DSLR camera which imitates SLR

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>Indraneel: The D700 can't have the D3 prism because of two main reasons:<br>

- it has a pop-up flash, so bye bye room for that huge D3 prism<br>

- marketing<br>

The pop-up flash alone is not the only responsable, the 5D has no pop-up and still barely manages to have a bigger finder than the D700, the marketing division is also very responsable.<br>

I too think that apart from a rangefinder (M9: 35 mm sensor, manual focus, aperture ring al the way, few controls for shooting), the closest thing to the OP's desire might be that Fuji everyone's talking about.</p>

[marius_mi]

<p>Fuji X100 and some Leica's looks good, but definitely not cheap :)<br>

ok, lets make it easier..<br>

what is the closest(cheapest) digital alternative to Praktica MTL5 with Helios 44... I'm looking not for Upgrade.. but a digital alternative. As for image quality ... not worse than using some Fuji Superia 200.<br>

is there any?</p>

[vrankin]

<p>A few earliest DSLRs were said to have control interfaces, metering systems and focusing systems that were only slightly removed from their latest film SLR counterparts. Two that come to mind are the Nikon D100 and Konica/Minolta Maxxum 5d (simpler) or 7d (more complex controls). I'm not familiar enough with the earliest Canon DSLRs to mention one. I'm seeing Nikon D100 cameras on eBay starting at $300-400 US. But then, why not find something like a Canon 5d (full frame) and put a good 50 mm prime on it and just use the basic shutter and aperture controls on auto (or daylight if you want to match your Superia 200) white balance?</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Marius,<br>

Answer to your question is: it does not exist. Keep using your Praktica or start learning a digital SLR. A DSLR is akin to a PC computer - a high number of features and controls are build in - there are no simple PC's with a keyboard consisting of just a few keys... Myself, I'm using nikon D300 camera with old nikkor lenses which require manual focusing and setting of aperture on the lens. </p>

[drpath]

<p>Buy a used Canon 5D1 body. This camera gives you a big full frame viewfinder, a great sensor, and one of the simpler control interfaces. You can simplify it further by setting review time to off (to turn off the lcd), shooting everything in RAW, and setting mode to Aperture priority or Manual. The 5D can mount almost every slr lens ever made -- except (infuriatingly), Canon's own FD/FL lenses. I see a non-chipped Praktica adapter is 5 bucks on ebay. Remember, you need to be able to stop down on the lens barrel, in retro preset mode. The camera body can't do it for you. Or if you get tired of that, check out Zeiss and Voigtlander's awesome new manual focus, EOS controled lenses.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>Thanks Oliver for the reminder, you're right of course. I forgot that I regularly use my IR converted D70 in manual mode with AI lenses and no metering! Guess that makes it Marius's dream camera, also considering that most of the infrared shots are destined for B/W. My only complaint would be that it doesn't have a red dot and a lousy viewfinder not in the corner..<br>

Nicolaie, thanks for the explanation of the viewfinder. Is it possible that the prism box also houses sensors and other electronics? The FM2 is tiny, pocketable almost, and yet has such a nice finder. I've heard that it's not the best though, the F3 was better... Yes, the D700 has that flash, I forgot, the one that erratically sends out IR to intermittently control other speedlites :( Although in fairness, it does work relatively reliably indoors.<br>

I looked at the fuji... and it comes with a fixed lens, kind of like the Olympus RC/SP/RD series, only that this costs 20 times as much... maybe that's the price one pays for opting for a rangefinder (a non interchangeable viewfinder).<br>

Other than a used D70 (or similar) with manual lenses, the closest that would come to the OP's requirements would probably be the E-P2 or GF2 (with the viewfinder). Not the same handling as a SLR (and definitely nowhere close to a rangefinder), but not too bad, and can take every lens out there (I've used an El-Nikkor on my E-P1). But why to go look for a mule where horses are cheaper...?</p>

[arda]

<p>You're not alone in this desire. I would also love to have a digital camera that works like my manual film cameras. I still shoot with my Nikon F2 very regularly and love the older Nikon lenses. I don't use the meter on my camera bodies. I also have a drawer full of old but beautiful Canon FD lenses. If they could put a digital sensor on an F2 body and leave the controls the same, I would certainly buy one. I'm also hoping that some third party manufacturer will produce a digital body that will utilize the abundance of beautiful FD mount Canon lenses out there since I doubt Canon will ever produce one.</p>

[ad12345]

<p>Marius,<br>

For $200 or so you might consider a used 6 MP DSLR with a penta-prism viewfinder like the Pentax ist DS or K100D. When printed, the image quality of both of those cameras is very close, if not better than most colour films. <br>

They are relatively simple cameras, can be run in fully manual mode with the flick of a switch, don't have any unnecessary features, can fully use manual lenses, have a focus confirmation feature that allows precise manual focus.<br>

Both of the Pentax cameras take AA batteries. If you purchase a set of lithium batteries for $10 or so and take one shot a day you won't need to worry about batteries for about 3 years.<br>

An other similar camera would be the Nikon D70 / D70s, although is uses a proprietary rechargeable battery which would probably require you to recharge it every month of two.<br>

Have a look at reputable online dealers like KEH.com or on pentaxforum.com to get an idea of prices and availability etc.<br>

Best of luck in your search.<br>

Andrew</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I was going to say the Epson R-D1 which is now obsolete due to the Fuji x100. Not sure why the Epson never made it past the drawing board ?<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031101epsonrd1.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031101epsonrd1.asp</a></p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I was resisting, resisting to respond this post. . . . Then I given up.<br /> "DSLR camera which imitates SLR" . "?" . . Create a DSLR as small and solid and so beautiful as an Olympus OM-1, 2 , etc. The Olympus OM-1 or 2 with the separate but attached Motor Winder, smaller then a smallest DX size Nikon D40. "?" . . . I wouldn't mind if the back a little bit thicker, fattier then a film version. I wouldn't mind aether, if it has no motor inside, and I have to wind the shutter if I don't attached the motor winder. Olympus OM-1, a camera FUL-FRAME and HAS A BIGEST VIEW FINDER, THEN ANY CAMERA BEFORE and AFTER, and the smallest bulk. Did you ever looked through the Olympus view finder? You going to be surprised. Eliminating the two empty place for the film, you have enough place for the electronic. And I like winding the camera, after each shoot. If ever a camera like that will come out, and the price same as a Nikon D3, I would buy 2 of them, right a way. Oh! One more. Forget about those half a kilo plastics. I hate plastics.</p>

<h1><strong><br /></strong></h1><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>OM-2</p><div></div>

[w_t1]

<p>what I would suggest to satisfy your Luddite desires, is to put black tape over the controls you don't use. out of sight out of mind....or just keep shooting film.</p>

<p>what i really want are digital files you can develop in rodinal 1:50. Now THAT would be something....</p>

<p> </p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>Luddite desires? I wonder. Camera makers still haven't given us what was once standard on the cheapest of slrs. That being a nice, large, bright, easy-to-focus-with viewfinder. Even the top models are inferior. Size can't be the problem. Look at the OM2 above. Perhaps they think that fast AF has lessened the need for an excellent finder. Cost? I'd pay extra for it.</p>

<p>I'm guessing that many photographers have never looked through and composed with such a viewfinder. They simply don't know what they're missing.</p>

[kyle_mcmahon]

<p>There is a camera close to what the OP describes, its just not an SLR. It's the Leica M9 rangefinder. Minimal electronic controls and menus. Operates like Leica Ms have for decades. Only flaw is its prohibitively expensive for most of us.</p>

[ingemar_lampa1]

<p>Troll was successful OP...</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>A related question... hope it's not hijacking the thread too much.</p>

<p>How many people have mastered all the features on their DSLR?</p>

<p>Well then, how many have mastered most of the features?</p>

<p>Well then, how many get by with knowing a few of the features and looking up the others in the manual when necessary? (I'm guilty as charged. I haven't even mastered all the features on my lowly Canon Rebel 2000. Ti, and T2 35mm cameras.)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i have a D3s so i just use the features i need and know how to use. i haven't actually looked at the manual yet. haven't run into a situation yet where i need the manual as its a fairly intuitive body, especially if you've used nikon pro DSLRs before.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>To save me from learning how to type, I just hand write everything with a pencil on paper, scan it, OCR it and then copy and paste it into Word. I refuse to be snookered into them new fangled keyboard thingies.</p>

<p>Seriously, I started out with a Nikon F2 Photomic back in '74. Young eyes, lots of agility, a few good photos. Years later, tired eyes, AF camera, shakier hands and more keepers.</p>

<p>I use a D200 and it can work with AI to newer lenses. So, I get to manual focus if I want and even play with the aperture ring. If I'm shooting a landscape, I use some of my old, lovely lenses. If I'm chasing my grandson around, it is AF and CLS flash all the way.</p>

<p>Some old stuff is great, some stinks. Some new stuff is great, some stinks. Coincidence? The good old days from 20 years ago will be matched by today, just wait 20 years.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>I always read the complete manual. But to answer Alan's question, I do not need all the features of my DSLR, so I will not bother to learn them. I will when I need them. I couldn't care less for auto exposure compensation for example (even though I know how to use that one). It requires the pressing of more buttons than setting the exposure manually, so what's the use? I don't use dynamic AF, because I don't photograph fast moving subjects. If I did, by all means, I would learn how to use it.</p>

[lotsawa]

<p>My 5D doesn't have too many controls, and I don't need all of them. Since I always shoot RAW, I don't need either White Balance or Picture Styles and similar stuff that is only JPG related.<br>

There isn't really a huge difference between handling an EOS 5 and a 5D for example.</p>

[kendall helmstetter gelner]

<p>Just a quick note that the Sigma DSLR's really fit this bill - they don't have any special modes or anything, just P/A/S/M modes like traditional DSLR's.<br>

As stated there are some things you have to have just because it's a digital camera (like WB selection) but they stay away from the fancy stuff.</p>

[marius_mi]

<p>Now I see on what camera I should start saving money... Sigma</p>