Reader&#39;s concept prompts question: what would your ideal camera be?

Think Nikonos IV on digital steroids.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Deleted pending purge

Or better V... because model IVa had an unfortunate experimental attempt at "revolutionary" sealing ("X-ring") instead of principle-healthy O-rings which every camera should have. Of course, the big film access port should be replaced by the monitor, and add one single O-ring-sealed hatch to reach the (high capacity) battery, card and eventual contact.
GPS? Maybe. It does not work underwater anyway, and I somehow manage to remember where I'm taking photos. But I wouldn't mind having a Bluetooth or IR wireless contact option somewhere.
Add some slight form change from flat to slightly convex surfaces, replace all push-down (spring-loaded) buttons with reed relays and outside magnets, make it withstand 10 Bar (-100 meters) pressure - and there's MY ideal camera.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

http://i.imgur.com/vff7Z.png

@Old Arrow. I agree. Was typing faster than my memory.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Deleted pending purge

... I know what you mean. :)
And I also forgot some fine points I'd like to see on my/our ideal camera, like high-intensity LEDs ringing the lens, for macro shots, a capillary depth meter around the monitor, backlit commands option, wireless outer-flash actuator with quasi-TTL correction code... ;)

Oct 22, 2012permalink

Penzi

Two models for the same mount - one colour, the other b&w (much like Leica has, BUT THAT PRICE! Argh...), full manual controls with optional automatic. Very simple in design and layout, really. In other words, something along the lines of the Fujifilm X-PRO 1 or the Olympus OM-D EM-5. Don't care if it has other features as long as they don't impact the core: easy to set aperture, shutter speed, ISO equivalent, and RAW/JPEG. I don't care if it's u4/3, APS, or FF... The ability to mount Leica glass would be nice (again, both the Fuji and the Oly systems can do so.) I'm not sure I care whether it's SLR or rangefinder.

And when I say "manual" I mean mechanically manual. Not electronic "equivalents" - cause they're not good enough. Perhaps one day...

As I've stated, the next gen X-PRO and OM-D can easily do this. Whoever does so will get my $. (I'm a Nikon FF shooter and would prefer if Nikon built this, but I doubt I'd be so lucky.)

The backlight proposed by Chekr would be nice as well.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

JMZ48

I'd like to see advanced range finder based on Canon G1X or Nikon P7100 body design: with all mechanical controls, CX lens mount, also adaptor for all DX/FX lenses, and high quality OVF/EVF as obligatory feature. Articulated and build-in display variations will be welcome.
The design proposed above is almost exactly what I'm looking for - for years...

I hope Nikon wakes up and start producing range finder line of cameras instead of hundreds yearly models of worstless shirt-pocket multi color bodies of no value. Let those be replaced by cell-phone cameras.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

australopithecus

rhlpetrus : You are correct. It's the different purpose thing that makes a "universal" choice impossible. I too wait for the further development of mirrorless systems. I have a Panasonic G1 with a 20mm prime and the kit which serves me well (but a longer lens for occasional work would be nice).

Panasonic started something that WILL gain ground. As good as they are, the Canon and Nikon (and all the other APS-C sensored DSLRs) are simply too large for the average Joe to lug about.

Which bring us to the wonderful high I.Q. cameras like the Canon G-Series and Nikon's P7100/7700. These allow one to pack light yet perform superbly.

Whilst I would keep my mirrorless Panasonic, my dream second camera would be something in the line of a Canon G12 with a bright EVF.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Antonio Rojilla

This is what I did just for fun (uncompleted, and I have less skills):

Yes, it's digital. Just without LCD and as mechanical as it could be made, with a hand-charged battery (that's why there are film advance and rewind levers, also to cock the shutter). The never-fails back-up or for those that like me love the convenience of digital (no darkroom needed) but miss the old beauties (FMs, OMs...).

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Zammit

Give me an Olympus C5050 body with a 1" sensor, a decent optical viewfinder to match it, image stabilization, a good dynamic range and iso performance and I am set.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Lunal

The Olympus OM-D EM-5 I have with a larger viewfinder (Full-Frame size).
Three extra's built-in: a small flash, GPS and WiFi.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

An Olympus OM-2N with a FF digital sensor inside it. No ifs or buts.

Film/Sensor 35 mm or Full Frame as its now called

Large optical viewfinder

Dimensions 136 x 83 x 50 mm

Weight 510 g

They say it can't be done. So what did the designer of the Olympus OM 2 know in 1975 that the wizz boys of the second decade of the 21 st century don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Olympus_OM-2_SP.jpg

Oct 20, 2012permalink

lylejk

Instead of a plenoptic camera, I would use a similar multi-sensor array to achieve focus stacking and simultaneously sensor noise reduction especially in the dark areas of a capture. :)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Danlo

A digital Nikon Fm2 with a Nice FF sensor from Sony.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

make mine an FE2 please!

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Ale1210

A not-so-compact Nikon mirroless for DX lenses.
Something like a Fuji X-Pro1, but fully compliant with the whole Nikon system I have.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

JoeDaBassPlayer

Pentax came out with such a camera. The reviewers were very unkind because it was not tiny. The Green button was not where they wanted it either.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Joel Benford

After a month looking to replace my Contax film SLR system and finding that I can't see the whole frame wearing my glasses on: Oly EM5, Sony NEX7, Sony A37/A65, Pany G5 or LX7/GX1+EVF, Nikon D7000, Pentax K5, I want... laser eye surgery.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Joel Benford

But seriously...

I want a discrete and capable camera that can handle action and low light, capable of low and high DoF.

I'd like an EM5 with more eye relief, hybrid AF that tracks motion like a photojourno DSLR, and a popup flash that can do fill while the (separately metered) hotshoe flash does bounce.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

A nice RF with hybrid OVF/EVF like the one proposed looks interesting, but one has to address many different purposes for cameras. For example, some people need both WA and long teles for their work, and then the traditional relatively large (for stability) dslrs, with the flexibility of various lenses, plus the better AF, are still it. For most people a smaller system seems preferable, but the offering in lenses still make the two dslrs giants (C/N) the preferred brands. It will change as more mirrorless systems are developed.

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

Vibrio

my ideal camera would record an image like my eyes see it.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Tap0

Well said ! That for me is the definition of an ideal camera....

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Most of our favorite images look nothing like how our eyes see the scene but rather are representations of our emotional reactions to it. The Grand Canyon is never quite as brilliant as film or a processed digital image renders it and I have never seen a street scene in B&W. ;)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Deleted pending purge

You mean stereo with auto-framing along with self-cadring, autofocus and maybe a novelty like attitude-processing?
That would be nice, but there's a snag: "we don't see things as they are; we see them as we are." (Anais Nin, if I recollect correctly).
And frankly, there are days when I feel it wouldn't be nice, or maybe even safe, to show some people the way I'm seeing them... ;)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/fuji-neopan-400?before=1306021353

I always thought the camera was the thing that got in the way of capturing the image - but the eye/brain does play some tricks which are hard to emulate.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

3systermuser

hey, give me a Mamiya 7 digital or a Hasselbalad C500 digital and I will be happy forever.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

itsastickup

19 stops of dynamic range. There are lots of pics that are currently impossible without Portra. I borrow my brother's DSLR but otherwise I'm still using film.

Canon are getting close, however, with their multi-shot DR mode that is almost fast enough for portraits, but not quite.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

bobbarber

I agree.

I shoot mostly digital, and I agree with most of the criticisms that people level at film on this forum--expensive, not as sharp as digital, huge PITA, etc.

However, for dynamic range, film wins hands down. It is almost shocking to slave over digital raw photos on the computer for hours (or weeks, or months), trying to rescue highlights, then shoot a roll of film. It's like, "You mean, it's that easy?"

At the print sizes I use, film is just as sharp as digital (up to 8x10) with a good camera and lens, the right shutter speed, etc.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Eleson

That's a surprise, Canon is not known for having the best DR.
My tip is to look outside the Canon box and you might retire your Portra a bit sooner.
Independent of whether you shoot plain shots or HDR type.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

itsastickup

Canon has dismal DR but that special mode in their new mirrorless does look promising. No good for portraits and a slow shutter speed. As for Fuji and nikon etc, yes they are much better but they still don't even get close to neopan 400 (said to have limited DR for film) let alone portra.

Look half way down for a nikon d7000 vs neopan shot.

I use neopan for sunlight-through-leaves shots that I couldn't do without gels with digital, also extreme backlighting. These make some of the best portraits and you can't do them with digital without flashfill or other atmosphere destroying techniques.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

RafaelDourado

A Zeiss Ikon with a digital sensor.

What I mean is, a super high quality rangefinder with manual focus, ttl metering, aperture priority, and that is it!

No need for LCD display, EVF, buttons, or anything like that.

(One of the advantages of shooting film, for me, is that you can concentrate or your next photo, instead of looking at your previous photos.)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

gordon lafleur

OK while were at it, I want a real honest to gosh 6x7 cm digital back for my Mamiya RZ (have to get it back, sold it, with multiple lenses and stuff for $1000 a year or so ago.) Doesn't have to be more than 12 megapixels, but should shoot at high ISOs. Those sub-645 (36x48 or so) "medium format" backs they make now are a joke.

Oct 21, 2012permalink

vroger1

I'm one of those old Leica photographers who refuse to spend $6,000.00 + for a single digicam. I'd rather buy several new models. Firstly I MUST have a viewfinder. A fast zoom is better than carrying a brace of lenses. ( I use Leica lenses wherever possible- so I have m-4/3 digicams, and the Leica Summilux m4/3, 1.4 lens which is terrific and automatic). The lenses tend to be either fast primes or zooms- the ltter limit f-stop range. When I purchased my LX7 the other day- I came closer to the ideal- the operation of LX7 dagicam is staggering. A clear progression up from my D-Lux 5.(I use the Lumix EVF with it) Now if I could have all this together with a sensor the size of the one in my Canon L1X- I'd have what probably would be MY ideal digicam. I figure the next Canon iteration will have a lens such as the new 1.8 they have just released on the G15 (which I won't buy). Awaiting, therefore, the Canon G2X with a better optical (or LVF) viewfinder. VRR

Oct 20, 2012permalink

marike6

I already have what are for me the perfect cameras in the X-Pro1 and D800. There is a tendency for us gear-heads / photographers to always think there is something better when in actuality better lenses or lighting kits and modifiers will likely impact your images much more than a new body.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

RRJackson

Why do people always insist on zoom lenses? Why can't anyone be happy with primes?

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Neimo

Because wildlife or people don't always wait around while changing lenses.

Oct 25, 2012permalink

hasifleur

But can it take HDR? That's the future of photography, isn't it?

Oct 20, 2012permalink

racketman

specialist macro camera with fixed 1:2 to 6:1 lens with built in filterable ringflash and hot shoe. Abilty to imprint magnification on images and choice of size compare silhouettes. 40MP. Tilt & swivel LCD.

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

Chekr

After being out shooting tonight, I would love a very subtle backlight on function keys, as it stands i have to use the flashlight on my phone to work out which keys to press. I am sure more regular shooter have memorised where everything is :)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

A good idea. The buttons could be translucent, and the light could be from a small LED illuminating the edge of a piece of light-conducting film.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

my work laptop keys are backlit. Not sure why camera makers are so behind the times on this.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Scillaren

The control buttons on my E-620 from four years ago are backlight like this. Incredibly useful at night. Oly, why did you abandon us regular 4/3rds shooters?

(Yes, I know they still sell a gargantuan E-5 with an ancient sensor for $1500. I think that still counts as abandonment)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

monseigneur

The latest Koenigsegg supercars have LED backlit buttons. Tiny holes are drilled in the aluminum in the necessary shapes.

Oct 22, 2012permalink

rowlandw

Modular design. I would buy a rugged, built-to-last body if I could easily swap in new sensors over the years.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

What a superb cost-reducing idea. I'd buy one, as would many others who are tired of buying a new body just to get a new sensor.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

This has been discussed a lot on here and the result would be a camera, or components, that cost as much if not more than a whole new camera and interior components. Put it this way: in 3 years time you really cannot throw a new CPU and RAM into your existing computer motherboard for compatability issues. Same would go for this. You'd be getting a compromised camera because the design would be based upon several year old technology. With more pixels being added you'd end up with slower write times, smaller buffers, and fewer fps.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Miguel Osorio

The camera of my life is my Nikon FM2n which I bought in 1996. I keep using it, and it is my main camera. I need it only to take photos, that's why I bought it.
The solution would be as simple as this,

develop this idea:
http://re35.net/

or this idea:
http://seoulcolors.com/2011/05/digital-camera-back-for-35mm-film-by-hyun-jin-park/

FF, APS-C, 12, 16, 18, 24, 36 Mpixel, variable ISO, whatever. There is enough technology, just look at Sony NEX or DSC-RX1.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

my username was already taken

OMG! Bring these to market, please!! I could shoot digital with my two MXs -- a small, light SLR with a REAL viewfinder. And my old Retina II, a pocket camera made with real metal. It would also be seriously great to have an insert for my Rollei. Not that I mind developing b/w film, but wow, having digital capability in cameras that, as Miguel mentioned, were made only to take photos. No video, scene modes, GPS, Wi-Fi, or indecipherable menus. I hope there are companies actively pursuing such devices, and encourage them in their development plans.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Pedagydusz

Unfortunately, "digital film" has been tried and abandoned (around year 2000). Two many problems - mechanical, electronic/computer and financial made it an impractical solution!

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Miguel Osorio

But digital backs for medium format film cameras are practicable solutions. Wouldn't it be possible for 35mm film cameras? Perhaps it could be a success if companies do digital backs for their best selling film cameras.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Shelly Glaser

My suggestion (NIKON - ARE YOU LISTENING?) would be to revive a version of the old Nikon SP rangefinder camera http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/rangefinder/sp.htm and get it up-to-date. The Nikon SP has two interesting features:

a. 1:1 optical viewfinder - unlike most rangefinder and optical view finder cameras - you can keep both eyes open, which decreases fatigue.

b. Lens focusing by a wheel on the body that is coupled to the lens - you can design a camera body that will autofocus all legacy SP lenses.

My "ideal" camera will thus be based on the Nikon SP, use full frame Foveon sensor, offer shutter priority auto-exposure and autofocus with old lenses, a triangulation electronic rangefinder. As an icing, the viewfinder can have Fuji-like live-view option as well.

I think that this camera would appeal to the kind of people who buy Leica M* digital cameras, and to professional news photographers.

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

ecka84

Full Frame Mirrorless
50+ megapixels with optional pixel-binning
(e.g. 4µm ~ 54mp 9000x6000,
2x2 binning mRAW 4500x3000 for flawless, sharp details at low ISOs,
3x3 binning sRAW 3000x2000 for low noise at high ISOs and/or faster burst)
Various crop modes (digital zoom basically, for tele, macro or non-FF lenses)
Sturdy "all weather" body
Comfortable size and grip (no pocket-camera nonsense please)
Big and powerful battery
Vari-angle LCD with Touchscreen AF
Built-in EVF and good manual focus assist
All the dials and buttons
Hot-Shoe and built-in flash with wireless flash control
CF card slot (which is faster and more reliable than SD)
or at least dual SD (no SD+CF format mixing)
Wi-Fi for tethering, wireless file transfer, on the fly backup and sharing
3-5 native mount fast prime lenses
(like 20mm ~ 35mm ~ 55mm ~ 85mm ~ 135mm)
Optional adapters for most existing lens mounts
$2000-$2500 price

Oct 20, 2012permalink

While you're dreaming, why not set a price of $500?

Oct 20, 2012permalink

ecka84

Because $500 price is not realistic for such camera.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Pedagydusz

Yes, that would be close to ideal for me as well!

Oct 20, 2012permalink

monseigneur

Ik like the optional pixel binning - and more MP's - sort of what Loyd Chambers suggests and then downsampling the image

Oct 22, 2012permalink

ageha

Wow, amazingly ugly. >.<

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Ugly is in the eyes of the user :).

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Reminds me of the Nikonos IV. A very rugged camera that had interchangeable lenses and was waterproof to 300 feet. In some ways the basis (unbeknownst to them) of many here advocating for a small, rugged IL, FF camera.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Arkon

Busy interface: too many buttons and dials. Look at the Leica M and see that is all you need with 2 or 3 dials.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

rondhamalam

Do we really need FF ?
FF is coming from Film era. A bulky shape derived by the standard set of lenses that difficult to move away from. But eventually smaller camera will be the niche market.

DOF and everything else can be delivered from smaller cameras. Sony and Olly etc are leading the way toward miniaturization since Sony's Walkman time, and the concept continues.

So do we still need FF ?

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

OttoVonChriek

This was certainly the theory, mirrorless cameras were supposed to be able to offer wide apertures at shortter focal lengths and so equalize the DOF difference.

OTOH I still shoot with 35m B&W film, and despite taking farfewer shots, many of my favourite shots are taken with the 35mm as opposed to the APS-C DSLR.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Exactly! Well said. FF was designed around the characteristics of emulsion film technology decades old. And yet it has attained the status of 'gold standard' for a completely different imaging technology. And like you say, despite the pervasive 'received wisdom', you can of course achieve whatever DOF you want in smaller formats - you just need the appropriate aperture, simples. What I want to know is the graph relating sensor size to camera/lens bulk when FOV and DOF are held constant. Then worry also about the various other IQ metrics and see what the best compromise is all round. But this blind fixation with "full frame" (the very term itself imbues it with self-annointed legitimacy) does my head in.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

For those of us that still use legacy (manual focus lenses that include -- OMG -- an aperture ring) a full-frame sensor "allows" a 28mm lens to be a wide-angle instead of a normal lens. And a 20mm a super-wide. Wide-angle lenses are harder to make well, are heavier, and cost more. Other than that, I see no overriding need to jump to "full-frame" from APS-C. I have "full-frame" film cameras I still use, and the APS-C models are smaller and lighter.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

"FF": the 135 format is not here for almost a century in good systems (started in the 1920's with Leica) just by chance, it's the film/sensor size that makes for a nice portability and high Q compromise, including lenses. FF is it for both pros and enthusiasts interested in those aspects.

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

onemoreguy

yes "we" do . Million users still have millions FF lens. FF has its avantage . If you don't like it don't buy it , pretty simple

Oct 20, 2012permalink

1 quarter 20

I also still shoot film and print to 24x36 and more using medium format range finders. I would like to use a digital camera, but do not want to lug around dslr that would output to that scale. A scanned 6x7 neg makes a nice file, no colour noise.
FF affordable rangefinder would be my preference.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

ecka84

Yes, we do need FF. Smaller sensors cannot deliver the same amount of "DOF and everything else" ... that's physics. If you are happy with less "DOF and everything else", then you may find your ideal non-FF cameras from hundreds available right now.
Miniaturization? I'd rather choose twice bigger and much better camera over the cheaper, almost good enough in the smallest possible package with lots of compromises and shortcomings.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

@ecka84
of course you can get whatever DOF effects you want from smaller sensors that FF - you just need a correspondingly larger aperture - that's just physics. Sadly, no manufacturer seems yet to have produced these lenses - possibly because you would arrive back at a lens of similar bulk to equivalent the FF lens, shorter, but fatter, whereas they are trading on the benefits of a more compact camera/lens combo for the smaller formats.

Oct 21, 2012permalink

nixda

Here are two things I'd like to see in a camera that haven't been mentioned before:

1. Square sensor. The image circle is a, um, circle, so why tossing out valuable sensor real estate? Aspect ratios can be selected via the menu or in post-processing, if desired. Also, one wouldn't have to struggle with landscape vs. portrait orientation and all that brings with it when it comes to holding a camera or mounting it to tripod heads.

2. The edges of the bottom plate should be shaped to be compatible with the Arca-Swiss standard.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

kopper

I've been arguing for a square sensor for years and had begun to think I was totally alone with my thinking. The old film ratio or any other rectangular for that matter, simply makes no sense. We have the pixels now to take square and crop to any ratio or orientation we want. It's just a matter of time until one manufacturer realizes it and makes the move.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

liquidsquid

Hexagon would make more sense, more could be cut from a round die and cover more of the image circle than even a square.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Forever Young

How about a sensor that has circle shape? Then we would not 'lose' any information...

Oct 20, 2012permalink

@OP; taken together with rondhamalam's post higher up, you are spot on. We still wear the straightjacket of emulsion film design compromises and constraints. The foundations of the latest DSLR design, its basic shape and base design parameters, all go straight back to emulsion 35m film. Madness! Of course we should have square (or even circular) image sensors, for all the reasons you give, but we don't - because it wouldn't work for 35mm film!

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

OttoVonChriek

Liquidsquid wrote:
"Hexagon would make more sense....."

Get's my vote as the best point made here yet!

Oct 20, 2012permalink

nixda

I could live with hexagonal or circular sensors :)

Alas, that would require cutting through pixels when cutting the original die; not very productive. Anyway, in technical/scientific applications, square sensors are (of course) the norm. The fact that most digital cameras for photography don't have square sensors is just another manifestation of being stuck in the past.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Karroly

I agree with a circular, hexagonal or at least cross-type sensor so we can shoot portraits without rotating the camera and select frames from square to wide rectangle (horizontal or vertical) with a greater number of pixel for the same image circle.
And also the same for TV/computer screens because a huge number of photographers no longer print anything ! So we can look at our portrait shots with the same size/pixel number as the landscape ones !
This would also give movie directors/photographers more freedom and creativity by allowing various framing ratios in the same movie !

Oct 20, 2012permalink

kopper

Hexagon get's my vote too! Better to be hip then "square"... 8-)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Samuel Dilworth

Everyone has their pet feature (for me it happens to be built-in GPS), but very many of us can agree that a good camera should be:
• small (for portability)
• simple (back to basics)
• high quality (so it might be a long-term companion)

For reasonable definitions of these key characteristics, such a camera isn't hard to make. A digital Nikon FM3A would be close enough for many of us.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

products cannot be high quality or they would lose future sales. It's called planned absolescence.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

CFynn

"A digital Nikon FM3A would be close enough for many of us."

++1 for that

Oct 20, 2012permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bP4twN7187g#t=785s

Why isn't the D600 close enough?

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Samuel Dilworth

Well, the D600:

• weighs 850 g without a lens
• is remarkably bulky
• has a 368-page user manual
• uses plastic for load-bearing parts like the mirror box

Ironically, it’s still one of the most attractive options on the market, so you could conceivably say it’s ‘close enough’. But it’s still a far cry from a digital FM3A, which would be a camera I could love.

That’s the important part. There’s no emotional connection with today’s camera, not because they’re digital, but because they’re ugly and unsatisfying to use (i.e. badly designed).

Many people feel this way. Here’s the rather famous portrait photographer Nadav Kander saying more or less the same thing:

Oct 20, 2012permalink

arhmatic

D600 is simply ugly. Period.
Just like most bodies these days.
FM3A is a camera to love. Same with Fuji X-Pro1.

Why can' they put the insides of a D600 in a FM3a body?
They are both FF SLR, right? Is that really impossible for size reasons?

Crazy or not, this is the main reason I switched to Fuji this year, after 8 years of nikon dslr.

Oct 21, 2012*permalink

cancerrak

...and I switched from Canon to Fuji x-10.... well, not exactly, I still keep my 7D but that small Fuji makes me feel like I discover photography once again....

Oct 22, 2012permalink

I'm assuming that to get an equivalent FOV and DOF from a smaller sensor you need a correspondingly shorter focal length (to get the same FOV) and larger aperture (to get the same DOF).

Shorter focal length and smaller image circle mean that smaller sensor sizes yield smaller,lighter lenses, but the requirement for larger apertures works in the opposite direction.

What I would really like to know is this - what is the optimum sensor size to achieve the smallest. lightest lenses - assuming you want to achieve FOV and DOF comparable with 24x36mm sensor area (aka FF).

So when I look at lenses like the Sigma DC 50-150 f2.8 I wonder, if it were instead designed to an aperture to give an equivalent DOF as their DG 70-200 f2.8 would it then be just as big and heavy?

So what is the optimum sensor size to allow the smallest lenses to give FF equivalent DOF and FOV? When I know that, I'll know where to start with my deream camera!

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

Thanks for the reply. Complicated it may be to work out the relationship between sensor size and camera/lens bulk whilst keeping FOV and DOF essentially constant - because there are so many parameters and trade-offs. But it can't be beyond the wit of camera manufacturers to work it out. Indeed I'm sure they know the answer - but a bit like Kodak and digital cameras, they are too afraid to 'cannibalise' their existing (pro) customer base. My question to them is, would they prefer that someone else cannibalised their customer base, since that is the alternative, as Kodak discovered. The cracks in FF hegemony are starting to show.

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

FrankS009

That is what m43rds is, e.g. the Panasonic GF1-GX1 with the X14-42 collapsible zoom. When they include an internal EVF, multiple aspect ration like the GH2, and an electronic shutter, it will meet my needs.

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

FrankS009

Note: The X14-42 collapsible zoom is not as bright as 2.4, but available pancake primes such as the 20mm at 1.7 certainly are.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

@FrankS009 - but what none of these smaller formats have done is to make some lenses which would give the equivalent DOF as FF lenses about f2.8. This would require significantly faster lens apertures, with the accompanying exposure benefits, but nobody has gone there yet.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

PeterPrism

I like this "dream" but.. which is the cost?

Oct 20, 2012permalink

I am BTW, why do FF DSLR's have to be so HUGE compared to APS-C ? I mean, internals are roughly the same, why all the bulk ?

Oct 20, 2012permalink

grumpyolderman

I think you are right, but it woud cause a huge imbalance with most lenses, be bad for placing all the buttons, bad for justifying a high price, look like a pro and possibly sheer build quality, the ability to take knocks, be stable on a tripod and the shutter/mirror movement dampening....I guess

Oct 20, 2012permalink

for SLRs, the larger sensor requires a larger mirror, hence greater flange to sensor distance. Also a larger image circle from the lens, hence a wider throat. So now we have a deeper, wider mirror box. Also requires a larger pentaprism and viewfinder assembly. So now the main chunk of the camera is bigger all round.
But actually, comparing a Nikon D70 and a D800, the dimensional differences are surprisingly small. The D800 is only about 1/5 greater in volume. But it is nearly 1/3 greater in mass. Camera manufacturers are fixated by metal chassis for their supposed greater durability - but I would love to know how much of this is engineering truth, and how much is entrenched marketing/customer perception of what an 'expensive' camera should be made of. Of course polycarbonate was not available at the time these perceptions were initially laid down, and it is probably easier to make a supertanker turn 180 degrees than it is to change conservative pre-conceptions in photography.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

@wetsleet:
Think of old 35mm film manual-focused DSLRs - how small they used to be. Including mirror & pentaprism. I do not believe the addition of AF, circuitry & batteries requires such a jump in size.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

They are not huge. Just look at the comparisons. Most are just 5 to 10% bigger. Maybe you are looking at the pro models like 1D X and d4 since those have a built in vertical grip on the bottom - that's your extra size that you are mistaken about.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Rachotilko is right. My Pentax MX weighs 18oz whereas the K5 is 26oz, and the MX is smaller. I appreciate the metal frame and weather-proofing of the K5, and I understand there needs to be a motor to drive the focus device and room for the circuit boards .... I guess I'm answering my own question as to why the K5 is heavier and bigger. So. See above discussions about digital inserts for film cameras :). Full-frame (prime) lenses are also heavier than their APS-C equivalents.

Oct 20, 2012*permalink

"I am BTW, why do FF DSLR's have to be so HUGE compared to APS-C ?"

The D600 and the coming 6D are not.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

ebsilon

I think one needs actually two ideal cameras - a system camera and a compact travel/walkaround camera. Since I'm happy with my Nikon DX (although missing some lenses), I'll sketch out my ideal compact:

24-100mm f/2-f/4 range (alternatively 28-140mm)
1" sensor with PDAF - oversized both horisontally and vertically to provide aspect ratios fro 16:9 to 4:5
Sensor performance of current 1" is good enough, but will always wish for more
RAW format - maybe DNG?
State-of-the art EVF
Tilt or sviwel screen - with excellent visisbility in sunshine
Sized and design like Canon G12 or Nikon P7700
External controls like P7700
Weathersealed/splash proof
Hotshoe and remote CLS triggering

Actually, I think the technology is already more or less here - just hoping for someone putting this together. Maybe for next Photokina?

Oct 20, 2012permalink

24-100mm f/2-4 on 1" ? Well, that would end up being much larger than Sony RX100.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

iudex

I think RX100 is so small that not many would argue if it was a bit larger for sake of lens speed. I reckon the size of G12/15 (considerably bigger/thicker than RX100) is still acceptable for many.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

ebsilon

Yes I might be a bit optimistic regarding lens f-stop here, maybe f/2.8-f/4.9 is more realistic if starting at 24mm. But like iudex I'd accept a somewaht larger camera than the RX100 due to ergonomics and possibility of a somwhat brighter and wider, but larger and heavier lens. I'd like my camera to weigh in less than 400 gram though.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Panasonic missed a really good opportunity by NOT putting a updated 15mpix sensor in the GF-1. If you want the perfect compromise in usability (all the important controls are on the outside), size, and interchangeable lenses, the GF-1 takes the cake. It's a poor mans Leica M3.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

"I think one needs actually two ideal cameras - a system camera and a compact travel/walkaround camera."

Agree, there is no one-shot solution for photography. Right now, for me it's loking t]like the D600 and a few lenses and the V1, but a m43 would work as well. Hopefully Nikon or Canon will develop a smaller APS-C ML complete system, but it'll take a while.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

monseigneur

option to choose different aspect ratio's is great!

Oct 20, 2012permalink

piratejabez

This is a pretty good list. 24mm is a must for me. Having an LX5, the multi-aspect sensor feature is very nice.

Oct 22, 2012permalink

NikonScavenger

I want Sigma to build a cheap FF body with a Canon mount... or Nikon. I don't care, really. But it's about time we started to see third party bodies.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Lorenzosap

A digital back for my Nikon f4!

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Jim Ford

The camera manufacturers need to take care when paying attention to this thread!

After WW2 a British motorcycle magazine posted a survey of what readers thought their ideal motorcycle would be. Sunbeam built the S7 and S8 as result of the survey. They were both basically flops!

Jim

Oct 20, 2012permalink

deniz erdem

my ideal camera is the new leica M. they made the perfect camera for me.

compact and durable body/lenses - check
manual aperture and shutter dial - check
real rangefinder for street and travel work. - check
live view for architectural work (wide angle and precision) - check
full frame sensor - check
gps unit for my location mapping project - check

of course in a perfect world, it would be using a foveon sensor with good high iso and magnificent corner performance but within the limits of current technology, its just perfect. not i just have to rob a bank or something. :/

Oct 20, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

In a perfect world it would be AF too so that those of us without 20/20 vision could actually get in focus shots with it in a hurry.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

Th eproblem with Leica is the absurd lens prices. They'd need first to develop a decent AF system and then let 3rd parties make cheaper lenses. But that's, likely, what a ML FF from Nikon will be like in 10 years ...

Oct 20, 2012permalink

deniz erdem

well if this is my dream camera, it doesnt need AF :)

Oct 20, 2012permalink

I keep reading here request for digital FM2, but: would you guys give up autofocus & image stabilization ? I don't think it's possible to make features such as these two take no space.

Oct 20, 2012permalink

wildbild

actually my dream camera is a rangefinder with all manual controls, such as focus, aperture-ring and speed-dial and a larger medium format sensor. all these ›fancy features‹ are just in the way of my photography!

Oct 20, 2012permalink