Simple cameras (Page 10): Technically, Bebu - ANY camera which does NOT rely on the mirror and prism and uses interchangeable lenses - is a MILC. So, that would embrace ALL Leica...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

BebuLamar wrote:

A number of the Leica M digital cameras (not all as some do have liveview) do not have live view function nor EVF. They do have interchangeable lenses and they do not have mirror. Now if you consider these camera as MILCs then video functionality is no more essential than a DSLR. However, I do not consider these as MILCs.

Technically, Bebu - ANY camera which does NOT rely on the mirror and prism and uses interchangeable lenses - is a MILC. So, that would embrace ALL Leica digitals as well - rangefinder, or other ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

jack99 wrote:

A Pentax K200D is an older camera APS sensor... K-Mount DSLR. Takes great photos... Only 10.5 Pixels, NO VIDEO... however the images are very good.. Probably pick one up fairly cheap since It was purchased in 2008.

Pentax made some GREAT cameras, back in the day - didn't they, Jack? ... Gawd knows what's around the corner for them, next. Ricoh seems more interested in pushing their OWN designs, than promoting the KP, K-70, or K-1 II (FF) ... they've even abandoned the highly-touted K-3 series. Dunno what's up with Ricoh!

BebuLamar

Chris T wrote:

Technically, Bebu - ANY camera which does NOT rely on the mirror and prism and uses interchangeable lenses - is a MILC. So, that would embrace ALL Leica digitals as well - rangefinder, or other ...

Well if you call the camera simply mirrorless then any camera that doesn't have a mirror can be called mirrorless and I believe the very first camera ever made more than 100 years ago doesn't have a mirror.
If you call a MILC as "Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera" then they made those more than half a century ago including all the Leica RF, lots of the Nikon and Canon cameras before they used mirror in their cameras. But nobody called a camera mirrorless until around 2008 or 2010 I can't remember. Why so? Because the terms that we use either "Mirrorless" or "MILC" don't simply mean a camera without the mirror or without the mirror and support interchangeable lenses. Both terms really mean a camera that has all of the following features:
1. A digital camera. Film camera don't count.
2. Must support interchangeable lenses.
3. Must have either live view via the rear screen and/or an EVF to allow the user to compose with an image captured by the camera imaging sensor.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

BebuLamar wrote:

Well if you call the camera simply mirrorless then... (show quote)

Note, though, Bebu - I was careful to AVOID the term - "mirrorless" as that would embrace all bridges, and most Point&Shoots, too ... I ONLY used the term - MILC ...

ceallachain Loc: Cape May, NJ

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

ceallachain wrote:

I guess you're showing your appreciation of this defining of all these terms, huh, Cealla?

It's good to get it all out there, every once in a while. So many of us are clueless about these terms.

MILC - Mirror-less Interchangeable Lens Camera. Mirror-less - ANY camera design w/o a mirror.

DSLR - Digital Single Lens Reflex (requires a mirror and a prism.)

Rangefinder - camera which requires two different lenses - one for composition, the other for shooting.

le boecere

BebuLamar wrote:

Are you willing to pay more? Don't dream about a simpler camera if you are not willing to pay more.

You are quite correct. Although I have a vague idea of the concept of "economies of scale", I simply do not have the background and experience in camera manufacture that you and several others, here, apparently do.

Of course, the answer to your question is usually, "how much more?" ~ some of us might pay a bit more from such simplicity, but as the tariff increases, many of us would drop out.

le boecere

Bill P wrote:

Too little information to say. But I would pay more than for the same camera with all the unnecessary BS on it.

At the rate we are going, in five years cameras will come WITH the kitchen sink, wish the feature rush would go away like the once common HP race for cars.

Do you suppose that cameras "WITH the kitchen sink" will be simpler to understand, simpler to operate, and more dependable and maintenance-free? You know, like modern automobiles, refrigerators ~ stuff like that.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

le boecere wrote:

You are quite correct. Although I have a vague idea of the concept of "economies of scale", I simply do not have the background and experience in camera manufacture that you and several others, here, apparently do.

Of course, the answer to your question is usually, "how much more?" ~ some of us might pay a bit more from such simplicity, but as the tariff increases, many of us would drop out.

Are YOU willing to pay MORE to have less? ... Figure THESE into the equation:

Prices on Nikon Df - NO VIDEO

$2,996.95 - B&H - w/ 50mm f1.8 (silver)
$2,746.95 - B&H - body only (silver)
$2,735.00 - Amazon - body only (black)
$1,749.95 - Adorama - w/50 f1.8 (silver - SE) refurb by Nikon USA
$1,599.95 - Adorama - body only (silver) refurb by Nikon USA
$1,079.00 - Adorama - body only (silver) Used

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

le boecere wrote:

Do you suppose that cameras "WITH the kitchen sink" will be simpler to understand, simpler to operate, and more dependable and maintenance-free? You know, like modern automobiles, refrigerators ~ stuff like that.

I bought a "maintenance-free" kitchen sink in 2009. Three months ago, I had to replace the faucet. It cost me $650!!! ... The fridge I also bought that year, with an ice-maker/crusher built in, and also - supposedly "maintenance free" now has a number of problems - including the inability of the ice-maker to pass the ice through, and at times - it doesn't even want to MAKE the ice, plus - now, it no longer provides any water, either. The car I bought in 2016 was also supposed to be "maintenance-free" - but, now, it needs shocks, and quite possibly tyres - as these keep going flat. Plus - an oil change. It's a laugh - huh?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Chris T wrote:

I guess you're showing your appreciation of this defining of all these terms, huh, Cealla?

It's good to get it all out there, every once in a while. So many of us are clueless about these terms.

MILC - Mirror-less Interchangeable Lens Camera. Mirror-less - ANY camera design w/o a mirror.

DSLR - Digital Single Lens Reflex (requires a mirror and a prism.)

Rangefinder - camera which requires two different lenses - one for composition, the other for shooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lens_reflex_camera

A camera that has two lenses - one for composition, the other for shooting is called a twin lens reflex.

A rangefinder camera has just one lens (you do not look through it) that is coupled to a rangefinder in the body (the range finder is operated by the photographer to focus on the subject).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera

I have owned both types.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lens_reflex_camera

A camera that has two lenses - one for composition, the other for shooting is called a twin lens reflex.

A rangefinder camera has just one lens (you do not look through it) that is coupled to a rangefinder in the body (the range finder is operated by the photographer to focus on the subject).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera

I have owned both types.

Thanks for the clarification, Richard (I'd run outta space!)

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Chris T wrote:

Not sure that's an ideal solution, Alan ... I think I'd rather HAVE video capability when I need it, than NOT have it, at a time I find I need it ...

I'm kinda like that, with built-in flash, too ...

I suspect most of us - want it all ... when it comes down to it. Wonder how many Dfs Nikon sells ...

Well said. It's just my accidental "solution" since the 10 year old Sonys I own cost $250 each from ebay. They are poor cousins of present day models, but they work flawlessly, fit my very limited budget, and have all the features I need, with the help of a few of my old minolta lenses. I don't need to shoot birds a quarter mile away. I don't need to shoot in candle light. I don't need to go wide enough to see an entire town as one big vanishing point. For photographers who want to or need to do such things, I'm support their equipment decisions and expenditures. They just don't apply to mu budget and the kinds of images I aspire to. >Alan

Bill P

le boecere wrote:

Do you suppose that cameras "WITH the kitchen sink" will be simpler to understand, simpler to operate, and more dependable and maintenance-free? You know, like modern automobiles, refrigerators ~ stuff like that.

NO, I don't, and no I won't buy one.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

aellman wrote:

Well said. It's just my accidental "solution&... (show quote)

As long as you've found something that suits your needs - that's all that matters, Alan ...

I tried the Used Camera Route twice - once from Adorama, and the other time from B&H ... I'll never do THAT again!!!! ....