Some years back this concept very much appealed to me, but no longer do I think it makes sense. What exactly is it that is gained? Is it a cost improvement? Lens? No can't be lens because we can use old lenses today with adapters. It seems what this would provide is a very basic digital camera with very limited functions. To go about solving the problems of limited functionality wouldn't make sense either as that would eliminate any cost advantage and simply recreate the DSLR the hard way. I have been saying for a while that I would love a digital SRT-102, but what I mean is a very basic DSLR, not new technology shoehorned into old. My ideal camera would have just those functions I needed and used back in film days, with a couple of exceptions that are unique to digital. The reason I want such a simple camera is that I virtually never use movie mode, rapid fire frames per second, nor most of the other complex options in the camera. I set most options once and never touch them again. I use almost exclusively manual focus lenses and I really only need to meter exposures manually, set shutter speed, select ISO (I often still call it ASA), and I do like to occasionally view the pictures. So for me, all the other stuff is added cost for things I don't need. This assumes that the expensive cameras are that way because of feature rich complexity. Make it today as simple as before - put photography back in the hands of the photographer for those who want it, and charge an appropriate price.
woodrim wrote:
Some years back this concept very much appealed to me, but no longer do I think it makes sense. What exactly is it that is gained? Is it a cost improvement? Lens? No can't be lens because we can use old lenses today with adapters. It seems what this would provide is a very basic digital camera with very limited functions. To go about solving the problems of limited functionality wouldn't make sense either as that would eliminate any cost advantage and simply recreate the DSLR the hard way. I have been saying for a while that I would love a digital SRT-102, but what I mean is a very basic DSLR, not new technology shoehorned into old. My ideal camera would have just those functions I needed and used back in film days, with a couple of exceptions that are unique to digital. The reason I want such a simple camera is that I virtually never use movie mode, rapid fire frames per second, nor most of the other complex options in the camera. I set most options once and never touch them again. I use almost exclusively manual focus lenses and I really only need to meter exposures manually, set shutter speed, select ISO (I often still call it ASA), and I do like to occasionally view the pictures. So for me, all the other stuff is added cost for things I don't need. This assumes that the expensive cameras are that way because of feature rich complexity. Make it today as simple as before - put photography back in the hands of the photographer for those who want it, and charge an appropriate price....Show more →
As others have said, I think the appeal of all of this is to own a very small, well-built, 35mm (D)SLR with a fantastic pentaprism. Kind of the SLR equivalent to the M9. Heck, I'd probably be interested in a "new" Nikon FM2 that was mostly the same as the original, only digital.
Although there is a certain element of interest to any camera which can shoot both film AND digital. DPR points to the possibility of an F7. If this new patent if for an accessory for that camera maybe it will have functionality built-in which would allow switching between film and digital on the fly by winding and rewinding the film. If the sensor was anything like that found in the D800 I think I would be very interested even though it would be F6-like in its form-factor and ergonomics.
But yeah, I agree, I think the dream of most here is to recapture the experience they had with the likes of the A-1, AE-1, F3, OM2 OM4, Spotomatic and so on - but without the hassle of handling, developing, and digitizing film.
If there was a market for a genuine retro feel camera then someone would have produced one. The Fuji X100 is a close example.
The problem with a universal component is really it would have to be the shape of a film spool with the leader almost over to the take up spool...and the sensor, presumably, no thicker than 35mm film. Anything else would require modifying individual camera bodies....possible dedicated back replacements. So an instant hike in the cost.
Also, of course, the thing would need a power supply and some means to communicate with it so settings can be adjusted etc......so it looks as if there would have to be a dedicated replacement back that also has a battery compartment...much like a battery grip for a DSLR.
It would be interesting to see someone produce one as a development exercise but it would probably be a pretty basic unit as what company would want to spend cash on a dead end development unless it had some kind of marketing appeal...a sort of 'Look what we can do' project!!
It probably has more appeal in concept than any reality would provide. And I think anthonygh is correct about no one wanting to put money behind something that would dead end with those relatively few of us who would take an interest. I suppose it would be like making a cell phone for those that used rotary dial. Hey wait, I might like that.
