Simple cameras (Page 5): Damn, that's the ticket. A digital version of the XA. Love mine, still have it, don't shoot it enough. Were it difital, I would shoot it more.

Bill P

Damn, that's the ticket. A digital version of the XA. Love mine, still have it, don't shoot it enough. Were it difital, I would shoot it more.

Bill P

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.

BebuLamar

Bill P wrote:

Damn, that's the ticket. A digital version of the XA. Love mine, still have it, don't shoot it enough. Were it difital, I would shoot it more.

The Sony RX-1 comes close in size. Doesn't have the clamshell design. Has a great price though.

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

NMGal wrote:

I would love to have a digital camera with no video or Wi-Fi. Menu would probably be two pages and manual maybe 20. Have dials for speed, ISO and exposure comp. Lenses with an aperture ring. Huge viewfinder, monitor for playback. Maybe a dial for color or b&w. Ah well, dream on. Will never happen.

Nikon already did such a camera, with the Df - a pro-level DSLR w/o any Video Capabilities, whatsoever.

Take a look, NM Gal ... Google it!!!

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Consider it a freebie. It's designed into the electronics and it would cost the manufacturer more to have two versions than just one. The only time I have used the video on any of several digital cameras I own has been when I accidentally was taking a video because the video selection button was placed in a bad spot by the designer.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Haydon wrote:

You're a little pedantic today Morrison. First mwsilvers & now me :)

Not you, just the word filmed. Absolutely nothing to do with you. I too say filmed from time to time when no film was involved. And, quite frankly, it has nothing to do with being fussy. I'm not picking on anyone, just making a conversational observation.

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

cambriaman wrote:

Consider it a freebie. It's designed into the electronics and it would cost the manufacturer more to have two versions than just one. The only time I have used the video on any of several digital cameras I own has been when I accidentally was taking a video because the video selection button was placed in a bad spot by the designer.

OR, because you accidentally triggered it, by mistake ... you mean, Cambria ...

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

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.

Remember the contest between Ford and General Motors to see which company could market the longest personal passenger vehicle, just to say theirs was bigger?!

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

HRBIEL wrote:

Just some food for thought. In the old days (pre d... (show quote)

Well after a few beers and reading some of the replies, I got to thinking your idea here would be appealing to 'maybe' and 'possibly' a lot of people out there who would like to have a basic camera without all the extended menu options and menu flows without all the confusing settings. Even an experienced shooter may like to have a 'quick draw' camera to whip out and grab the shot quickly and easily. I think options like ISO, shutter speed controls, etc. would be nice to have and help new enthusiasts not be so intimidated with all the multitudes of menu level features. But to keep it simple, easy to use, and of course more affordable. This is a good 'food for thought' idea you posted.
Bruce in Texas.

LMurray Loc: North Orange County, CA

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Remember the contest between Ford and General Motors to see which company could market the longest personal passenger vehicle, just to say theirs was bigger?!

Personal passenger vehicle? Do you mean car?

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

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Remember the contest between Ford and General Motors to see which company could market the longest personal passenger vehicle, just to say theirs was bigger?!

No, actually, R ... who won?

Lincoln, I bet !!!!

BebuLamar

riderxlx wrote:

Well after a few beers and reading some of the rep... (show quote)

But they simply won't make it. There are simpler cameras but they tend to cost more. The reason? Most people don't like simple cameras. So a simple one can't be sold in volume and that would drive cost up.

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

LMurray wrote:

Personal passenger vehicle? Do you mean car?

I reckon he meant car, L ... personal passenger vehicle = car ... right?

But, if you expaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand on that a bit, I guess it could mean - limousine - right?

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

BebuLamar wrote:

But they simply won't make it. There are simpler cameras but they tend to cost more. The reason? Most people don't like simple cameras. So a simple one can't be sold in volume and that would drive cost up.

Oh, really, Bebu ... ever heard of - the Hero Go-Pro?

American, too ...

riderxlx Loc: DFW area Texas

BebuLamar wrote:

But they simply won't make it. There are simpler cameras but they tend to cost more. The reason? Most people don't like simple cameras. So a simple one can't be sold in volume and that would drive cost up.

I agree you are very right. As I noted in my first reply this morning I mentioned this too. I guess I was just 'pipe dreaming' along with his post because it would be interesting to see how something like this would go over, knowing the marketability etc. factors we will not see this. Thank you for your reply. Really, I enjoy reading these,
Sincerely,
bruce