# Fully manual



## monkeykoder (Aug 25, 2008)

Why is it that we don't see fully manual DSLRs?  It seems like they're trying to pack a bunch of features in there that frankly I'd rather not pay for.  

Is it a case of "Have battery must abuse it" or is there an underlying reason to it.  

It seems I get much more satisfaction out of shooting my FM10 than I ever do out of my D50 to a large extent it seems it is because I slow down when I shoot the FM10 giving me that extra half-second of contemplation before I click the shutter release.  Is it just me or are there other people out there that wish they could get a digital camera which is basically a Fully Manual film camera with a battery and digital capture (without spending an arm and a leg for a Leica M8)?


----------



## usayit (Aug 25, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> Why is it that we don't see fully manual DSLRs?  It seems like they're trying to pack a bunch of features in there that frankly I'd rather not pay for.
> 
> Is it a case of "Have battery must abuse it" or is there an underlying reason to it.
> 
> It seems I get much more satisfaction out of shooting my FM10 than I ever do out of my D50 to a large extent it seems it is because I slow down when I shoot the FM10 giving me that extra half-second of contemplation before I click the shutter release.  Is it just me or are there other people out there that wish they could get a digital camera which is basically a Fully Manual film camera with a battery and digital capture (without spending an arm and a leg for a Leica M8)?



You are not alone... I want a digital K1000.  The key is market.  The market is too small for anyone to make it worth their while.  The closest that I can think of would be an Leica R8 or R9 with a Digital back.... but at a high price of admission.  The argument is that all DSLRs cameras can be shot in full manual as an option... so marketing a manual only camera is very difficult.  My complaint is that most DSLRs today do not lend themselves very well to manual focus.

Boy do I wish that "digital film" project actually came to market... i would have so much fun with it.

BTW.. Leica M8 isn't a DSLR.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 25, 2008)

Errr... set the Focus and the Exposure dials to M?

Every digital SLR I've used has the option of being fully manual!?!


----------



## Battou (Aug 25, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Errr... set the Focus and the Exposure dials to M?
> 
> Every digital SLR I've used has the option of being fully manual!?!



That is not the point, MK is asking why a lineup of dSLRs are not made where M is not an option, but all there is. Like a digital AE-1 so to speak.





If a dSLR like that where made I might almost buy one.  I personally feel the easy way is seldom the right way, I can't stand having all those dumbass options at my fingertips.


----------



## usayit (Aug 25, 2008)

I think part of the reasoning behind the OP also includes the feel of an older camera.  There is certainly a difference between cameras today (plastic) and yesterday (metal).  This is especially true for manual lenses and viewfinder.


----------



## Battou (Aug 25, 2008)

usayit said:


> I think part of the reasoning behind the OP also includes the feel of an older camera.  There is certainly a difference between cameras today (plastic) and yesterday (metal).  This is especially true for manual lenses and viewfinder.



Yeah, That is actually why I would not garentee my purchasse of one, I do perfer the old tanks and how they feel. When I was looking to get back into photography I briefly looked at one of the EOS film bodies and quickly put it back on the shelf, I did not like the feel. On top of it having options I did not need.

If they felt like an AE-1 than I'd have one but...


----------



## tirediron (Aug 25, 2008)

Battou said:


> That is not the point, MK is asking why a lineup of dSLRs are not made where M is not an option, but all there is. Like a digital AE-1 so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And when the Nikon F hit the streets, all the old-timers then were saying "What's this?  A camera with a _built-in_ light meter?  Who needs that???"  Thing you're forgetting is, when the the AE-1, and the K1000 came out, they were the SLR to have; the newest, most modern piece of kit, with the cutting-edge features.  I remember lusting after a K1000, but never quite having the $$$ to afford one...  What I would like to see is someone produce an SLR with the build quality of the old Ashai Spotmatics, or Mirandas...  THAT I would buy, regardless of features.


----------



## Battou (Aug 25, 2008)

tirediron said:


> And when the Nikon F hit the streets, all the old-timers then were saying "What's this?  A camera with a _built-in_ light meter?  Who needs that???"  Thing you're forgetting is, when the the AE-1, and the K1000 came out, they were the SLR to have; the newest, most modern piece of kit, with the cutting-edge features.  I remember lusting after a K1000, but never quite having the $$$ to afford one...  What I would like to see is someone produce an SLR with the build quality of the old Ashai Spotmatics, or Mirandas...  THAT I would buy, regardless of features.



lol yeah I'll admit I don't think of TTL as a unnecessary feature, shutter speed priority thought is, and I keep fortgetting the AE-1 has that, but to tell you the truth I prefer the build and weight of the Canons over the Pentax.


Sometimes I think my H2 is going to float away


----------



## someguy5 (Aug 25, 2008)

I wish my Rebel XT had seperate controls for aperture and shutter in M mode.  Using the same dial for both usually makes me mess up.


----------



## bhop (Aug 25, 2008)

I probably still wouldn't buy one.  I can just scan film from my old 70's-80's cameras, then it's a digital image and i've got the best of both worlds.  I'm not a pro, so speed from camera to computer/print doesn't matter to me.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 25, 2008)

Battou said:


> ...why a lineup of dSLRs are not made where M is not an option, but all there is.



Nikon, Canon, and Pentax haven't introduced a new, all manual film camera that I can think of in over 25 years.  It has nothing to do with digital. 

The Nikon FM was introduced in 1977.  They upgrade it to the FM2 and FM2n in 1982, and 1984.  Sometime around 2000 they added aperture priority and called it the FM3a.  The upgrades for each model were minor, and didn't require significant (expensive) redesign. 

I think the Nikon F3 came out in 1980.

In 1995 Nikon began selling the FM-10, but it's not made by Nikon, and is actually the Cosina CT-1, which was introduced around 1970.  Other cameras that are really Cosina CT-1s:  Canon T60 (introduced 1990), Oly OM2000, Ricoh KR-5, etc...  The differences are lens mount and cosmetic.

The Pentax K1000 was introduced in 1976.  

Some other brands have introduced all manual 35mm film cameras, but they are small production runs targeting collectors, and you'll notice they cost significantly more than Nikon or Canon's cheapest electronic, AF 35mm SLRs.  An all manual DSLR would be a very custom built camera, and cost significantly more than the feature laden models.

Before I went digital I only used old, no-battery (except for the meter, if they had one), fully manual film cameras.  Learning to turn off all the features I don't need in my fancy, smancy DSLRs only took reading through the manual.

Don't blame the gear.  There is no zombie mind control feature in any DSLR.  Lack of discipline is a flaw within the photographer, not the camera.


----------



## Easy_Target (Aug 25, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> It seems I get much more satisfaction out of shooting my FM10 than I ever do out of my D50 to a large extent it seems it is because I slow down when I shoot the FM10 giving me that extra half-second of contemplation before I click the shutter release.  Is it just me or are there other people out there that wish they could get a digital camera which is basically a Fully Manual film camera with a battery and digital capture (without spending an arm and a leg for a Leica M8)?



We're in the same boat, almost literally. I have an FM10 and a D50 as well. I personally like shooting the FM10 more than the D50. When I use the D50, my feeling is sort of nonchalant.

I've used this story/analogy to describe my views on the subject. 

A DSLR is like a machine gun and an all manual SLR is like a bolt action rifle. Sure it's fun to just hold down the trigger and blast away at things, but after a while it gets old. You've got a 500 round ammo belt to just let loose.

An all manual SLR is a different beast altogether.  You sit there on your perch waiting for it. You're almost like a sniper, waiting for the right moment. One shot. One kill. You sight your target. You adjust your scope. You chamber a round. You take the shot. If you miss, you chamber another round and hope you can make a second attempt. Take your shots, but never forget your ammo is extremely limited, only 36 shots before you waste critical seconds reloading. Think fast. Think smart.





Then there's also the issue of the lens. I just don't like the way the new lenses feel. It's too loose and they move around too freely when focusing manually. I just LOVE the tactile sensation of the old lenses, super smooth movements that you could do with a single finger. The feedback I get from the camera is a major aspect for me in photography. DSLRs, it's just "pressing the little red button," to me. Whereas an all manual SLR, the process of taking a picture itself, is something I create with my own hands.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 25, 2008)

Battou said:


> That is not the point, MK is asking why a lineup of dSLRs are not made where M is not an option, but all there is. Like a digital AE-1 so to speak.



The Canon AE-1 is not an all manual camera.  It has shutter priority mode.  It's recognized as the first camera with a microprocessor and was completely electronically controlled, making it the great grand daddy of all the fully electronic, gizmo laden cameras to come.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 25, 2008)

> Why is it that we don't see fully manual DSLRs?


Of all the DSLR cameras sold, probably 80% to 90% of them are bought by people who will never use M mode.  
Like it or not, those are the people who 'pay the bills' and allow the manufacturers to sell us cameras at the prices they do.  Camera companies have to cater to those people, which is why our cameras have a mode dial with 'pictures' on it.  

As mentioned, just because a camera has all these modes and features, doesn't mean that you have to use them.


----------



## Easy_Target (Aug 25, 2008)

There's still the issue of not enough feedback from the gear. It's as if you're going through life wearing a giant latex condom.


----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 25, 2008)

You know what I'd accept it just as automatic as it is with 3 changes 
#1 focusing screen
#2 Change aperture on lens and change shutter via ring.
#3 TTL metering on old lenses.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 25, 2008)

What on Earth are you guys talking about??? Every manufacturer puts out a fully manual ONLY camera.

They just all neglect to provide the proper instructions. But any dummy can figure out how to superglue the mode wheel in the M position so I guess I don't blame them.


----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 25, 2008)

My whole argument is that they're awkward to use in manual mode.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 25, 2008)

You must have a d40 or an XTi then?


----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 25, 2008)

D50


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Aug 25, 2008)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I find it quite easy to work in full manual with the K10.  I've got a K1000 and another old Canon film SLR, which I use now and then for the novelty and thrill of it, so I've got a basic sense of what it's like.  As far as I can tell, the K10 works in manual just as smoothly as those old things.  (Although I've installed a focusing screen, and I've got a few good oldschool  manual focus KMount primes(Not listed in my sig), which might be a big part of it)


----------



## icassell (Aug 25, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> The Canon AE-1 is not an all manual camera.  It has shutter priority mode.  It's recognized as the first camera with a microprocessor and was completely electronically controlled, making it the great grand daddy of all the fully electronic, gizmo laden cameras to come.



Didn't the Minolta XD-11 come first?  I might be wrong ...


----------



## bhop (Aug 25, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> D50



There's your problem.  Only one control wheel on the D50.  DSLRs with two wheels (f/stop and shutter speed) are almost as easy as a fully manual "old" camera.  I do find that I can switch f/stops faster on my FE by rotating the lens compared to the d70 wheel, but other than that, it's not that difficult or awkward to use in fully manual mode.

...also, the whole 'machine gun' argument doesn't really mean much to me.  You can be just as careful with your shots with a digital camera as you can with film.  Just use some self control, and if you can't do that, get a smaller memory card


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 25, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> #1 focusing screen



You mean a focus screen with manual focus assist such as micro-beads or a split ring?  So buy one, and install it.  I don't know about the other brands, but after market companies offer manual focus screens for the Nikon and Canon DSLRs that aren't covered by the manufacturer.  All of my Canon DSLRs have splt ring screens and split cross screens, and none are Canon brand screens.



monkeykoder said:


> #2 Change aperture on lens and change shutter via ring.



This was dropped long before digital. 



monkeykoder said:


> #3 TTL metering on old lenses.



What!  Then you wouldn't have to buy a bunch of new expensive Nikannon lenses!  Besides, get a hand held light meter, Mr. All-Manual.    Besides, you probably can get TTL metering with the old lenses if you can activate the DOF preview.  Or just memorize the aperture scale in 1 stop increments, and calculate stops in your head from wide open.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 25, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> My whole argument is that they're awkward to use in manual mode.



All my Canon DSLRs can be operated one handed in manual mode.  None of my mechanical 35mm SLRs can.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 25, 2008)

bhop said:


> There's your problem.  Only one control wheel on the D50.



Yup, that's what I assumed as well.  The d50 and d40 are not really very well thought out cameras at all IMO - for any kind of photography. That's just my opinion tho and I reserve the right to have it as my opinion.


----------



## John_Olexa (Aug 25, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> Why is it that we don't see fully manual DSLRs? It seems like they're trying to pack a bunch of features in there that frankly I'd rather not pay for.


 

My guess is it simply wouldn't be a big seller.


----------



## Joves (Aug 25, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Yup, that's what I assumed as well. The d50 and d40 are really very well thought out cameras at all IMO - for any kind of photography. That my opinion tho and I reserve the right to have it as my opinion.


 I agree on the D50 but to me the D40 was a neutered 50. THere is really no suck thing as a fully manual camera in the digital world. If you want it go to an older film camera. I wouldnt mind a fully manual one but, one thing that would need to be changed is the focusing screens. Also the camera would have to allow you to set your f-stops on the lens. Dslrs even in the manual modes dont allow for it.


----------



## Battou (Aug 25, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> The Canon AE-1 is not an all manual camera.  It has shutter priority mode.  It's recognized as the first camera with a microprocessor and was completely electronically controlled, making it the great grand daddy of all the fully electronic, gizmo laden cameras to come.



I know that, The AE-1 was a bad example. I had the AE-1 on my mind all day....just kindof happened.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 26, 2008)

Battou said:


> That is not the point, MK is asking why a lineup of dSLRs are not made where M is not an option, but all there is. Like a digital AE-1 so to speak.
> 
> If a dSLR like that where made I might almost buy one.  I personally feel the easy way is seldom the right way, I can't stand having all those dumbass options at my fingertips.



Because blowing an R&D budget to alienate 99% of your customer base just to satisfy users who could simply use features, or rather ignore the additional features, in every other model of camera in your current line up is just poor business practice?


----------



## Battou (Aug 26, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Because blowing an R&D budget to alienate 99% of your customer base just to satisfy users who could simply use features, or rather ignore the additional features, in every other model of camera in your current line up is just poor business practice?



I'm thinking more along the lines of building a dSLR that does not have to compensate for that R&D budget. Even if it where built like a thirty year old tank, with out the the additional technology companies could put a fully functional dSLR into the $150-$200 price range. 

They would sell. Contrary to popular belief people still have a hard time justifying $500+ on a used dSLR with kit lens. Sacrificing program modes, auto modes and whatever modes for $200 dSLR with kit lens new, compatable with whatever current lens linup is an easier decision to make. This could bring dSLR ownership to a wider range of buyers. This would be a better business practice than blowing more R&D budget on super zoom P&S's. It may not be a nice game to play but, business is not a nice battlefield to be on as you well know. The camera being fully manual will not be an easy camera to use. Dedicated beginners can learn alot but many will be left wanting more seeking a bigger better dSLR with all the extras, for this they would need to buy one of what we currently call dSLR. After one has owned their first SLR/dSLR camera justifying $500+ to upgrade is not as a difficult task. Unlike superzoom P&S's in order to operate this super technically simplified dSLR one still needs lenses. Having lenses has a profound impact on what one buys next propogating the brand name line up with loyal buyers where a superzoom P&S can not.

Something like this would be the cheap bastard that gets sucked up by, people on a tight budget, people who want a super cheap dSLR to teach their kids on as well as those people who simply don't want all the extra crap. If Canon, Nikon and Olympus where to cram their biggest baddest most raw dog sensor into a metal box with a meter, mirror, shutter speed dial and a lens mount would be as far from blowing an R&D budget to alienate 99% of your customer base, but not blowing an R&D budget and inflating the userbase and streingthening it. It's one line up of digital bodies, it's not like we talking total replacement but a new bottom of the barrel entrylevel line below that which is currently entrylevel.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 26, 2008)

Joves said:


> I agree on the D50 but to me the D40 was a neutered 50. THere is really no suck thing as a fully manual camera in the digital world. If you want it go to an older film camera. I wouldnt mind a fully manual one but, one thing that would need to be changed is the focusing screens. Also the camera would have to allow you to set your f-stops on the lens. Dslrs even in the manual modes dont allow for it.



Oh, yeah, what about this:

http://apphotnum.free.fr/N2B10.html#DCS460

That will fit on a Nikon F3 and that's fairly manual. 

I bet this is close to what Battou is talking about too.


----------



## JHF Photography (Aug 26, 2008)

Battou said:


> If Canon, Nikon and Olympus where to cram their biggest baddest most raw dog sensor into a metal box with a meter, mirror, shutter speed dial and a lens mount ....


 

You still need to be able to adjust things like white balance, ISO, etc. Remember, you can't just slap in a different type of film to compensate for those sorts of things.

Besides, they do make camera's with amazing sensors, well built bodies and a lot less "dummy" features. They're the ones that cost $5000+


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 26, 2008)

I don't understand the constant snobbism about "fully manual." Just turn the camera to M.

I've been testing several systems (the Hasselblad H System, the Leaf AFi System, the Sinar Hy6 System) all of which cost $40,000+. They're used by photographers shooting million dollar campaigns... and they ALL have several shooting modes, including Aperture and Shutter Speed priority.

Get over yourselves, some of you sound so pompous. "If they had an all manual one you'd buy a dSLR..." Please. It sounds juvenile.


----------



## icassell (Aug 26, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I don't understand the constant snobbism about "fully manual." Just turn the camera to M.
> 
> 
> Get over yourselves, some of you sound so pompous. "If they had an all manual one you'd buy a dSLR..." Please. It sounds juvenile.




Bravo!


----------



## Yemme (Aug 26, 2008)




----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 26, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I don't understand the constant snobbism about "fully manual." Just turn the camera to M.
> 
> I've been testing several systems (the Hasselblad H System, the Leaf AFi System, the Sinar Hy6 System) all of which cost $40,000+. They're used by photographers shooting million dollar campaigns... and they ALL have several shooting modes, including Aperture and Shutter Speed priority.
> 
> Get over yourselves, some of you sound so pompous. "If they had an all manual one you'd buy a dSLR..." Please. It sounds juvenile.



That isn't the argument at all at least from my point of view.  What I say is I'd #1 like a focusing screen (which I guess I could put in but the odds of me damaging my camera are too high and I couldn't afford to have someone else do it).  And as an amateur that has no intentions of being a professional I'd like all the automatic controls to get out of the way of the manual controls.  At this point I'm going to have to go try out the Pentax and higher end Nikon models to see if they do a better job of this (the best I've played with is a D70s and roughly equivalent models of the other brands)


----------



## icassell (Aug 26, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> That isn't the argument at all at least from my point of view.  What I say is I'd #1 like a focusing screen (which I guess I could put in but the odds of me damaging my camera are too high and I couldn't afford to have someone else do it).



My local camera service tech said he would mount a Katzeye screen in my 30D for me for $27 -- not too bad.


----------



## Mystwalker (Aug 26, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Errr... set the Focus and the Exposure dials to M?
> 
> Every digital SLR I've used has the option of being fully manual!?!


 
I think OP is asking for a DSLR without the auto bells and whistles.
Basically a old style "film" camera that uses CF cards?  

While this may cut cost of DSLR, I doubt they will sell many.


----------



## usayit (Aug 26, 2008)

I don't think there is snobbism in "fully manual".  I just think there are certain things that are missing in cameras today that don't fit wants of people like OP..... granted it is a small group that probably doesn't warrant a business and cost.

BUT...

If such a project did exist, the cost of manufacturing a fully featured DSLR could potentially be redirected to build quality, manual lenses, better viewfinder, focus screens, metal body (solid brass would be nice  ).... etc...    Again.. all hypothetical because such a project would have such a small market (Leica M8 for example) that the cost of the camera would be expensive anyway...

Personally... a fully manual DSLR would be a "nice" but not really a need in my book.... I'm known to switch over to aperture and shutter priority anyways.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Aug 26, 2008)

Guys, cameras come with firmware - it would actually cost MORE money to design a camera that DOESN'T have the features. There is no savings. There is a specific reason the 50D (and whatever the follow-up to the 5D is) have the same software features as the 1Ds - because they already exist, and it is an exponential use of the code. 

People keep asking why Canon keeps incorporating that Print from Camera technology. Why? Because they have it. Leaving it out would require additional engineering. 

Someday they may make a limited edition manual-only. Keep demanding it, it just might happen... but that will be many years from now, when the main battle fields are all vacated. 

VERY FEW people want an all manual camera. And most of us are perfectly happy shooting in manual - when that is the best setting - with a camera that does not limit us.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Aug 26, 2008)

From what I can gather, I'm pretty sure the OP would become content with 3 things:

Having a focusing screen installed - this is very cheap and easy on any modern DSlr.

Maybe having some good quality manual focus primes - they're out there and the old ones are cheap.

Having a thumb wheel as well as a front-facing wheel on the body(Which the D50 lacks)  - this is something I personally could not be without and I imagine it causes you annoyance as well.

'Monkeykoder' - am I right in these assumptions?


----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 26, 2008)

I'd hesitate to call the focusing screens cheap but I see they are out there.  The front dial would solve one major problem the last problem being most Nikon's don't meter with the AIs lenses.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Aug 26, 2008)

All the really nice pictures i adore are usually made in situations that require manual. ie, strobist shots, or long exposure night shots. Let them play with there puny p mode. i'll always have M

Dial M for Manual


----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 26, 2008)

Setting up a shot picking the exposure and going is my second favorite part of photography.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 27, 2008)

Battou said:


> I'm thinking more along the lines of building a dSLR that does not have to compensate for that R&D budget. Even if it where built like a thirty year old tank, with out the the additional technology companies could put a fully functional dSLR into the $150-$200 price range.



You would think so but no. Just removing buttons and features would constitute a whole re-design. Most of these things are handled by one integrated chip. Simply remove AF and metering, and you'd need to completely redesign the control chip, image processing chips, circuit boards, cases, need new moulds for cases, new body, and new software just to name a few. Contrary to popular belief companies do not spend their entire R&D budget on a sensor and magically a body appears around it. An even minor change could cost a fortune by the time the camera hits the shelf.



Battou said:


> They would sell. Contrary to popular belief people still have a hard time justifying $500+ on a used dSLR with kit lens. Sacrificing program modes, auto modes and whatever modes for $200 dSLR with kit lens new, compatable with whatever current lens linup is an easier decision to make. This could bring dSLR ownership to a wider range of buyers.


Without taking this one too far further I think we should agree to disagree straight up on this point. I think there would be a handful of people around the world (dedicated photographers who are tight on money) who would pick a feature-less manual SLR over an automatic point and shoot with manual controls which can be had for the same price. I would bet my last dollar that 90% of the people who want an SLR would either just grab a $20 film body like the Nikkormat F of ebay or would rather wait to get a D40. You definitely would not get a single consumer buying one of these. It really appeals to a niche portion of an already tiny target market and is still competing with film SLRs.



Battou said:


> This would be a better business practice than blowing more R&D budget on super zoom P&S's.


Now that's a crazy quote. You mustn't realise how popular these superzooms are. I think you're getting business sense confused with common sense. We may not like the super zooms, but they are the bees knees of the business and I'm sure the 18-200mm would have contributed highly on the Nikon's last profit statement.


----------



## Battou (Aug 27, 2008)

Garbz said:


> You would think so but no. Just removing buttons and features would constitute a whole re-design. Most of these things are handled by one integrated chip. Simply remove AF and metering, and you'd need to completely redesign the control chip, image processing chips, circuit boards, cases, need new moulds for cases, new body, and new software just to name a few. Contrary to popular belief companies do not spend their entire R&D budget on a sensor and magically a body appears around it. An even minor change could cost a fortune by the time the camera hits the shelf.


 Yes, I know there is more than just sticking it in a box and that R&D does go into than sensors and you do have a point. I misspoke considerably. There are a lot of corners that can be cut and gotten away with. It's the production costs that would take the hit not R&D my mistake. Not having to pack as much more expencive multifunction chips into the device, recycling a bunch of components, screens, body and whatever else possible. Can be done effectivly



Garbz said:


> Now that's a crazy quote. You mustn't realise how popular these superzooms are. I think you're getting business sense confused with common sense. We may not like the super zooms, but they are the bees knees of the business and I'm sure the 18-200mm would have contributed highly on the Nikon's last profit statement.


I know full well the popularity of the things. I am also aware of their potential. I have always maintained that if you can not afford one additional lens in addition the the body with kit lens one is getting the wrong SLR. When you can sell a product that enables versitility throught the purchasse of additional components, You do it, no ifs ands or buts. SLR/dSLR owners spend hundreds and thousands on glass. The S5 has an equivalent 36-432mm 2.7/3.5, an owner merely needs to push a button to get up to 400mm. The SLR/dSLR owner wants 400mm they go out and spend roughly $1100 USD on a useable 400mm 5.6 or $7000 (USD)on a 400mm 2.8 in addition to what ever they spent on their body. Now if we round the focal range of the S5 off to say...35mm to 400mm, How many lenses be they prime or zoom fall in this focal range and are not being sold with this camera on the market? 

You take away all the production costs, all the shipping costs, and what not it's still going to taks a lot of S5s to account for the missing profit from those who use this focal range, hell even half of that focal range. Yes the super zoom may not compare optically to a prime L, but if it's all one ever knew, how will they know what they are missing? The Superzooms are killing the SLR market, so much punch in one tidy little package. In a world where less is more it comes as no suprise that the superzooms are making huge sales.

At this rate fifty years down the road the SLR be it film or digital will be little more than the box camera is today, just a toy for eclectic collectors to take out and play with just to say they did it. Fewer and fewer people are willing to spend the kind of money it takes to own and truly use an SLR, eventually they will be to costly to produce.





Garbz said:


> Without taking this one too far further I think we should agree to disagree straight up on this point. I think there would be a handful of people around the world (dedicated photographers who are tight on money) who would pick a feature-less manual SLR over an automatic point and shoot with manual controls which can be had for the same price. I would bet my last dollar that 90% of the people who want an SLR would either just grab a $20 film body like the Nikkormat F of ebay or would rather wait to get a D40. You definitely would not get a single consumer buying one of these. It really appeals to a niche portion of an already tiny target market and is still competing with film SLRs.


 disagreed then.


That said, I think I am probably done here, a manual dSLR is obviously moot, so....I'll stick to what I can afford.


----------



## JHF Photography (Aug 27, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Having a thumb wheel as well as a front-facing wheel on the body(Which the D50 lacks) - this is something I personally could not be without and I imagine it causes you annoyance as well.


 
And see, I shoot with a D50 and love the camera. I think it's all a matter of what you're used to. Now, I'm definetly not saying I wouldn't love to have the front wheel that all the higher models have. But even though I shoot manual like 90% of the time, I don't find that only having the one wheel inconveniences me or slows me down at all.




THORHAMMER said:


> Dial M for Manual


 
Exactly.




Battou said:


> Fewer and fewer people are willing to spend the kind of money it takes to own and truly use an SLR


 
Wait, are you serious with this one? DSLR's are being bought left, right and centre! Most of them by people who don't have a clue what it can do, and never take it off of auto, but they're everywhere. I went to an outdoor show in Toronto for a festival last month, and I saw more DSLR's than I had ever seen before. I think there were more DSLR's than P&S's!


----------



## Garbz (Aug 27, 2008)

Battou said:


> At this rate fifty years down the road the SLR be it film or digital will be little more than the box camera is today, just a toy for eclectic collectors to take out and play with just to say they did it.



I know what you mean. I expect Apple will make a killing selling tiny interchangeable lenses for the iPhone of that era.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 27, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I don't understand the constant snobbism about "fully manual."
> Get over yourselves...






icassell said:


> Bravo!






usayit said:


> I don't think there is snobbism in "fully manual".




Yeah, I don't think it's "snobbism" either.  I think it's a mile stone that when freshly arrived at is something to be a little proud of.  Iron is probably misinterpreting that pride as snobbism. The two look pretty similar in text.


----------



## RMThompson (Aug 27, 2008)

The only benefit to a fully manual DSLR would be what? The cost?

I don't see a company making a lower cost product that only can appease a small percentage of the marketplace. Especially because it would have the look, feel and technical abilities of their much more expensive cameras, and possibly then would cannabilize their own sales!


----------



## 391615 (Aug 29, 2008)

While I've just started to use manual more and like it, It pays to be able to go to a aperture or shutter priority for sport shots. I'm always using aperture for everything, even sport, portraits, because I'm sort of at the point, where I know what shutter speed I need for certain moving objects anyway, so why bother changing to shutter priority.

Times I'll use Manual, are night time, can't get auto focus anyway half the time. I also will use it for macro, i set focus closest distance and lean in or out of the shot. Not sure if anyone else uses that method, but it works for me. I am picking up the focus with my own eye and not really needing the red focus points.  It is definitely hard using Manual focus with moving objects at wide apertures. I pretty much always spot metre.

As with the discussion, I agree. I'd like to see cameras in the advanced section come more manual. I'll die before I ever use auto mode, how can you get the desired image in auto, I used it for 1 day when i first got the camera. I'm not sure about exposures, in manual, but I've been experimenting with manual portrait exposures, using flash compensation and experimenting adjusting the aperture, I guess its what you like in a shot.

I guess the mroe advanced you get the more you will rely on manual settings.


----------



## monkeykoder (Aug 29, 2008)

I'd say the more you rely on manual settings the better you get at understanding what it is that your camera is doing.


----------



## KD5NRH (Aug 29, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> Besides, get a hand held light meter, Mr. All-Manual.



What are you, some kind of gadget junkie?  Light a candle and compare the levels like a real manual man.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 30, 2008)

LOL!!!  Manhood seems to measured in lumens these days. 

You  guys are too funny!


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 30, 2008)

KD5NRH said:


> What are you, some kind of gadget junkie?  Light a candle and compare the levels like a real manual man.



I'm using a Watkins Bee Exposure Meter F/-Dial.

http://www.boxcameras.com/watkinsbee.html

No electronics.  You stick a piece of photo paper in it, and count how long it takes for it to turn dark.


----------



## RMThompson (Aug 30, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> I'd say the more you rely on manual settings the better you get at understanding what it is that your camera is doing.


 
I agree with this, but much like the cartoonist who must learn anatomy before he can exagerrate it correctly... are all photographers supposed to use manual because they can?

It seems to me that once you KNOW what your camera is trying to do in whatever mode you use (I prefer aperture prirority) then you can combat it how you want.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Aug 30, 2008)

Manual Everything is the Bees Knees sometimes - like when I'm doing macro work or anything in the studio.  But honestly, Aperture and Shutter priority with autofocus are much more useful in any situation where time efficiency is important.

And Pentax's TAv mode, Oh God! What a beautiful thing!  Set your aperture and shutter and the _ISO_ varies to compensate.  You can then quickly set upper and lower limits on the ISO and shoot away. All you do then is tweak the exposure compensation from shot to shot, depending on if your subject is backlit or whatnot.  For weddings, it's all I use.


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 5, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> What on Earth are you guys talking about??? Every manufacturer puts out a fully manual ONLY camera.
> 
> They just all neglect to provide the proper instructions. But any dummy can figure out how to superglue the mode wheel in the M position so I guess I don't blame them.



Beat me to it.... frankly I might just do that one day, but these days good digital bodies are still too expensive to molest.


----------

