A Manual DSLR

[mark_beaumont]

<p>I've been wondering for some time now, and partly prompted by a recent post about shooting in manual mode, that digital photography is making it far harder for one to achieve a quality result without a large bank balance. Something that was never the case with film.<br>

In the days of film manufacturers produced cheaper manual cameras along side auto models.<br>

Does any one think it likely that camera manufacturers will make a manual only camera? With all the features of a high end DSLR, FX format, low noise, high pixel res? So essentially the two cameras will produce the same image quality, but at two ends of the price scale, rather like if I set up an F5 next to an FM, same lens, film, exposure etc, they'd produce exactly the same image quality, but with a big difference in money outlay.<br>

Or is it just "sour grapes" I can't afford a D3x ;)</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>Will they make a digital with strictly manual mode? Not a chance. The only market would probably be you and one guy in Cleveland.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I don't see any market for manual cameras. Anyway, it's not the AF etc. that makes the D3X expensive--it's the sensor. As for having to spend a bunch of money, I don't think that's true. Something like a used D80 produces pusblishable results for me.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[mark_beaumont]

<p>Wayne, Assuming stripping away the gadgetry makes it cheaper to make, you telling me you if you were on a budget, you wouldn't buy a manual D3x for third of the price?<br>

Kent, maybe you're right, I'm just guessing at manufacturing costs.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mark, the entire basis for the OP is incorrect. The most expensive component for a DSLR is the sensor, and you must have the surrounding electronics to make that work. Otherwise, all the mechanical parts for a manual SLR require a lot of labor to assemble. A few years ago when they were all in production, the FM3a was over $500 (and reportedly Nikon was losing money on each one they sold) while the N80 was about $300 each.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>digital photography is making it far harder for one to achieve a quality result without a large bank balance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also see no evidence for that. For digital, you need to have a computer for post-processing to get quality results. But most people have a computer anyway, and making a DSLR manual still requires post processing. Otherwise, I see plenty of excellent images from lower-end DSLRs just like film SLRs. It is mainly the photographer that makes the difference.</p>

<p>We have threads on manual DSLRs once in a while, and some people even claim that they would buy one. But it is easy to make such claims as long as you don't need to actually spend money. I doubt that any camera manufacturer will actually make one unless they are prepared to lose a lot of money over this product.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>If such a camera could be mass produced in similar quantities to the fully auto version- maybe? Also, some manual systems might be costlier to make than automatic systems. For example, the cost of machining mechanical aperture linkages to a lens could very well be more expensive than producing the same lens with its ROM and electrical contacts. Ditto for the lens mount on the camera.<br />The only solution I see (and I admit it's very far-fetched) would be for a company like Cosina or maybe some Chinese maker to offer manual DSLRs in choice of manual lens mount.<br>

And Shun makes a good point. Yes, I would be one who might say I'd buy one, but when the time comes to put down the money I'd probably talk myself out of it.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

The answer would be <a href="http://www.geocities.com/dainisjg/efilm.jpg"><U>e-film</u></A>. Just slip it onto your old film camera. The electronics are in the "cartridge" and the sensor is on the tongue. About ten years ago the company that was working on it claimed to have a working prototype. The company stock soared. It was not true and the company failed. <P>

 

When I look at small cel phones and I-phones that can take photos, it seems like the cartridge ought to be large enough to take the electronics needed.

[mark_beaumont]

<p>Shun, I'm happy to stand corrected about production costs, and that would indeed make it unlikely that anyone would produce a manual DSLR.<br>

However I find it very hard to believe, that if I hang two identical images on the gallery wall, one taken with a £500 camera and one with a £5000 camera, that I would not be able to tell the difference? If you tell me that's correct, I'm happy to believe you, as I've no personal experience of this. But a big congratulations to the digital camera manufacturers PR people for doing such a splendid bit of spin!</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Mark, it sounds like you are waiting for the ideal camera in the digital age and it is not going to happen I am afraid. It is now a rat race of trump cards and hype. For what it is worth, when I use my D700 or D3 which is for about 20% of my photos these days, I use them in manual mode nearly every time.<br>

Remember, just because the digital age has matured does not mean you have to use digital, there are still ways of using a fully manual camera and it will continue for some time. I would say you live for today.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>I always wished someone would produce what would basicly be a digital back for many of the more popular manual film cameras, such a the Canon AE-1 Program. But done in such a way that one could change back and forth from digital and back to film again. Yeah I know, no real market and an endless list of technical issues to have worked out. I thought it would ok to not to have an LCD screen on it.</p>

<p>Sounds good when laying in bed at night and just thinking. In practice...not so much.</p>

<p>BTW, Epson (R-D1x) did this with a Manual Digital Rangefinder. It came with Leica M mount. Digital yes, Manual yes, Cheap....not unless you call $2000.00 cheap.</p>

<p>Here is a look at it</p>

<p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/epsons-r-d1xg-digital-rangefinder-locates-our-analog-hearts/">http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/27/epsons-r-d1xg-digital-rangefinder-locates-our-analog-hearts/</a></p>

<p>It is sexy I must say. Do wish Nikon or Canon would produce one with their top end sensors.</p>

<p>Jason </p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Shun's analogy of Nikon's pricing of manual versus automatic 35mm cameras is a good one. The evolution of automatic, electronically controlled cameras began in the 1970s. Back then manual, mechanical cameras were more expensive than their electronic, automatic counterparts. Demand was for automation, and mass production made them less costly to manufacture. I remember a time in the 1980s at least one manufacturer (Cosina) made an electronically controlled manual exposure camera, and it was priced economically alongside it's automatic counterpart. But the manual version did not sell, and so even Cosina had to bow to consumer demand. I believe you can still buy a descendant of that camera under the Vivitar brand name.</p>

<p>In order for a manufacturer to produce a manual-only DSLR, I'm guessing that manufacturer would have to include automatic functions in the electronics and hide them from the user. This has been done before -- stripped-down models with hidden functionality that the user doesn't know about.</p>

<p>But is there a market? I sincerely doubt it. By the way, I just recently sold that manual, electronic shutter Cosina to a kid for use in his high school photo class. Still working after 25 years. I just wish I could have sold some when I was a Cosina rep in the USA all those years ago.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>However I find it very hard to believe, that if I hang two identical images on the gallery wall, one taken with a £500 camera and one with a £5000 camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since I am writing the Nikon D3X review for photo.net, I have done a lot of side-by-side testing between the Nikon D3X (about $7500) and the D700 (about $2400). There are some subtle advantages for 24MP, but you have to look carefully and from abnormally close to see the difference, and you pay a lot more for 24MP.</p>

<p>But that is all besides the point. What I disagree with is your initial claim that one has to spend a lot of money to get quality results from digital. That is certainly not true to begin with, and making DSLRs manual will not reduce the cost all.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Will they make a digital with strictly manual mode? Not a chance. The only market would probably be you and one guy in Cleveland.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't forget one guy in Calif. I want one. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I thought the some of the Leica DSLRs where manual ? Although this is no way to save money by purchasing a Leica. </p>

[dan_b.4]

<p>Get a digital SLR that's a few generations old and use it in manual mode. Many excellent DSLRs that are maybe five years old can be had for a fraction of their original cost and will produce great results. You just won't have 21 megapixels or whatever the latest exotic count is.</p>

[mark_beaumont]

<p>....and making DSLRs manual will not reduce the cost all.<br>

<br>

Well that answers my original post. </p>

[don_e]

<p>I don't think it is such a major design or manufacturing problem as some say. It would just be a replica of a classic manual 35mm with digital innards. That's how dslrs began. Hide many electronic features by simply not providing an interface to them. It'd need lots of lens adapters since a lot of the functionality of manual cameras are on the lens; being able to manually focus and set aperture on the lens would be a requirement. An "analogue" dial on the body for shutter speed and iso, and that's about it. The Leica and Epson digital rangefinders wander down that path somewhat.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniDigiAF.html">replica</a></p>

[William Kahn]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget one guy in Calif. I want one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And one guy right here in Tennessee. I'd be happy if Olympus would make a digital back for my OM-1......</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>From the latest KEH catalog -</p><div></div>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>Digital SLRs are dirt cheap for what they do. You can put them in manual mode without grief. Get a refurbished Olympus 420 and lens for $350 and go crazy.</p>

<p>An E-film like idea would be cool, but the economy of scale works against it pretty hard. If people are willing to spend what they do for things like the Leica M8, I suppose they could have a market for such a thing, even at 5K or so.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>My first camera was a Pentax P3N. It was basically a manual camera with a shutter speed dial, aperture control on the lens, and a light meter. lens was manual focus. Since the camera had a light meter Pentax also incorporated simple auto exposure, aperture priority, and shutter priority mode. </p>

<p>Basically the only automatic feature this camera didn't have was an auto focus system (a focus sensor, control electronics, and motor in the lens). I don't remember how much I paid for it but I am sure it wasn't the most expensive camera on the market. Most of the features on a camera today (film or digital) are built mainly in software. The shutter, aperture, reflex mirror mechanisms haven't changed significantly in over thirty years. </p>

<p>If you look at computers today, the hard drive (one of the few components with mechanical parts) is not very expensive. Good high speed ram CPU, and monitor and all of the support circuitry account for most of the cost of the computer. </p>

<p>Today I have a 5D MkI. It has auto exposure, AV, TV, Bulb, and iso controls. My P3N has all of that except the iso control. It has a few additional modes (mirror lock up, 3 light meter modes, and motor drive modes) but most are actually in cameras software. The big differences are all related to the sensor, Raw / jped settings, white balance, 2 histograms, sharpness, contrast, color saturation,black and white modes, display settings, memory card erase / formate controls, sensor cleaning, etc... </p>

<p>Most of the cost today in a DSLR is in the sensor and related circuitry control, not the auto exposure and focus system.</p>

[starvy]

<p>if a digital sensor could be inserted into a mechanical body where the film sits, and for that matter, it performed well without any problems, i am sure dslr manufacturers might have taken that path. however, the market is driven by pro shooters who demand faster speed and by new amatuers who want lots of buttons.<br>

you are i and that guy from cleveland form a dying breed. the force is with all other posters.</p>

[mike_cruk]

<p>To some degree I think this general concept already exisits with manufactures using the same sensor across multiple bodies. As it's been pointed out, the cost of the automation systems is neglible compared to a reasonably large sensor and an image processing engine that can handle several tens of megebytes per second of throughput. The real cost savings can be had these days in things like build quality. The Nikon D3/D700, D90/D5000 and Oly E-30/E-620 pairings would be good examples of price-differentiated bodies with similar IQ.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Mark, I guess you never paid list price for a Contax 645 and an APO Makro?</p>

<p>I can't see either being cheaper in their day.</p>

<p>Starvey, I think the market is driven by folks who have a digital camera as a peripheral to a PC, not pros. No?</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>My guess is that they won't make a manual DSLR; the auto functions seem to me to be variations of performing pretty much the same system functions. Maybe there's some difference; but, there would at the core, always be basic sensor collection, autofocus systems, auto aperture systems, and so on. If they stripped the trimmings out, people would just split into groups wanting different mixes of functions. So, I think it is because of marketing that they include everything in a way that we can shut off what we want. </p>

<p>So many companies choose this approach that I wonder if appealing to a broad base of that magnitude might be somehow part of meeting their minimum number of potential buyers or something. I don't know; but, I speculate.</p>

<p>I just turn the stuff off most of the time and plan on using that same DSLR until it falls apart or won't talk to a computer anymore. Knowing me, I'll probably be shouting, "It's still good," ten years from now.</p>