Simple camera for simple people

Just ask your dad for financial assistance instead of scamming kickstarter.

>>2928879
>Hello /p/.
>I dream of starting a camera company. I'm not so sure, if I ever have the chance to do so but that not the subject of this thread.
>My vision would be to make cameras that last a long time and are suitable for slow people. Modern cameras have tons of features and the models are refreshed every few years.
>In the old times cameras were simple and lasted a long time, because the technology developed slowly. Every camera had basically just the shutter speed dial, shutter release and aperture ring on the lens. A lot of accessories were also available, such as different types of viewfinders.
>I only use manual settings and automatic focus, because my D7100 doesn't have a proper focusing screen. I would like to bring back simplicity and modularity to cameras but I need something to balance the lack of modern features.
>My idea is that the body would remain unchanged for long periods of time, there wouldn't be a lot of electronics and most electronic components could be updated withoutbuying anew body. Manual focus, mechanical shutter, interchangeable image sensor, image processor and connectors, back screen would be an accessory, only manual settings... Basically imagine taking an old film camera and making it digital. I would also like thatusers could program apps and new features for the camera.
>So my question is this: what would this kind ofcamerahave to offer to make up for the lack of modern features? Also, should it be mirrorless or SLR?
>You would get a simple camera for landscape shooting and other slow photography and you wouldn't have to buy a new camera every few years but what else would you want? Should the electronics be in an interchangeable back, so that you could shoot film too? What image format should the camera be? What if the camera was waterproof without an underwater case? What kind of styling? Should it be useful for video too? Focal-plane or central shutter? Should the camera have light metering? All ideas are welcome.

wew

>>2928881
I wouldn't use crowdfunding but starting the company is purely a dream at this point. Now I just want to play around with the idea of designing a camera from a completely different point of view than most cameras these days.

>>2928879
Basically every camera you've listed already exists or existed in some shape or form. I don't think you've done your homework lad.

> Basically imagine taking an old film camera and making it digital

What is fuji?

>In the old times cameras were simple and lasted a long time, because the technology developed slowly

What is a Leica M6? They stopped making that mode in the late 90s based on a design from the 60s.

I really hate to break reality to you chap, you sound sweet and curious about the whole thing, but I'd heavily recommend doing some serious digging and realise that the evolution of cameras boils down to 3 key factors:

- Economy: Is it financially practical to make this kind of camera? Is it full of mechanical components that are obsolete compared to electronic?

- Marketing: How can a camera fill a market? If there is no one to buy it, what is even the point in getting up in the morning, walking to your notebook and writing down the first letter in a design project?

- Usability: I sense you want to create a "simple" digital camera that is timeless. Leica film cameras do that just fine, and so do a slew of other film cameras. Fuji is doing that with digital, smart design, brilliant features and excellent length of life. What you've listed in the usability section essentially would castrate your final design. You want to revert to a simpler time, at the sacrifice of features and basic things that are expected in the market these days.
>Basically imagine taking an old film camera and making it digital.

No lad, that's like saying, I want to take a modern car chassis and fit a steam engine. Why?

Companies have done this, and are still doing this stupid "reboot" meme. Take the kodak super 8 camcorder. It's an abomination, a $750 abomination. Why in fucks name would I want to buy a film camera and then have to digitize the resulting film? I can use a smart phone, or better yet, go to a charity shop and pick up a shitty film recorder.

>>2928997
Fuji's cameras have simple controls, which I like but the electronics inside them can't be changed. When sensor technology advances, you have to buy a whole new body. Leica has even simpler controls but their electronics get old too. They aren't timeless.

I'm not trying to create a camera that competes with cameras like the D810. This is camera that I would like to own and shoot but if I ever ended up manufacturing them, I need to think ways to make it appealing to a bit larger crowd. It's also fun to try to think, how could this kind of camera work.

>Is it financially practical to make this kind of camera?
Yes, as long as it offers something that other cameras don't. That's why this thread exists.

>Is it full of mechanical components that are obsolete compared to electronic?
Depends. Mechanical components last long and don't need battery power, so they are suitable for prolonging the product's life cycle and saving energy. This also helps in extremely cold environments, where batteries struggle to stay in charge (I live in Finland and shooting in the winter is bit of a hassle). Obviously electronic solutions have their benefits too, so this camera wouldn't be for everyone.

>How can a camera fill a market?
Again, by offering something that other cameras don't offer. Updating the electronics is a rare feature but that alone doesn't make the camera take better pictures. On the other hand it could be more affordable, which would help sell it.

>You want to revert to a simpler time, at the sacrifice of features and basic things that are expected in the market these days.
This camera is not for those people. It's for people like me. I don't need or use most of the features in my D7100.

>I want to take a modern car chassis and fit a steam engine.
You got it backwards. I want to take an old chassis and put a futuristic engine into it. I want to change features and workflow, not image quality.

>>2928879
>Simple camera for simple people
You could attach it to a telephone that has no wires.

>>2928997
My main inspirations for this are Leica, ALPA, Horseman and Hasselblad. They make simple and/or modular cameras but they cost too much. I want to design something similar but more useful and affordable.

Let's take a look at Leica for example. M cameras have very little features but they still sell well, because they offer great image quality. If you could update the electronics inside them, it would already be a lot better. ALPA is more modular but their form factor is a bit impractical. Horseman is a bit better. Hasselblads (and I'm talking about the old film cameras) are almost perfect. A lot of modularity, great form factor and easy to use.

Is this starting to make more sense? All of those cameras exist for a niche market but they have their place. My goal is to use the same design philosophy but improve the design somehow. Modularity and increased life cycle is a good start in my opinion and programmability is something new but I feel like there could be more innovations.
Kodak is not what I want to do.

>>2929041
When you think Leica, Hasselblad and Co. are bought because of the image quality or minimal features/design, then you didn't understand marketing at all.

>>2930462
Traditionally this was the case. Nowadays Leica is more of a luxury brand but the image quality is still there. Hasselblad is still mainly a very high end professional brand. Minimal features are a selling point for some Leica shooters.

I wonder, when will I get a comment that isn't off-topic...

>>2928879
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pseudo-film-canister-photography-innovation
You'll have better luck trying to just make an interchangeable sensor for old film bodies, which already last a long time.
There been a few failed startups for this throughout the years
You could try partnering with someone already working on it

OP, not everyone is you. You're better off just buy a split prism focusing screen for your Nikon and have fun shooting in manual. There's only a handful of people who want a camera as simple as a film camera. In that case, they save up for leica or suck it up and shoot film.

>>2932450
I don't it's a good idea to make accessories for cameras, which may or may not exists. I would have to choose a camera model and hope that customers own that model and are also interested in a niche accessory. Not much flexibility in terms expanding the system either or even supporting it, because the old camera can fail and then my product will become obsolete. It would also take away most of the fun of designing the whole system.

>>2932594
I know and I'm fully aware that I'm designing a product for a very a limited customer base. I shoot in a very old-fashioned way but surely I'm not the only one. There are a lot of cameras for people, who don't like the concept or it doesn't suit their needs and Leica is very bad value for money in my opinion and also a very limited system. Leica makes luxury products and that's not the plan here. Different way of shooting, more modularity and longer life cycle. You (like everyone else) also ignored the topic of this thread, which is to discuss possibilities to make this hypothetical "simple camera" appealing to more people.