>tfw no small retro DSLR camera
Yeah you can say there is the Nikon Df but it's xbox hueg and I want the small ones.
The Olympus OM-D and Fuji X series don't cut it not because they don't have the *clack* *clack* sounds of an SLR.
Please Nikon, Pentax and Olympus make this camera possible.
Pic highly related. Why can't they make a DSLR with similar size? An APS-C sized sensor is more than enough.
>>2689547
sony a7 makes clack noise.
dslr are fat for a reason. kid.
>>2689563
>sony a7
OP mentioned retro design.
>>2689570
and he wants a DSLR, not mirrorless.
>>2689547
Those two are huge compared to pic related anyway
>>2689812
>Those two are huge compared to pic related anyway
OP here. I am thinking of the Pentax Q-S1 but man I tried it but still prefer the OVF of the slrs. Also, I really want the *clack* *clack* sounds. Is it really hard to make a small DSLRs?
>>2690052
rabal sl1.
>>2690052
>Is it really hard to make a small DSLRs?
No, it isn't, but people don't want one.
The closest you'll come is like a K-5, check that out. those are uncomfortably small.
>>2690061
But I don't want the modern black bodies with grip. I prefer the small retro looks.
If the Olympus OM-D or the Fuji X series were DSLRs, they would be perfect.
>>2689547
All I want is a digital back for my 35mm SLRs, even though making something like that is basically impossible. A man can dream
>>2690126
hey retard, the OM-D and Fuji-X are mirrorless for a reason - they can make smaller bodies when you don't have to account for making room for the pentaprism and focus distance of a DSLR.
You will never make a sensor + circuitry as thin as a sheet of negatives.
So stop being a whiny hipster moaning about how the "clack clack" sound is the most important part of photography for you. Christ. If I could reach through the screen and slap you like the little bitch that you are, I would.
>>2690145
>Christ. If I could reach through the screen and slap you like the little bitch that you are, I would.
Take it easy man. What's the matter? Did your mom didn't buy you the lens you've been asking all summer? It's fine by me for you to vent all that faggotry here but man I'm not afraid to take you on everywhere.
>You will never make a sensor + circuitry as thin as a sheet of negatives.
Well that's probably the answer I've been looking for. You don't need to be a dick about it. You're still an asshole though.
>>2690140
>You will never make a sensor + circuitry as thin as a sheet of negatives.
I would want that as well but it will never happen. I would enjoy if my Pentax ME Super has a digital back.
>>2689547
This is relevant to you, OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5z-Q4po4M
You've got the mx-1 that was a retro compact.
>>2690171
>>You will never make a sensor + circuitry as thin as a sheet of negatives.
>
>I would want that as well but it will never happen. I would enjoy if my Pentax ME Super has a digital back.
It would be very possible. Put the majority of the circuitry where the casette is held in place, and around where the film spools up when you wind it. It would be niche as fuck, and would just be a sensor, MAYBE a small screen though. It just wouldn't be worth it to any of the existing companies. Maybe some hipsters will start a kickstarter if they figure it out.
>>2690140
>>2690233
People have tried before but everything so far has either been an april fools prank or never made it past the concept stage.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Janice Image-Specific Properties:
>>2690285
vaporware.
>>2690318
No shit. Not even him but did you even read the post or the image name? Flexible sensors are further out than curved sensors, and even Sony hasn't made a production curved sensor yet.
A lot of the thickness of a DSLR over a film SLR is in the LCD screen on the rear, which obviously has to go behind the sensor and mirrorbox. If you dump the screen you could make a Pentax MX sized DSLR, but a digital camera with no screen on it won't sell. You'd probably also need to cut the features down to something resembling a film SLR of that size, too. ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and focus (in Pentax and Nikon land, you'd probably need to give up screwdrive autofocus, too, for want of space to put a motor) And probably one or two other things like exposure compensation and DoF preview. Certainly wouldn't have a flash. This stuff limits your market since even the "oh hey, cool, it's so retro" buyers expect modern bells and whistles.
I'd buy one, of course, I have one of those old Pentax SLRs and I love it. But we ain't the majority of the market here.
>>2690368
>a digital camera with no screen on it won't sell
not unless you want to pay $20k for one :^)
>>2690371
This can't be more expensive to produce than the M240. If this was $2000, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
>>2690368
Screens aren't that thick.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 479
>>2691098
I genuinely like the idea of having a digital camera with no screen. I just wish that it would make the camera cheaper, not more expensive.
The only other digital camera I've seen without a screen is a shitty one that I had in the early 2000's that held about 20-30 really poor quality photos in internal memory. You had to hope the batteries didn't die before you copied them to your computer too, because if they died or you took them out, all your photos would be gone.
Similar to pic related, but it was round instead of rectangular
>>2690140
It's just a matter of time now, the A7 is getting cheaper and cheaper.
The ideal camera for that would be the RX1, but the A7 might be compact enought.
>>2691507
Cameras with broken screens will be dirt cheap.
You can probably find a D800 or 5Dmk3 less than $500.
>>2689547
still suffering the disappointment of the Df. I really don't know what Nikon was thinking.
It is like they looked at the success of Fuji and tried to pull it off themselves. Then systematically threw out everything that could have made it a good idea.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D4 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh) Photographer K-pture Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.9 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 850 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 105 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:12:06 10:31:15 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/3.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/3.0 Exposure Bias 2.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 105.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>no screen
>extremely compact
>retro style
>inexpensive
What are you waiting for?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1483 Image Height 1028 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:11:04 20:57:53 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 750 Image Height 452
>>2690285
I saw the Canon F-1 and whinced a bit cause I knew it was too good to be true
>>2690285
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/23/digital-conversion-kit-will-let-pack-sony-a7-full-frame-sensor-inside-leica-m3/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 83 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1200 Image Height 660 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:09:12 15:01:27 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 3.7 EV Exposure Bias 0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 352 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2690061
>>2690145
>Small, retro style DSLR with no grip
>Durr just git mirrorless
Ahem
>>2691635
I love the looks of old retro cameras even that of Nikons like the Nikon FE even the small EM but man Nikon Df looks ugly as hell I don't know why.
>>2690180
>if the camera is competing with digital rebel like a d3300 and instead of a full frame it has a 16MP crop sensor, smaller body and has a price tag of $700 I would definitely buy one
OP here and I would have to agree.
>>2691735
smallest DSLR and smallest interchangeable lense FF
The 420 is comfortable because it's very light, especially with that pancake lens. But it has no stabilization.
>>2689547
just get a canon g5x
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7S Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/5.6 ISO Speed Rating 1250 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 65.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto
>>2692303
first gen a7 is the smallest.
a7ii are fat.
I'll just leave this here.
>>2692338
Oh god, if that was real...
>>2692333
#HAES
I own the OM-D EM10 and honestly I kind of wished it didnt have that retro look cause it adds fucking nothing to the camera and you just look like a tool and attract all sorts of unwanted attention with it
Not to mention the ergonomics of retro slrs kind of suck, dont get me wrong I love my AE-1 to bits but cameras have come a long way since then
If you want that CLACK CLACK sound go kill yourself youre probably the kind of person who buys cars for their artifically engineered engine sound
>>2689547
canon SL1. it's small, real SLR optical viewfinder, APSC sensor, takes all the canon glass with AF.
seriously, it's about the same size as my 50/1.2, and seems to weigh less.
>>2692303
Th e620 is just as small as the e420, and has both IS and a fully articulating screen
>>2692490
I didn't have monies back then.
E 420 + 14-42 + 40-150 (2x crop factor, so 28-84 + 80 - 300) at 350€ was an excellent deal... for a noob like me... for my first "real" camera...
>>2689547
My fuji X-T10 makes a pretty noticeable shutter noise, only goes away if I use the electronic shutter.
>>2692357
>CLACK CLACK
>artifically engineered engine sound
>>2692530
How good is the OVF of the Fuji XT10?
>>2691635
that looks retarded, what on earth were they thinking?
>>2690055
*newfag
>>2692627
It's an EVF, not an OVF, but it's brilliant, I'm never going back to an optical. Display changes with aperture, ISO, SS, and has a live display histogram/any info you might need right there. No noticeable lag, might as well be an Optical in that regard.
>>2695664
>How can we cash in on these hipsters begging for a digital FM2 while making as little actual effort as possible?
>Let's just take a regular fat lumpy DSLR and paint it silver and put knobs all over it, nobody will notice!
>>2692357
What kind of unwanted attention?
