Miror lock up

Modern cameras might be full of gimmicks but at least you get a lot for your money and who knows what features you may or may not find useful - at least they are there!
There are bound to be some features that we could do without and some we'd like to see added.....can't please everybody all the time!

I suppose you have to buy what is made available to you but why did so many pro's upgrade their Nikon FMs and Canon T90s to F4s, F5s and EOS 1s?.......they clearly weren't put off by all the extra features.
Most pro's have embraced AF and even digital technology for at least some of their work and no doubt use many of the other advanced features too.

But for those that don't like it, why not go truly (traditionally) professional with a no-frills Hasselblad and then pay £6000 for an optional 6MP digi-back?

Square pictures may be necessary for MF cameras tethered to tripods, but they are totally unnecessary for handheld cameras which can be quickly oriented vertically or horizontally.

Almost all square pictures need to be cropped. This means that a square picture wastes pixels, and therefore disk space.

In other words, it's a thoroughly bad idea.

No idea what you mean. But the K10D doe have a button permitting RAW capture as well as JPEG.

Why? This is a studio camera feature.

Why? K10D shows image in correct orientation.

Why? Photographers don't want to walk around with a laptop strapped to them.

Why?

Just adds to complexity and expense without much benefit. In today's money an F1 would be about UKP 15,000.

Why? Most people would never use this.

What do you mean?

Virtually impossible without putting shutters in lenses, which would enormously increase their cost.

Wireless sync with what? If you mean wireless flash, the K10D has it.

Because there is absolutely no requirement for it. Hotshoes supplanted pc sockets in 1970.

It's not on the K10D because it would add very little benefit. The 2 sec delay with lock-up meets 99% of people's needs 99% of the time.

If you mean that it can be difficult to reach the stop-down button on an ancient Takumar screw-mount lens, then I suggest you stick to Spotmatic bodies, which were designed for Takumars. If you are going to use a modern camera, fit a modern lens.

This is an auto-focus camera (like almost all cameras for the past twenty years). But you can change focussing screens.

Because AF cameras need two signals to take a picture. The first is to focus the lens, the second is to trip the shutter. A cable release can't do this.

You keep mentioning gimmicks without giving any examples. What gimmicks are you talking about? Incidentally, I can't think of anything more gimmicky and superfluous than on-board perspective control.

Perhaps, but the cost would. Your spec would result in a UKP 10,000 camera that weighed about the same.

No deep thought is right. Most of these points have no merit; almost all demonstrate a near-total lack of knowledge of small-format DSLRs (Pentax in particular), and most indicate that you need a Hasselblad, which means that you are contributing to the wrong forum.

If you really want a camera with all these facilities, then be prepared to pay vastly more money for it than the very modest amount that Pentax asks for the K10D.

G

I thought I needed a PC socket, but then discovered the IR trigger. Now we can have chaotic camera club studio shoots without having to keep catching the lights as yet another photographer trips over the synch lead...

This is, I think, progress.

I never felt I needed mirror lock up, but now it is provided with the 2sec delay I find I might as well use it when doing some macro work.

There are only a limited number of settings that will correctly expose any image, so all the electronics are very nice and convenient, but hardly essentials most of the time. I still quite like the simplicity of the MX, although I suspect it could baffle some photographers brought up on fully automatic systems.

I can see the future now, "Just nip out and take me some Ansel Adams landscapes will you, Camera Buddy?"

"Yes, master."

I agree that most of the features VF lists are beyond my needs.

But I'd still take issue with this - both he and I have already given uses for this that would be nice to have out of the studio.

I accept, obviously, that adding features adds cost - how much do you think adding live feed would add to the cost?

Really, not even the 'slimming' feature?

There are some odd features on cameras that it takes some thinking about to decide why they are there.

I agree the slimming filter is one. The other is on my A20 and is a "Food" setting. To help me take appetising pictures of food...

My Pentax A20 can't even boil an egg.

Just to restate my case;

all the current DSLR models are consumers goods and as such are not intended by the manufacturers to be for serious photographers any more than for spontaneous 'lay' users...this holds true despite any statements from the makers.

All the current DSLR models are transitional cameras being, essentially, the 35mm SLR with some previously essential features removed and a sensor placed in the 'film gate'.

All current DSLR models show a reluctance on the part of makers to use the current technology creatively with an eye to progress of photography.

Most current DSLR models show a remarkable lack of good design skills when compared to conventional previous models.

George,

I understand that people such as yourself enjoy thrusting their crass ignorance in other peoples faces,...and, I also understand that you are a self-confessed "gear freak rather than a photographer" However, if you wish to disscuss DSLR design intelligently then i am only too happy to oblige.......Only by thoughtful comment can we expect manufacturers, particularly those of a different culture, to be mindful of their buyers rather than of their advertising agents.

Kimbo,

"........Modern cameras might be full of gimmicks but at least you get a lot for your money...."

Without wishing to be rude; this is spoken like a true child of consumerism....the admen would be proud of you!....

I understand what you are saying, viewfinder, but I don't agree. Are you not being a little harsh on the designers? Modersn DSLRs are brilliant photographic tools and are equipped to work in a number of ways so they can be set up for the requirements of any individual.

That's why all the "gimmicks" are there. I don't think the intention is that any one photographer would use them all. No pictures would ever get taken.

From the extensive menu of options, we select the parameters that fit in with thw way we work. That could be fully manual if that is what is required.

John,

I think what's really bugging me about this is that these cameras, which were previously serious photographic tools, are being turned into consumer items,...loaded with gimmicks but missing essential photographic devices that were there previously.

The makers sem to expect the audience to be blinded by the basic technology of digital imaging, but more and more, this is to the detriment of good design. I'm not asking for an extention of the technology, just that they use good design in incorporating digital imaging into what was already a highly evolved photographic tool.

Mirror lock up is an important item for several demanding types of work and it SHOULD be there on a £700 camera which is presented by the makers as a "semi-pro" tool. just paying lip-service by tagging it onto the self-timer is hardly playing the game as it now lacks any really useful facility...with the total inclusion of electronics in these cameras good mirror control should be easier to offer but, I fear it is just not enough of a selling gimmick for the largely non-technical audience who gaze at adverts.

Equally, just because the film transport mechnaism of coventional SLR's determined their layout does NOT mean that makers can suspend design thinking now that the winding mech is gone. Frankly, it is absolutely laughable that with all of this great technology, one is obliged to fumble the camera thru 90 degrees to make a verticle shot and have to resort to weird brackets for tripod work.......of course, makers will happily provide a grip to 'kludge' over the design failure at a staggering £170...!?? Likewise, there really SHOULD be a cable release socket on any half serious camera worthy of the description but then again there is an expensive remote to buy as an accessory and retired accountants snapping the grandchildren on the lawn don't really know what a cable release is anyway.....much less have a use for such a feature.

Huh?
And just how, exactly, would you acheive that 90 degree rotation in camera? You'd need a larger mirror, bigger pentaprism and viewfinder, a deeper body, and all the gubbins to rotate the sensor... or have a larger sensor that would make the camera a couple of grand more.
I don't find the physics and mechanics "laughable".

I have absolutely no problem rotating to take vertical shots. The grip isn't just for 90 degree work - if you have a huge lens it makes it easier to hold (or so I'm told). If you've ever been involved in manufacturing, you might appreciate just how expensive it is to create an item like the grip - that has very limited "consumer" take...

Compared to other DSLRs I've had in my hands, I like the K10D a lot... but you're entitled to your views nonetheless

Matt

Matt,

I quite like the K10 too, otherwise I would not be watching this forum,....however, it's a bit of a 'curate's egg' like all the other DSLR models.

"....And just how, exactly, would you acheive that 90 degree rotation in camera?.."

Well, if they can make a 23mm x 15mm sensor then they can make one which is 23mm square,...sensors are about to get much larger anyway so why not just a bit bigger??? Then, its relatively simple to offer multi format choices selected by finger pressure and withour taking the camera from the eye......23mm x 15mm for 2:3 as now, but in horiz. or vert.,...4:5 'ideal' format horiz. or vert.,...square RAW files for later editing and cropping or complete use.

Im noe suggesting anything that would push the technology...this is all perfectly feasible to a good design team.

Incidentally, I have been involved with industrial design and product development.

Hi Viewfinder,

As george says (and I never had an AF SLR body until the DL, just the ME) it does need the two stage release; one for AF one for shutter. Whether there is/was a true cable release for AF film bodies I don't know, but I suspect that it still needed a two stage release.

The wired releases can be bought for change out of a tenner.. I have a third party one myself, and I think the remotes are coming close to that now, what with chinese ingenuity.

Cheers

Liam

viewfinder,
I thought that was your thought But doing that would make the camera physically much larger to accommodate the square sensor. And right now the sensor would be much more expensive.

Unfortunately, a lot of the DSLR design is driven by the size of the sensor - and the size of the sensor is designed by third parties who design what they think is required. So currently the only choices are 3:2 or (big) square for medium format from Kodak. Unless you make your own sensors that is (like Canon).

Personally I like a diminutive camera - it's much more discrete and portable.
If I really want square, I'd go 645D

(And BTW, I agree that £170 is too much for a grip There are other threads here that show you can get it much, much cheaper if you shop around )

Matt

Matt,

".........would make the camera physically much larger..."

I do concede that it would have to be alittle larger but I don't believe it would have to effectively change the size of the camera,.....the Canon 5D has a 'full-frame' sensor but is only the same size as the APS-C model it copies (D30..?)...what I'm proposing here is a lot smaller sensor than that.

And it's (probably) Sony that does that, not Pentax
Of course, larger sensors consume more silicon, have lower yields from a wafer and are consequently more expensive.
I'd rather have lower priced 3:2 than higher priced 1:1.
Matt

Matt,

".........I'd rather have lower priced 3:2 than higher priced 1:1.."

Yes, but the prices of all this stuff is steadily dropping anyway....as indeed it must with everybody making more or less the same camera.