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

[mike mcdermott]

<p>I'd stop using my D700 if nikon made a full frame manual digital camera.</p>

<p>Maybe a DM4....?</p>

<p>split focusing screen and back to my AIS glass. Mmmmm happy days!</p>

<p>I wouldnt be bothered about a large LCD screen wither, just something to view the histogram on.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>And I bet you'd also want the tiny LR44 cells in it too! And while we're at it, how about swapping out 512MB CF cards after every 40 shots? And, add a shutter lag please... I miss my thumb-wind lever! No wait... my E-P1 has that last one..</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I am with you, and by the way, the manual for my D700 is <strong><em>446 pages</em></strong>. It's insane!!! Most of my <em>undergrad and grad school textbooks</em> didn't have that many pages!!!</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>I would love to see a digital Pentax SV with lenses the size of the takumars.<br>

Modern improvements? Yes, in body IS and autofocus are useful.<br>

I did play with a Panasonic GF1 recently and there might be promise of a sane sized and featured camera in the near future.</p>

[charles_sharp2]

<p>I think some of you misunderstand.<br>

The D40 is so far away from what I am talking about. I have used one and without the manual you are going to spend some time just figuring out how to get set the apeture. I think it is a marvelous pickture taker but the controls are vastly more complex than an FM. The D60 is a simple camera for the user and a great picture taker. The D300 and D700 are incredible machines. I would love to have one.<br>

That being said I enjoy taking pictures with me older F2's and my bulky old RZ67. There are only three dimensions, Shutter speed, Aperture, and Focus. I am not sure if i can explain the emotional response of just using these three factors but it gets me think about each factor and makes the experience more joyful. With these cameras I also appreciate morethe amazing technology that built into today cameras. When doing street photography,I miss pictures without a program mode. And doing bird photography or sports without autofocus is incredibly hard.<br>

If I was a pro, I would never want the camera I am describing. But as an amateur, I just want to take pictures and think. I am in no hurry. The fact that I am in control of each aspect somehow makes me enjoy it more.<br>

I would not want to use a typewriter either (I can't live without spell checker!) but complexe cell phones are pain in the A#*<br>

Any it is a great dicussion and I have really enjoy your responses!</p>

 

[charles_sharp2]

<p>P.S.<br>

My previous message is a case-in-point about the spell checker! Sorry about that!<br>

Charles</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>Two and a half years ago I had a similar opinion. But not now. There are a lot of DSLR features I don't use but if I want a minimalist camera I can always haul out my Nikon FM or Contax IIa, change rolls after 36 exposures, take the film to a lab and wait for it to be returned. Hmmm, sounds to me like the DSLR is the minimalist camera.<br>

BTW: It is unlikely you will see the camera you describe because the market is consumer driven and the majority of consumers (young), have never used and don't want to use analog controls and those of us who have are part of a declining (old) consumer group.</p>

[charles_sharp2]

<p>What exactly does that digital FMD entail?<br>

Small, rugged body with interchangable focusing screens that work well with manual focus.<br>

Ability to use AIS with the aperture ring (It would need the thumb wheel for the newer lenses).<br>

A shutter speed dial<br>

ISO Setting<br>

Modern features:<br>

Matrix Metering<br>

Apeture Priority? (Kinda of getting away from basic here but...)<br>

D700 Sensor and Display (This is one of the best parts of digital - The Image quality and Immediate feedback)<br>

Minimal buttons to control the digital aspect. (Ala M9)<br>

Commercial success? Probably not, but there must be a market for this type camera as the M9 Appears to be a success.<br>

Last item on my wish list? A D90 price!</p>

 

[tasos_sotirakis]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The D40 is so far away from what I am talking about. I have used one and without the manual you are going to spend some time just figuring out how to get set the apeture.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In manual mode, the aperture is set by pressing one button, conveniently positined under your index finger and labeled with an aperture icon. You don't need to read the manual for that, you don't even need to read at all.</p>

<p>Most DSLRs are as simple as simple film cameras have always been. Shutter, aperture, that's it. They are much bigger and heavier, and have 400-page manuals because of all the extra, optional stuff that allows you to do all these wonderful things that not everyone needs.</p>

<p>I really support the idea of a small, bare-bones, manual, quality-built (D300 quality, nothing terribly exclusive and expensive) Nikon dSLR, maybe with a single center auto-focus point, aimed to experienced photographers. It could also have a single switch, or even soft button, allowing you to select a fully automatic mode for those really quick opportunity shots.</p>

<p>If only it could be even smaller than the D40...!</p>

[brians.]

<p>Charles, your idea isn't that strange to my thinking. However, people's default preferences are so different marketing cameras like this would be difficult. Myself, I could do without in-camera editing or scene modes. However, I wouldn't like to give up auto WB, or auto focus (or a choice of area selection for both) . Even features like bracketing and AE-L/AF-L can be very helpful. So while I would love to spend a couple of hundred dollars on a lens instead of my camera body, it seems unrealistic that mainstream manufactures will invest in such unwieldy markets.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>N8008s was all the camera I ever needed (ok, there are some slight things I'd like - mirror lock up being one, but not much)...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Small, rugged body with interchangable focusing screens that work well with manual focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would be a nice feature - though screens can be changed currently too (though I prefer this to be easier). A DSLR body will always be a bit bulkier than a film camera - all that sensor and display stuff gotta go somewhere. The M9 isn't as small as an M6 either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Ability to use AIS with the aperture ring (It would need the thumb wheel for the newer lenses).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can do this on my D200 or D300 - it likely is available on all Nikon DSLRs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> A shutter speed dial</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's the big deal doing it with a thumb wheel instead?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D700 Sensor and Display at D90 price!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not anytime soon I suppose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Minimal buttons to control the digital aspect. (Ala M9)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That means that items will be in menus and the endless digging commences. For often changed setting or often used ones, I prefer dedicated buttons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Commercial success? Probably not, but there must be a market for this type camera as the M9 Appears to be a success.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it isn't a commercial success, then your dream price will never materialize. The M9 appears to be a success - just because many Leica photographers were waiting for a FF rangefinder so they can use the lenses they already own without having to worry about a crop factor. Aside from the cost, a rangefinder is an acquired taste and doesn't have the same utility as a SLR. Wide-angle is where they really shine - would love a M9 with the 16-18-21 tri-elmar - though for less money I could get a D3X with 14-24 instead. For much less I enjoy my D300 with the Tokina 11-16...<br /> I don't feel the modern features get in the way of my photography. The ones I don't need I ignore and if the camera provides multiple ways to achieve the same thing, then I pick the one that suits me most and ignore the others. My cell phone can play MP3 and take pictures - I haven't used those features and wouldn't even know how - only got it because non-camera phones weren't available. The only thing that bothers me is that a non-camera phone would have cost me less. That is likely not going to happen with the FMD - it will be stripped of features and cost more than a fully equipped camera.<br /> Manuals - I am not bothered by a 400 or 500 page manual. Most are so thick because the same info is provided in different packaging a few times. I am bothered that despite the 500 page volume they still suck and provide a limited amount of info. Just compare any manual with the excellent and informative books by Thom Hogan.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>The 'good old days' weren't really so simple. It's just that a lot of the process belonged to someone else. The lab developed the film and did the color balance when they printed. So what do you want, more control or less? For less, set up your camera initially to shoot jpgs and skip the post processing.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>It's always a problem with new technology, the multiplication of options. With enough options your technical device (camera) can be anything or everything to everybody. The problem with that is in the field when you need to capture events in a fast paced world, your always wondering 'what options did I set?' I would favor a camera that boiled everything down to as few settings as possible, that are always visible, so you know what your settings are at a glance.</p>

[steve_in_l.a.]

<p>Having just purchased my first DSLR, I'm at the stage of studying the manual to do that initial set up and forget it myself. I did it first this summer with a borrowed DSLR, and my experience was pretty much set it and forget it. I got good results without monkeying too much with anything. That said, I hate the typical digital interface of hierarchical menus and much prefer analog guages. On the D3 body at least I mostly have those, but so far I do miss the shutter speed dial.</p>

[tasos_sotirakis]

<p>The only extra options that you really have to worry about with a DSLR, as opposed to a film camera, are the ones that are part of current sensor and imaging technology. These are the white balance and ISO settings. On one hand, they are a part of digital photography; can't have it without them. On the other hand, you don't have to have the right film loaded, which is, in my opinion, a much greater convenience. For simplicity and ease of use, i'll take the press of a button over having to deal with film any day! Of course with RAW you can forget about white balance too (though a grey card might be handy).</p>

<p>You can still set all that extra stuff to auto and still get the result you want 90% of the time. It is not the percieved complexity of modern DSLRs that makes me want a simpler design. Options are just that, options; I don't have to deal with any of that unless i want to. But by making a minimalist camera i feel that we gain a lot that is harder to measure than technical specs: the ability to have a small, light, rugged camera that one can sling over the shoulder without giving it much thought, or wrap it in a t-shirt and throw in a backpack. Or maybe carry it in a studio all day. Or whatever.</p>

<p>If i had to describe it with a single word, i'd probably say it is the "attitude" that makes the idea of a simple camera so appealing.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>> Think Leica M9</p>

<p>Interesting. You posted a question with an embedded answer. Enjoy your Leica! :-)</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>A popular idea. I think the closest thing around right now is a Sony A850. There is at least a decent chance for a Nikon version of this. Don't know about Michael's NEF idea, though. I strongly long for DNG out of camera.</p>

[mark liddell]

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with Richard Williams and David B. I think the complexity of modern cameras is overstated in practise. Yes there are many features available, but it is equally true that many of them are altered only 5% of the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. The reason they have so many features is that they cater for pretty much every use of the camera imaginable - the plethora of settings are there if you need them. You don't ever have to hit the menu button if you don't want to, the principles of photography remain the same but there are functions that may assist you in certain situations.</p>

<p>I can set my D700 to manual, use centre weighted metering, use the aperture ring on ais lenses and change the shutter speed (and iso) by rotating a dial if I wish just like on my nikon fm. I came from totally manual cameras (35mm, medium and large format) and was shooting with ease the second I put a battery in my new D700, all the major controls are just as accessible as they always have been so I don't see the drama about complexity.</p>

<p>Size and weight is a different story, 35mm slrs are the size of 645 medium format.</p>

[albert_lee1]

<p>what i lust for is a full frame sensor in the body of a point n shoot. can they make one without a mirror, and it can just be like a range finder, or have a digital viewfinder that is basically displaying the image the sensor sees?<br>

if it was built thin so u can slide it in your pocket, but has full frame that would be awesome!</p>

[john_morris4]

<blockquote>

<p>I can set my D700 to manual, use centre weighted metering, use the aperture ring on ais lenses and change the shutter speed (and iso) by rotating a dial if I wish just like on my nikon fm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can use the aperture ring on newer lenses, too, if you find the right custom function. Then your AI, AIS, and AF (non-G) lenses will all handle the same way.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>You don't have a cell phone either I guess.</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>The m4/3rds cameras are already pretty much what you are looking for, Albert, albeit with a half-size sensor, which allows cameras like the EP-1 and the GF1 to have small lenses.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>It's been something I've been craving for years, but Nikon will never deliver it. Perhaps the other smaller manufacturers.<br>

You see, Nikon is fighting with Canon on the major part of the market. The Dm4/Fm3D etc are a special niche. You can't really sell these to the masses. They've now introduced VIDEO to the higher end cameras, soon enough they'll integrate an mp3 player, GPS with navigation hints for your next wonderful shot, and dynamic exposure control per pixel. Simplicity doesn't sell.. afterall, most DSLR shooters I know LOVE to overcompensate with huge f/2.8 superzooms shot at f/8 outdoors.<br>

I'd love to see a minimal (and MINIMAL doesn't equate to "tape over your thumbwheels and LCD displays") body that focuses on photography, and photography alone:<br>

* 6-8 megapixels at most, full frame, with very high ISOs providing CLEAN images. Save your megapixel wars.<br>

* Match needle exposure system. Keep it simple, perhaps a fat spot like the F3hp.<br>

* High speed flash sync, High speed top shutter speed<br>

* Compact, sturdy metal body with very few buttons, autofocus optional.<br>

* A big viewfinder with 100% coverage, split microprism for focus confirmation. Removable screens.<br>

So yes, an FM3A with a clean CCD. I'll mount my 105/2.5 on it and be eternally happy.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>"You don't have a cell phone either I guess." --<br>

Oh and just in case you'd wonder, I have an iPhone. I don't use it to take pictures.</p>