction of the price.</p>

<p><del>End of conversation.</del> <i>Moderator note: Don't do that here. It's presumptuous and annoying.</i>

<p>Booker<br>

You're looking for the Olympus E-P1 "digital pen." End of conversation???<br>

I want to use a (nikon) wide angle. The camera needs to be full frame.<br>

Thanks for all the posts. Even the ones who dont agree with me. I have really enjoyed this discusion. I even learned a few thing about the D700, D300 and D40X I did not know. I realized that my wish is unrealistic. I can't see Nikon building what is basically the prevebial "Student Camera". But I wish they would.<br>

P.S. I have a cell phone... I love having it when I need, nut I hate using it! Can they possible make one with really large keys that my old eyes can see and my fat fingers can use? Maybe a rotary dial? LOL. (I'm just an old guy longing for the simplicity of the past)<br>

Thanks for all the comentary!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I tried to come up with features on my D200 that I would give up in order to make it lighter, less bulkier and simpler. As an ex-Nikon FE2 user, I had thought how much bigger the D200 is. However, I could not give up much. Perhaps the various exposure modes other than aperture priority and manual, the auto ISO settings, the different quality levels in JPEG (I shoot Raw), and a few other auto things in the menus. But that would not save much space or weight. I could not even let the flash go. So I must be happy with the D200 even though I loved my FE2 and still admire it when I take it out (not taking any pictures with film anymore). And I do not carry a lot of film, an advantage to digital that is overlooked; a 16GB compact flash card equals 40 24-exposure films.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I tried to come up with features on my D200 that I would give up in order to make it lighter, less bulkier and simpler."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bingo. That's what many folks overlook in these conversations.</p>

<p>Remember the good ol' days when we didn't have to worry about choosing between raw, JPEG, TIFF and various resolutions and quality settings, or which in-camera settings to use if we wanted to shoot JPEG-only? Yup, it was so much simpler when all we needed to do was experiment with dozens of different films, try different labs or, if doing our own processing, dozens of different developers and printing techniques. Not to mention the much simpler, more relaxed nature of the interweb when nobody ever had any disagreements about which film was the best.</p>

<p>Occasionally a manufacturer will offer the simpler digital camera that users supposedly clamor for. What happens? They get ripped for making a camera that "nobody wants". Don't believe it? Go to photo.net's Olympus camera forum and read the comments about the E-P1 after it was announced, but before anyone had even tried it. Lots of "experts" slamming Olympus for making a camera that, supposedly, nobody wanted.</p>

<p>I suspect that if it were possible to order a digital camera a la carte, most of us would end up with something pretty close to the digital cameras we actually bought.</p>

<p>I second the K1000 with a digital sensor proposal!<br>

I dont understand why some get upset about this. Is not like the OP wants that all cameras are made that way. He just wants a camera that is smaller, like the ones he likes.<br>

Today's DSLR, while capable of tremendous results, are really bulky and heavy. You cant deny that, especially if you compare them to a Nikon FM2, a Olympus OM2, a Pentax MX or evn a Minolta X700. Wouldn't it be nice to have one that size? Autofocus is nice, but some people like to manual focus occasionally.<br>

And some specs are getting way out of what some people need. The newest Canon has 100.000iso. While pro's will find it usefull for their line of work (photoreporters i assume), i dont need that high iso capabilities. A clean 1600 would be enough for me. More than enough actually. I also dont want a 25MP sensor. 9-10 are fine and wont embarass my lenses either.</p>

<p>The techonology to produce such a camera exists. Leica whose R&D department is minimal compared to Nikon/Canon/Sony has done it and very well. The M9 is the closest analog to a manual 70's SLR out there, and i would loooove to get one. But there are two drawbacks...<br>

Its a Leica, wich means is a rangefinder, so not exactly what we want. And its a Leica so its uber expensive...<br>

Until someone else decides to make a similar camera (Pentax maybe?) or i get the money to buy the Leica, i will keep using my film camera's and take out the K100D when i want to shoot some digital!</p>

 

<p>One difference that I see between current product lines and ones offered 25 years ago is that nowadays you can array any company's DSLR offerings in a single vertical hierarchy from top to bottom of the line. There is little or no horizontal breadth -- choices at about the same level of price/quality that cater to different needs and shooting styles. Your choice is just between more or less. If you don't like Canon's feature set at a particular price point, your only choice is a Nikon (etc.) at that price point, not a different Canon. This I think leads to some of the dissatisfaction with the feature sets offered. Especially at the low and mid-line price points where we all acknowledge that we must accept a subset of the features available at the top end, but many of us are not happy with the feature subset choice -- and only one choice -- that is offered at a given level.</p>

<p><em>The newest Canon has 100.000iso</em></p>

<p>This isn't a real speed; the top ISO of both the D3s and the 1D Mk IV is 12800. The "boost" settings are just there for marketing; they produce identical raw data as if ISO 12800 had been used (the meter is biased to underexpose, then this is "compensated" by adjusting the values in raw conversion). I thought anyone who photographs people or any type of potentially moving subject would appreciate low noise. It doesn't increase the size of the camera.</p>

<p>That 300 page manual and dozens of menus is altogether too tempting to most users. However, I suggest you can <em>create the camera you want from the camera you have</em>, using the plethora of available options to customize the camera then <em>leave it alone</em>.<br>

Nikon caters to this with their custom setups. On my D300, my 3rd Dx00 Nikon, I used it for a couple of weeks to see how I liked to use it, then "programmed" it to my taste. I tweaked quite a few settings to get images that require minimal processing to suit me, set up the second front function button for bracketing, programmed the commander mode for my SB-800 flash, etc. and saved it as a custom setup. Now, I grab the camera and shoot away - just like I did with my FM about 30 years ago and my Leica M2 almost 50, checking/tweaking exposure and focus as needed. <br>

In case you think I'm a luddite, however, I'm a real techie who takes advantage of the camera's smarts, since I found it was smarter than me most of the time! I do keep a copy of the manual on my laptop as a PDF so I can search it for what I want to know. </p>

 

<p>Alex, a rangefinder is precisely what I want. My ideal camera would be a Nikon rangefinder that accepts Leica M lenses. I'd love to have a Leica M9, but would actually prefer a Nikon version because it would probably have superior electronics and a state of the art sensor, (and a longer rangefinder base).</p>

<p>A DS3 that accepts Leica bayonet mount lenses with a D3S sensor. How about that for a simple Nikon camera!</p>

<p>You think you want this camera, but you really don't...</p>

<p>It'll cost the same as one with more features, and most of you (although you might not admit it here) will not leave the store with it.</p>

<p>For instance, I love shooting in manual a LOT, and find the control wheel (even only one) fine, but on those occasions where I need to just hand my camera to somebody, and I'm in a hurry, the green program mode is nice, and I won't give it up. Some others are like this.</p>

<p>Again, we say we want this... but I bet, at the price it needs to be, none of us will buy it at the price Nikon needs to sell it at, and Nikon knows this. So they aren't making it any time soon...</p>

<p>Just stirrin' the pot.</p>

<p>Peter, my last digicam was a Nikon D3 (excluding my current canon g10). i can assure you that i do indeed want a camera like the mythical one being discussed in this thread, but i am not prepared to spend the $$ on a Leica M9 (or any other digicam for that matter). If i go back to digital, i do expect iso to be up there with the film i shoot. at the moment, i'm not sure the M9 can acheive this, and $9500 for a camera to supplement my film gear is over the top. If the Ep-1 did indeed work like the M9, I would have bought it. It doesn't however so i do long for Nikon to make a $3000 rangefinder camera with Leica M mount. <br>

the d3 had that much crap on it, and if it was all disabled, it would work okay, but not as good as something like a nikon f4 (my opinion). as mentioned above, the d700 manual is 450 odd pages, and my d3's manual was probaly thicker. the manual for my Leica MP is 51 pages long, but Leica could easily skip the manual, and users would figure the camera out in a hour. i am sure this is what Charles longs for......shutter dial, shutter, aperture ring, and an iso dial. that is absolutely all that is needed to make great images. everything else is indeed a luxury. we may think we need high iso, but do we really? go through your top images, put them all of your favourites into a folder, and then count how many were taken at an iso higher than 1600.</p>