

Pentax Si - saint-loup
http://www.minimallyminimal.com/journal/2012/8/12/pentax-si.html

======
sbierwagen
Since when is an ILC like the NEX-5 "hard to use"? Set camera to auto, point,
shoot. Just because it has optional manual controls for expert users does not
mean you _have_ to use them.

There is a difference between "making controls that are minimal and simple"
and "an absolute monomaniacal fetish for minimalism". Cameras use different
settings for aperture and exposure, rather than a unified EV dial, because
those are two different things. If you can't control aperture, then you can't
control depth of field. If you can't control aperture, then the automatic
system might do something stupid, like expose a sunlit scene at F/2.0 and
1/1000, which will throw away lens sharpness. If you can't control shutter
speed, then you can't do dumb arty things with long exposures. Manual control
of both is critical for using a flash in a dark room, where the onboard
electronics cannot possibly know enough about the environment to expose it
correctly.

(I also like how all the text is on images. Beautifully minimal, impossible to
copy and paste, and impossible for a search engine to spider.)

------
DanBC
Many photographers have fond memories of their early SLR / rangefinder
cameras. Models such as the Olympus Trip or the Pentax ME were loved.

I like to think there's a niche in the market for a robust aluminum body; a
good sensor; fully manual settings; with a reasonable lens. There would be
lots of adaptors to use other lenses[1] and students could upgrade from "good
glass" to "really good glass" when they start work.

[1] This is much harder today, when even lenses have microprocessor in.

~~~
potatolicious
This exists - the Fuji X-Pro 1. To a lesser extent, also the Olympus OM-D.

~~~
snogglethorpe
I've tried both, and while they have their good points, neither really seems
to have the "magic" that all those nice little SLRs from that earlier era did
(Pentax ME[-super], Oly OM-1/2, etc).

* The Fuji X-pro 1 is big (though light), and seemed to me to have rather clunky handling, with poor viewfinder integration (although the X-pro 1 can display an electronic overlay in the VF, it seemed more confusing that useful; this, at least, might be solvable with software changes). It is also _very_ expensive.

* The Olympus OM-D has a nice small body and classic shape, but it feels kind of cheaply built, and it has one of the _worst_ electronic viewfinders I've ever used: very low res, and very flickery. [I find the horrible viewfinder on the OM-D particularly depressing because the market has recently seen a number of cameras released with _vastly_ better electronic VFs, e.g. the Sony NEX-7 and Alpha A77, and the Nikon V1. Clearly there's no technical problem with making a good EVF these days.]

The appeal of those classic little SLRs was that they were small, light, and
quite simple/straightforward to use, but also highly capable and very high
quality (and ... beautiful). They omitted gee-gaws without skimping on
essential features. In particular, their viewfinders were an absolute joy,
huge and bright, with minimal, but useful, information displayed.

Current trends, at least, suggest that camera makers are finally realizing
that viewfinder-less models aren't enough...

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Clearly there's no technical problem with making a good EVF these days."_

Sadly, Sony owns a number of OLED patents that prevents anyone from getting
anywhere close to the NEX-7's EVF performance. Personally I don't find the
OM-D's EVF to be that bad at all, but you're right, it's definitely not the
NEX-7.

The problem here is that the classic little SLRs existed because there wasn't
anything "better" for the professional shooters. Manual mode was all you got,
and the nature of film meant that you didn't need a bajillion menu items just
to get a picture out of the camera - white balance, resolution, file formats,
etc etc.

I suspect there is no longer a market for a such a thing. The
professional/high end of the market demands whiz-bang kitchen-sink featuresets
(to be fair, they actually use them), while the consumer/low end of the market
demands a whole other set of whiz-bang kitchen-sink featuresets (face
detection, a bajillion filter modes, etc).

The market for "barebones camera that does precisely and the basics and _only_
the basics" is vanishingly small. The X-Pro 1 was engineered pretty much for
this market, but it has, as you pointed out, so many concessions on the
concept that it's not very compelling.

Honestly, your best bet for that is still the Leica M9.

~~~
snogglethorpe
> _Sadly, Sony owns a number of OLED patents that prevents anyone from getting
> anywhere close to the NEX-7's EVF performance._

Hmm, maybe Nikon licenses them, 'cause the V1's EVF is absolutely excellent
too.

> _Honestly, your best bet for that is still the Leica M9._

Yeah, if I had vast wealth, I'd totally pick one up... :[

------
leephillips
I wouldn't enjoy taking pictures with this: no viewfinder.

