My dream full-frame camera.

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Mark B.
Forum ProPosts: 14,891Gear list
Like?
Re: Film has nothing to do with it
In reply to Doss, 5 months ago

Doss wrote:

Mark B. wrote:

robin t wrote:

So keep the LCD turned off. There will never, ever, be a digital camera produced w/o a screen.

Yes, there has been and there still are. eg Miniature 'spy' cameras don't have a screen as it keeps down size,weight and battery-drain.

If that's what you truly want, you'll need to produce it yourself or paint over it with permanent black paint.

That's like someone saying you must have a satellite dish on the side of your house when you only ever watch DVD's.

Someone that only watches DVDs only needs a stand-alone DVD player. There is never going to be a digital camera w/o an LCD.

Please read some of the previous replies to save repetition...your point has already been made as has the counter-argument.

Indicator in the viewfinder for light meter.
Manual shutter wind.

Not sure I understand this one. There's nothing to wind.

on film cameras the winder served to reset the shutter curtain as well as move on the film. Though I can't see a curtain reset using that much power.

Full manual controls, and works with legacy manual lenses.
Full frame sensor.

Sounds like what you really want is to go back to a film body. They're very cheap now, you should be able to pick up a top quality body for very little. I've no interest in the least, but would never begrudge someone else for using whatever they want.

Not sure of the last sentence being true, my friend :o

What you don't get is that by saying we should go back to film you don't understand your tool. If you had to go back to film which would you choose: a Canon EOS or an AE-1? Completely different 35mm film cameras - Just as we would like the choice of completely different 35mm digital cameras. Is that ok?

These days the sorts who opted for an F801, or EOS are catered for. We're the ones who opted for an AE-1, or OMD1, or F3. Why? Because we wanted control and reliability over automation and, what we perceive to be, weaknesses and things that simply get in the way of our photography.

Whatever. All I'm saying is that what the OP is wishing for is just not going to come to pass unless he pays a manufacturer to custom build it. Relatively speaking, there are very few people who want a digital camera without an LCD or with a manual winder. There are other ways to use fully manual lenses with adapters, but again it's not something an OEM is going to be interested in mass producing. DSLRs are already hurting. Manufacturers aren't going to produce special interest DSLRs when their mass-produced models are experiencing declining sales. It's a poor business model.

Mark

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darklamp
Senior MemberPosts: 3,311
Like?
More misty eyed views of the past
In reply to Doss, 5 months ago

I could also purchase a 3rd party split screen for my dSLR but the viewfinder will still be darker and smaller and harder to focus than anything I owned pre-AF, so it will still be a step-backwards

This is another of those rose colored glasses things.

Get a modern full frame DSLR with a pentaprism and a a split focus screen ( eBay $20 ? ) and just exactly how is it less light than a typical SLR in film days ?

I just checked and DPR's feature search reports a whole bunch of full frame DSLRs with 100% viewfinder coverage and pentaprisms. It's simply not possible to make a full frame viewfinder brighter than that.

And a split screen is a split screen. A split screen from film days isn't going to be miraculously easier to use that one modern days. If anything it should be better now - coatings and optical processes and glasses have developed. It's hard to see how they could become worse.

So did the physics of light change since film days ?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,435
Like?
Re: More misty eyed views of the past
In reply to darklamp, 5 months ago

darklamp wrote:

I could also purchase a 3rd party split screen for my dSLR but the viewfinder will still be darker and smaller and harder to focus than anything I owned pre-AF, so it will still be a step-backwards

This is another of those rose colored glasses things.

Well, if you'd looked through a manual focus SLR viewfinder you'd know it's not tinted at all

Get a modern full frame DSLR with a pentaprism and a a split focus screen ( eBay $20 ? ) and just exactly how is it less light than a typical SLR in film days ?

I put your assumptions against realiity: Personally, I noticed the difference because I use both AF and 'typical' film SLR. I noticed the difference clearly.

So - picture me NOT wearing rose tinted glasses but camera binoculars (anyone who doubts me please try this at home, or your local store)....

Take your dSLR and hold the eyepiece to one eye, then take any old manual focus SLR and hold it to the other eye. Now, tell me you don't see the difference.

I just checked and DPR's feature search reports a whole bunch of full frame DSLRs with 100% viewfinder coverage and pentaprisms.

100% is nothing to do with apparent magnification.

It's simply not possible to make a full frame viewfinder brighter than that.

Grrrr! If you'd read my previous posts properly you'd see that it is possible and I've explained why. With due respect, please stop posting the same argument without having read the counter-argument as it defeats the point of the debate.

And a split screen is a split screen. A split screen from film days isn't going to be miraculously easier to use that one modern days. If anything it should be better now - coatings and optical processes and glasses have developed. It's hard to see how they could become worse.

So did the physics of light change since film days ?

No, the physics of the reflex changed. I'll speak up for you: THE LIGHT GETS SPLIT OFF TO THE AF SENSORS. Yes, that little half-mirror thing. Less light through the prism means the viewfinders aren't just less bright, but also have a smaller size to allow for the loss.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ambercool
Contributing MemberPosts: 636Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

You're not wrong.  If a company provided a full frame camera with just the manual settings then they wouldn't make any money.  They make money on the extras that they put in to justify the cost.

I think a good example is where I live.  Having an apartment itself in a really good town still shouldn't cost that much.  But the amenities fee is ~$600 and I don't use the pool, spa, gym, bb court, dog wash, bus, tech room, lounge, and Starbucks machine.  On top of that I don't even cook so the $600 I'm probably paying for my nice kitchen with a granite top and cherry wood goes to waste also.

That's $1,200 that I would like to opt out of, but I can't.  I will pay that because it's a safe place, had friends that lived there and liked it, and the room layout is my style.

Can't have a rose without the thorns.    Oh well...

-- hide signature --

-Viet
"Luck come to those who do"

 ambercool's gear list:ambercool's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Nikon D70 Olympus E-5 Sony Alpha 7 Leica Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 ASPH +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Osssis
Regular MemberPosts: 347Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

So basically you need that waporware electronic film and you are good to go! or a digital back for old slr.

The problem with digital is that you can't get that superior battery-life if you use sensor that needs power. Unless you can generate enough electricity with that advancing lever ;)!

Actually digital back for a slr would be still pretty plausible to make if you had a certain model that you could make it and sell bucket loads of them. The market is probably too niche though for any practical use as it would require everyone to have that specific camera or them to get it. You would have to make it so that the the backplate is switched and batteries & electronics are in a different compartment. Preferably under the camera in vertical grip. Medium format backs seem to be too deep and give you a good example on much that digital back could cost. See Nikon The Hawkeye II for example.

If the cost was decent I would most certainly want one for Minolta 9000 as it has AF and advancing lever!

 Osssis's gear list:Osssis's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Samsung NX11 Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 30,001
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to Osssis, 5 months ago

Osssis wrote:

So basically you need that waporware electronic film and you are good to go! or a digital back for old slr.

The problem with digital is that you can't get that superior battery-life if you use sensor that needs power. Unless you can generate enough electricity with that advancing lever ;)!

Actually digital back for a slr would be still pretty plausible to make if you had a certain model that you could make it and sell bucket loads of them. The market is probably too niche though for any practical use as it would require everyone to have that specific camera or them to get it. You would have to make it so that the the backplate is switched and batteries & electronics are in a different compartment. Preferably under the camera in vertical grip. Medium format backs seem to be too deep and give you a good example on much that digital back could cost. See Nikon The Hawkeye II for example.

If the cost was decent I would most certainly want one for Minolta 9000 as it has AF and advancing lever!

The problem with a 'digital back' is that you can't get the sensor up to the focal plane, unless you have a sub-size sensor which protrudes into the film gate (as in the Leica DM-R) - which negates the OP's 'dream FF camera') - your Nikon Hawkeye had a tiny sensor. Even then, there is no room for an AA filter (these days people seem willing to do without, for better or worse) or an effective IR block filter to clear the shutter - a problem which plagued the earlier digital Leicas. Then, of course the camera will still bulge at the back, because it needs a PCB for the electronics. In the end you get a clumsy package which will cost a packet, for what? Something much less functional than just buying a modern digital camera. It should be noted that the Leica, M8, M9 and M are not simply old M series with sensors, they are completely re-engineered cameras with zero commonality with film M series (apart from the VF system) - that amount of R&D expenditure for the small sales volume means they have to sell for $6k +.

Seeing all these 'ideal camera' threads, I costed out once to see if one could make a viable business converting classic film SLRs. It just doesn't make sense.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
darklamp
Senior MemberPosts: 3,311
Like?
Re: More misty eyed views of the past
In reply to Doss, 5 months ago

No, the physics of the reflex changed. I'll speak up for you: THE LIGHT GETS SPLIT OFF TO THE AF SENSORS. Yes, that little half-mirror thing. Less light through the prism means the viewfinders aren't just less bright, but also have a smaller size to allow for the loss.

If you can detect this small difference I would have to regard you as having exceptional abilities or, more likely, your confirmation bias is kicking in and you're seeing what you want to see.

It's clear that no matter what anyone says you're going to cling to your silliness, but you and the other Luddites can cling together and without a camera, because no-one is going to make what you want.

I've said this before - if you lot think this is economically viable then build it and try selling it. You'll loose your shirt and you won;t have to worry about buying any cameras.

At the risk of offending your Luddite heart, get a MILC. No light loss and the viewfinders are bright and clear. Magnified views and focus peaking to aid focus on many models.

Or get one of the many viewfinder like attachments that fit over the LCD - Nice big viewfinders as bright as the screen ( brighter, in fact as it's projected over a smaller area ).

I'm sure you'll reject all of these as somehow or other inferior to a "proper" viewfinder, but it's something that works for an awful o lot of people who apparently lack your high standards or something.

Twentieth century - dead. Move on.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,435
Like?
Re: More misty eyed views of the past
In reply to darklamp, 5 months ago

darklamp wrote:

No, the physics of the reflex changed. I'll speak up for you: THE LIGHT GETS SPLIT OFF TO THE AF SENSORS. Yes, that little half-mirror thing. Less light through the prism means the viewfinders aren't just less bright, but also have a smaller size to allow for the loss.

If you can detect this small difference I would have to regard you as having exceptional abilities or, more likely, your confirmation bias is kicking in and you're seeing what you want to see.

OK - so I'll take it you are going to continue to argue I'm wrong without actually picking up an old 35mm MF and seeing for yourself.

Really, sometimes coming to this forum is like arguing with a fundamentalist! Mention logic and they get upset and resorts to insults!

It's clear that no matter what anyone says you're going to cling to your silliness, but you and the other Luddites can cling together and without a camera

OK, Let's just agree to disagree. Take it easy darklamp.  Bye.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,435
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to ambercool, 5 months ago

ambercool wrote:

You're not wrong. If a company provided a full frame camera with just the manual settings then they wouldn't make any money. They make money on the extras that they put in to justify the cost.

I think a good example is where I live. Having an apartment itself in a really good town still shouldn't cost that much. But the amenities fee is ~$600 and I don't use the pool, spa, gym, bb court, dog wash, bus, tech room, lounge, and Starbucks machine. On top of that I don't even cook so the $600 I'm probably paying for my nice kitchen with a granite top and cherry wood goes to waste also.

That's $1,200 that I would like to opt out of, but I can't. I will pay that because it's a safe place, had friends that lived there and liked it, and the room layout is my style.

Can't have a rose without the thorns. Oh well...

-- hide signature --

-Viet
"Luck come to those who do"

Yep, you could have an apartment for far less. But they ain't going to give you that option. not because of costs, or physics, but because of marketing. Such is reality.

But we can still dream

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
robin t
New MemberPosts: 9
Like?
Re: More misty eyed views of the past
In reply to darklamp, 5 months ago

darklamp wrote:

No, the physics of the reflex changed. I'll speak up for you: THE LIGHT GETS SPLIT OFF TO THE AF SENSORS. Yes, that little half-mirror thing. Less light through the prism means the viewfinders aren't just less bright, but also have a smaller size to allow for the loss.

If you can detect this small difference I would have to regard you as having exceptional abilities or, more likely, your confirmation bias is kicking in and you're seeing what you want to see.

It's clear that no matter what anyone says you're going to cling to your silliness, but you and the other Luddites can cling together and without a camera, because no-one is going to make what you want.

I've said this before - if you lot think this is economically viable then build it and try selling it. You'll loose your shirt and you won;t have to worry about buying any cameras.

At the risk of offending your Luddite heart, get a MILC. No light loss and the viewfinders are bright and clear. Magnified views and focus peaking to aid focus on many models.

Or get one of the many viewfinder like attachments that fit over the LCD - Nice big viewfinders as bright as the screen ( brighter, in fact as it's projected over a smaller area ).

I'm sure you'll reject all of these as somehow or other inferior to a "proper" viewfinder, but it's something that works for an awful o lot of people who apparently lack your high standards or something.

Twentieth century - dead. Move on.

Darklamp you are ridiculous. There is a huge difference. OP here, and I am actively seeking ways to figure out how to take my photography into the 21st century. Part of that was borrowing my friends D600 for the evening last night. I brought my F2 and three AI lenses. We played with the lenses on the D600 for a few hours. My friend, who does weddings, etc, loved the 50mm 1.4, but we both agreed it was almost unfocussable in dim light. The difference with the F2's viewfinder was HUGE. It's not a 'small difference', it's not 'confirmation bias', it is simply that there is about half the light coming through the D600's OVF. On top of that the focus circle makes an even bigger difference. If you need numbers for your technocratic heart, I'd estimate it's 150% easier focussing the F2.

Granted, daylight would be different, but the point is that the OVF on that super fancy high tech camera is not built for focussing.

This is just another situation where the technology is not just offering an extra functionality, it is taking away from the original functionality, which is what we enjoyed about photography.

For my part, I have no hankerings for the past, and no problems with technology in general. I'm just a geek who knows what I like and isn't willing to accept that all this technology can't provide it eventually. And I do think that technology can provide it, as all these mechanisms and chips and motors, etc will continue to get smaller to the point that they can make a full frame camera look like an F2 or a fish or a hotdog or whatever the hell they want. And I hope at that point, they know that some people don't want all their bulls**t extras, and would like to focus manually. That's why we're writing about it here, and I think it's coming a lot sooner than y'all wanna believe.

And if it don't come from Nikon or Cannon, it'll come from somewhere else, when all your precious technology coughs up an open source, 3D printed, individually tailored digital F2, cause all that technology is changing so fast and becoming so much cheaper that custom, short factory runs are going to be far more the norm in 'the future'.

Finally, I'd say that if you fancy yourself a technology forecaster, you're doing a pretty bad job. If you'd open you're eyes and look around you'd see your precious 21st century awash with inefficient, low-tech products coming back because people like them. Vinyl records, I'd imagine, just make your skin crawl, huh? Those dumb luddites! What about tube amps? Heavy, soft-sounding and super expensive! But they're back! And even cameras like the XT-1 and the Alpha 7 point to people wanting and paying for a camera that feels like a good, ol-time manual SLR.

Your problem is you are applying 20th century production economics to 21st century consumer ideals. You're all humped up on Fordanomics and 'production lines' that you're missing the kickstarter-decentralized-consumer-and-ideas-driven production modes of the 21st century. So take off your soot-coloured glasses and walk through that door. I'll be there to take a wide-open, manually focussed shot of your shocked mug with my digital F2.

Who's the luddite now?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark B.
Forum ProPosts: 14,891Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to bobn2, 5 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

Osssis wrote:

So basically you need that waporware electronic film and you are good to go! or a digital back for old slr.

The problem with digital is that you can't get that superior battery-life if you use sensor that needs power. Unless you can generate enough electricity with that advancing lever ;)!

Actually digital back for a slr would be still pretty plausible to make if you had a certain model that you could make it and sell bucket loads of them. The market is probably too niche though for any practical use as it would require everyone to have that specific camera or them to get it. You would have to make it so that the the backplate is switched and batteries & electronics are in a different compartment. Preferably under the camera in vertical grip. Medium format backs seem to be too deep and give you a good example on much that digital back could cost. See Nikon The Hawkeye II for example.

If the cost was decent I would most certainly want one for Minolta 9000 as it has AF and advancing lever!

The problem with a 'digital back' is that you can't get the sensor up to the focal plane, unless you have a sub-size sensor which protrudes into the film gate (as in the Leica DM-R) - which negates the OP's 'dream FF camera') - your Nikon Hawkeye had a tiny sensor. Even then, there is no room for an AA filter (these days people seem willing to do without, for better or worse) or an effective IR block filter to clear the shutter - a problem which plagued the earlier digital Leicas. Then, of course the camera will still bulge at the back, because it needs a PCB for the electronics. In the end you get a clumsy package which will cost a packet, for what? Something much less functional than just buying a modern digital camera. It should be noted that the Leica, M8, M9 and M are not simply old M series with sensors, they are completely re-engineered cameras with zero commonality with film M series (apart from the VF system) - that amount of R&D expenditure for the small sales volume means they have to sell for $6k +.

Seeing all these 'ideal camera' threads, I costed out once to see if one could make a viable business converting classic film SLRs. It just doesn't make sense.

-- hide signature --

Bob

It didn't even make sense in the early days of digital.  Google 'silicon film'; there was a firm that explored a digital sensor drop-in that replaced film.  It never panned out.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 30,001
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to Mark B., 5 months ago

Mark B. wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Osssis wrote:

So basically you need that waporware electronic film and you are good to go! or a digital back for old slr.

The problem with digital is that you can't get that superior battery-life if you use sensor that needs power. Unless you can generate enough electricity with that advancing lever ;)!

Actually digital back for a slr would be still pretty plausible to make if you had a certain model that you could make it and sell bucket loads of them. The market is probably too niche though for any practical use as it would require everyone to have that specific camera or them to get it. You would have to make it so that the the backplate is switched and batteries & electronics are in a different compartment. Preferably under the camera in vertical grip. Medium format backs seem to be too deep and give you a good example on much that digital back could cost. See Nikon The Hawkeye II for example.

If the cost was decent I would most certainly want one for Minolta 9000 as it has AF and advancing lever!

The problem with a 'digital back' is that you can't get the sensor up to the focal plane, unless you have a sub-size sensor which protrudes into the film gate (as in the Leica DM-R) - which negates the OP's 'dream FF camera') - your Nikon Hawkeye had a tiny sensor. Even then, there is no room for an AA filter (these days people seem willing to do without, for better or worse) or an effective IR block filter to clear the shutter - a problem which plagued the earlier digital Leicas. Then, of course the camera will still bulge at the back, because it needs a PCB for the electronics. In the end you get a clumsy package which will cost a packet, for what? Something much less functional than just buying a modern digital camera. It should be noted that the Leica, M8, M9 and M are not simply old M series with sensors, they are completely re-engineered cameras with zero commonality with film M series (apart from the VF system) - that amount of R&D expenditure for the small sales volume means they have to sell for $6k +.

Seeing all these 'ideal camera' threads, I costed out once to see if one could make a viable business converting classic film SLRs. It just doesn't make sense.

-- hide signature --

Bob

It didn't even make sense in the early days of digital. Google 'silicon film'; there was a firm that explored a digital sensor drop-in that replaced film. It never panned out.

The "Silicon film' was always a non starter, not far off a con, but the early digital SLRs were precisely film SLRs with digital backs. The SLR usually needed some modification, though, like removal of the film gate and of course they were very expensive. I think the D1 was the first designed for digital SLR unless you count the Contax N, which was a film camera designed with a digital version in mind (actually, the first FF DSLR). And of course the original Canon 1D was very much a modified 1V.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
robin t
New MemberPosts: 9
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to ambercool, 5 months ago

ambercool wrote:

You're not wrong. If a company provided a full frame camera with just the manual settings then they wouldn't make any money. They make money on the extras that they put in to justify the cost.

I think a good example is where I live. Having an apartment itself in a really good town still shouldn't cost that much. But the amenities fee is ~$600 and I don't use the pool, spa, gym, bb court, dog wash, bus, tech room, lounge, and Starbucks machine. On top of that I don't even cook so the $600 I'm probably paying for my nice kitchen with a granite top and cherry wood goes to waste also.

That's $1,200 that I would like to opt out of, but I can't. I will pay that because it's a safe place, had friends that lived there and liked it, and the room layout is my style.

Can't have a rose without the thorns. Oh well...

-- hide signature --

-Viet
"Luck come to those who do"

See this is a case of differing viewpoints. You wouldn't have a cheaper place because you have weighed the pros and cons and think the increased rent is worth it. But there are cheaper places available, if you can live without the amenities. The difference with cameras is that I don't have the choice of living without autofocus, tech-heavy, weight-heavy, and straight-out massive DSLRs that exist today. It wouldn't be so bad if in the past we didn't have light, straight-forward, manually controlled SLRs. We did though, and now with all this technology, we're not allowed to have that anymore. Ridiculous. Which is why I'm posting this, and why many people agree. Again, and for the zillionth time, the camera I'd like will appear at some point.

And any of you arguing that I'm a luddite please see my reply to Darklamp. Cause you luddite haters are all luddites in my eyes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,140Gear list
Like?
Re: More misty eyed views of the past
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

robin t wrote:

darklamp wrote:

No, the physics of the reflex changed. I'll speak up for you: THE LIGHT GETS SPLIT OFF TO THE AF SENSORS. Yes, that little half-mirror thing. Less light through the prism means the viewfinders aren't just less bright, but also have a smaller size to allow for the loss.

If you can detect this small difference I would have to regard you as having exceptional abilities or, more likely, your confirmation bias is kicking in and you're seeing what you want to see.

It's clear that no matter what anyone says you're going to cling to your silliness, but you and the other Luddites can cling together and without a camera, because no-one is going to make what you want.

I've said this before - if you lot think this is economically viable then build it and try selling it. You'll loose your shirt and you won;t have to worry about buying any cameras.

At the risk of offending your Luddite heart, get a MILC. No light loss and the viewfinders are bright and clear. Magnified views and focus peaking to aid focus on many models.

Or get one of the many viewfinder like attachments that fit over the LCD - Nice big viewfinders as bright as the screen ( brighter, in fact as it's projected over a smaller area ).

I'm sure you'll reject all of these as somehow or other inferior to a "proper" viewfinder, but it's something that works for an awful o lot of people who apparently lack your high standards or something.

Twentieth century - dead. Move on.

Darklamp you are ridiculous. There is a huge difference. OP here, and I am actively seeking ways to figure out how to take my photography into the 21st century. Part of that was borrowing my friends D600 for the evening last night. I brought my F2 and three AI lenses. We played with the lenses on the D600 for a few hours. My friend, who does weddings, etc, loved the 50mm 1.4, but we both agreed it was almost unfocussable in dim light. The difference with the F2's viewfinder was HUGE. It's not a 'small difference', it's not 'confirmation bias', it is simply that there is about half the light coming through the D600's OVF. On top of that the focus circle makes an even bigger difference. If you need numbers for your technocratic heart, I'd estimate it's 150% easier focussing the F2.

Granted, daylight would be different, but the point is that the OVF on that super fancy high tech camera is not built for focussing.

This is just another situation where the technology is not just offering an extra functionality, it is taking away from the original functionality, which is what we enjoyed about photography.

For my part, I have no hankerings for the past, and no problems with technology in general. I'm just a geek who knows what I like and isn't willing to accept that all this technology can't provide it eventually. And I do think that technology can provide it, as all these mechanisms and chips and motors, etc will continue to get smaller to the point that they can make a full frame camera look like an F2 or a fish or a hotdog or whatever the hell they want. And I hope at that point, they know that some people don't want all their bulls**t extras, and would like to focus manually. That's why we're writing about it here, and I think it's coming a lot sooner than y'all wanna believe.

And if it don't come from Nikon or Cannon, it'll come from somewhere else, when all your precious technology coughs up an open source, 3D printed, individually tailored digital F2, cause all that technology is changing so fast and becoming so much cheaper that custom, short factory runs are going to be far more the norm in 'the future'.

Finally, I'd say that if you fancy yourself a technology forecaster, you're doing a pretty bad job. If you'd open you're eyes and look around you'd see your precious 21st century awash with inefficient, low-tech products coming back because people like them. Vinyl records, I'd imagine, just make your skin crawl, huh? Those dumb luddites! What about tube amps? Heavy, soft-sounding and super expensive! But they're back! And even cameras like the XT-1 and the Alpha 7 point to people wanting and paying for a camera that feels like a good, ol-time manual SLR.

Your problem is you are applying 20th century production economics to 21st century consumer ideals. You're all humped up on Fordanomics and 'production lines' that you're missing the kickstarter-decentralized-consumer-and-ideas-driven production modes of the 21st century. So take off your soot-coloured glasses and walk through that door. I'll be there to take a wide-open, manually focussed shot of your shocked mug with my digital F2.

Who's the luddite now?

Firstly, let me say. Everything you said is spot on. Here's a tiny solution that has helped me. Don't shoot modern nikkor lenses. They have tiny rear elements that make then dark, and their manual throw is horrible, coupled with rigid focus rings and no aperture rings. They are pretty useless. Colors are pretty muddy too.

My voigtländer 58mm f/1.4 has been a revalation!!  The rear element is slightly bigger, allowing more light in with a smaller, clearer lens. It's all manual, so lots of thought was put into the focus ring, it's smooth and wide. Colors are so vibrant and beautiful, with a soft and clean falloff. And f/1.4 has a beautiful glow, that all the nikkor fast primes are missing.

I think, just like all technology, as things get more advanced, they will also get simpler. And in the case of photography, that means going back to old ways without hundreds of computer features (Seriously, do I need a fake tilt focus filter in camera???  I can just remove the lens and actually tilt the focal plane!!).

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Apple Aperture +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 30,001
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

robin t wrote:

Again, and for the zillionth time, the camera I'd like will appear at some point.

For the squillionth time, it won't. It's a bonkers marketing proposition. It's dead easy to do technically. The same has been done for rangefinders, for instance the Epson RD1 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml). The biggest problem is that all the available SLR bases are very low end (some of them Cosina made) or else the Canon 1V or Nikon F6 - which don't fit your spec. So, if you want a low end Cosina with a sensor in, no dice.

PS. Not quite, in fact. The Pentax K1000 is still made, so I suppose Pentax could make a full frame version of the K1000 some time. Low volume, it would have to cost much the same as any other FF camera, so $3k for a digital K1000. You'd like it, but they wouldn't sell many.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Doss
Senior MemberPosts: 1,435
Like?
Re: More misty eyed views of the past
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

robin t wrote:

darklamp wrote:

No, the physics of the reflex changed. I'll speak up for you: THE LIGHT GETS SPLIT OFF TO THE AF SENSORS. Yes, that little half-mirror thing. Less light through the prism means the viewfinders aren't just less bright, but also have a smaller size to allow for the loss.

If you can detect this small difference I would have to regard you as having exceptional abilities or, more likely, your confirmation bias is kicking in and you're seeing what you want to see.

Darklamp you are ridiculous. There is a huge difference.

I think the only difference between someone like us (comfortable with facts) and people who are not, is simply that they have not allowed themselves to learn the facts.

...I do think that technology can provide it, as all these mechanisms and chips and motors, etc will continue to get smaller to the point that they can make a full frame camera look like an F2 or a fish or a hotdog or whatever the hell they want. And I hope at that point, they know that some people don't want all their bulls**t extras, and would like to focus manually. That's why we're writing about it here, and I think it's coming a lot sooner than y'all wanna believe.

.... I'd say that if you fancy yourself a technology forecaster, you're doing a pretty bad job.

Robin - Earlier this century, on a similar forum, I stated that I'd wait for a full-frame (35mm) sensor before committing to digital. Back then I also found myself ridiculed as the naysayers self-assuredly jumped on my dream.

So, perhaps we should leave them be if they are happy to follow the marketing which we try our hand at steering.

If you'd open you're eyes and look around you'd see your precious 21st century awash with inefficient, low-tech products coming back because people like them. Vinyl records, I'd imagine, just make your skin crawl, huh? Those dumb luddites! What about tube amps? Heavy, soft-sounding and super expensive! But they're back! And even cameras like the XT-1 and the Alpha 7 point to people wanting and paying for a camera that feels like a good, ol-time manual SLR.

Your problem is you are applying 20th century production economics to 21st century consumer ideals. You're all humped up on Fordanomics and 'production lines' that you're missing the kickstarter-decentralized-consumer-and-ideas-driven production modes of the 21st century. So take off your soot-coloured glasses and walk through that door. I'll be there to take a wide-open, manually focussed shot of your shocked mug with my digital F2.

I have developed a healthy cynicism due to past trends where the market-force is so orientated towards the 'tell-us-what-we-want-and-how-to-think' consumers. But, you are right, the tide is turning and they're starting to address those who know what they need.

Hell, they might even stop calling us consumers and start calling us end-usersagain!

Who's the luddite now?

How many luddite's does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Change??!! We don't like change!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Joris1632
Regular MemberPosts: 151
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

Agree 100%.  Early in the year I shot a couple of rolls of film on an ancient Nikkormat FTn just to see if it was still in working order. All exposures spot on and in focus - the MF is so fast and accurate with the split prism. I wish my DSLRs had this simplicity and directness of use. I don't ever want to go back to film but the shooting experience is totally different. By the way, it was January, cold and I was wearing thickish gloves, - no problem!

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,693
Like?
I am actually a bit supprized nobody has tried an updated RD-1...
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

The old Epson RD-1 rangefinder from years ago is actually not too far off the kind of camera the OP is talking about(minus of course being FF) and I think its notable that dispite being way way out of date tech wise it still commands a good price on the used market.

I can see why nobody has tried to beat Leica when it comes to a truly modern M mount camera but it does seem like there could be a market for a more "authentic" digital M-mount camera, especially if it was cheaper than the Leica's.

Your still not likely talking something "cheap" though I'd guess, I'd be very supprized to see such a camera sell for less than $2000.

The other possible update I spose could be not the M but the old Nikon S system. Seems like a bit of a longshot but Nikon are looking for niche markets recently plus they've shown there prepared to go after the S collectors market in the past with the S3 and SP special editions. Your likely talking about something at Leica prices or perhaps even higher then though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Osssis
Regular MemberPosts: 347Gear list
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to bobn2, 5 months ago

I didn't say it was smart to do but it could be done. I agree that modern camera is the way to go but digital back would still be fun. That silicon film was the waporware I was looking for.

Best way for old film cameras without the hassle of developing film could be re-usable photoreactive or photochromic film that could be reverted back to original state via photo or thermochemical process. It would have to be scanned though and the scanner should use a process that doesn't affect the exposure. Bit of a hassle and difficult to develop but actually is possible. The result would be most likely monochome. The real advantage might not be 35mm but large format where there are less digital possibilities.

 Osssis's gear list:Osssis's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Samsung NX11 Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edspen
Regular MemberPosts: 123
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to robin t, 5 months ago

When a photographer knew his gear (lens & film speed) he could set his shutter by judging the ambient light. Most button pushers today let the engineers build the fun out of a real shoot. If set your gear on "green, auto, etc." you'll get a good exposure. But, do you really feel like you took it !
Nicest thing about the old (all mechanical) gear, no batteries. And, you could shoot well below Zero, and I don't mean 32F.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads