THE Perfect Digital Camera

Also, new cameras constantly enter the market, so - what was concluded before doesn't necessarily mean that it's corect now...

...So it's never enough to ask this question.

It's usefull - no doubt.

I am a musician and a keen photographer, In play clarinet and saxophone, the general consensus is that the combination of items you use, instrument, mouthpiece, barrel etc is always a compromise and everybody finds their own compromise that suits them, you can get a hundred clarinet players together and you will find almost all the combinations are different and of course you have to keep changing it, the same goes for everything and digital cameras come somewhere near the top of the list.

It was a lot easier with film cameras.
--
Baz

I'm talking about:
1.) FIRMWARE FEATURES*, and

2.) hardware features (those NOT RELATED to the photo itself, but a practicity of the use of the camera)

The one with most of the both above mentioned two is the perfect camera! That simple! (never mind picture quality! that's another story (lenses, stabilization, > 5MPix etc.) - it has absolutely nothing (what-so-ever) to do with term "prefect" from the title of this thread! (so bear it in mind!))

(So - with that being said - what's the answer to that main question of mine?)

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

• they are all (much or less) real EASILY achievable - I mean - it's just programming for crying-out loud(!) - one of the most obvious (as an example) is time-lapse, and other shooting modes (they are controlled digitaly - camera just needs firmware with those features really simply included!), maybe even advanced MPEG4 compression of the video and MPEG3 for audio so you can really USE the memory and not just consume it irationaly (I know the speed of processing or memory can be a problem, but now - it seems that it's not (technology gets faster as we go on) - and also: hardware compression/decompression is MUCH faster than the software compression/decompression used in computer, so - they just need to put some chip inside to do it), voice memo for pictures (a really really nice feature), raw mode (a lot of digital cameras don't have it (why!?!??!)) etc. It seems that professional cameras just focus on the picture - I mean - even they (even the most expensive!) don't have all the firmware features (do they? tll me - maybe I don't know for such one - but - that's why I ask here)

these are also easily achievable (!) - I mean - where's the problem?!?! They already have Audio-Video output (most of them) - why is it such a big deal to have a separete Video and separate Audio jack - so in those loudy places - you can simply plug in simple regular headphones (it's just an external speaker really... even MONO... (not provided with camera of course)) - just plug it in so you could actualy HEAR what you recorded while watching it on the camera's LCD; and - tell me - where's the problem with making it possible to have a DC input instead of batteries?!?

(read the second answer to the text of the one who first answered this thread of mine)

...And, also - think about it: if there's some little unknown firm that only starts in the bussiness of making digital cameras - looking for a breakthorough - I mean - shouldn't they consider making competitive firmware - as (look at the facts) - the market field is WIDE OPEN there (today's cameras don't have much of the features (easily achievable with better, more featurefull, firmware!)). OK; - well established firms will make what they make ("theme" specific cameras (all crippled in some way or another if you ask me)) - but this hypotetic looking-for-a-breakthorough firm should implement this new concept - featurefull cameras (I mentioned some features even here) - I mean - they don't have to put some a* -kicking lenses and CCDs and other special hardware and mechanics - just base its quality on QUANTITY of features; put some c ppy cheap lenses and some average 3MPix CCD (afterwards you can offer models with super lenses and CCDs, when you establish your concept of "featurefullness").

It wouldn't be like that (read the "READ THIS" which I wrote just above this answer).

-------

In case someone would make a "perfect camera" (in those SPECIFIC terms I defined already), on the market you would have three basic types of cameras:

1.) Consumer cameras (low and average quality, easy to use) -as today

2.) Professional cameras (some features advanced (others excluded entirely)) -as today

3.) Full-feature cameras (both conectivity for comfort, and 'featurefull standard firmware' for all cameras of (that) firm; (that would make it less chaotic and more easy to choose from their line of products (as there are all features on all cameras of that firm, only quality of the photo differs because of less or more expensive photo components used (and other components (including casing material and its design))))) - cameras both with: extremely low quality of photos, and extremely high quality of photos (depending on the model) - which differs the price greatly - but you know what you paid for!.. - You choose.

Such cameras would, generally, be more expensive for the given same level of photograph quality comparing to other brands - just because of the more expensive firmware and small additional stuff. That way you pay for the features and comfort - not the quality of the out-coming photo - but still you can choose to buy a camera of such concept with even grater quality! Your budget is the limit, but if the full-feature camera is what you're looking for - then you wouldn't see a problem there.

Everything is in balance (every camera has it's point - the only thing new would be that you are only allowed to choose to pay for the features instead of quality - which is not the case nowadays!..).

Example: you buy (such "full feature") 3 Mpix camera (that low!) with only some average optics for the price of today's advanced 5 MPix camera with some a bit advanced optics - you sacrificed quality for quantity - the market balance is preserved! (and that doesn't mean that you can't buy such "full-feature" camera with 5 MPix, and even more)

I think that today's manufacturares are all-consumed into calculation of the balance of features vs. price that they all have long forgotten about the those crucial facts regarding what digital camera can be... and that cripples it all... takes the meaning of it... just sad.

Those cameras I'm talking about would allow the freedom to experiment with digital components - to allow a full potental of the technology - you would be able to override limits that are presetted ((forced) as is the case with all the cameras today (under excuse of standardization)). Of course that wouldn't mean that you could end-up damaging camera's CCD (for example; e.g. because of overexposure to the light) - as it would have "last gate" safety mechanisms to prevent it. Beside manual it would also allow automatic settings... so everything is there.

That's what I'm talking about.

tbcass said:

The perfect camera is the one that suits your
needs at a price you can afford.

Click to expand...

Aha! But - what are your needs?

(explanation: you can't know what situation you'll have on your hands in the future - does it mean you'ld have to change camera every time you have a different need)

Regarding price... not even the most expensive ones have A LOT of features.

Reminds me of this silly little ditty:

I've found the perfect woman
I could never ask for more
She's rich and beautiful and intelligent
and owns a liquor store

GoranT said:

I'm talking about:
1.) FIRMWARE FEATURES*, and
2.) hardware features (those NOT RELATED to the photo itself, but a
practicity of the use of the camera)
The one with most of the both above mentioned two is the perfect
camera! That simple! (never mind picture quality! that's another
story (lenses, stabilization, > 5MPix etc.) - it has absolutely
nothing (what-so-ever) to do with term "prefect" from the title of
this thread! (so bear it in mind!))
(So - with that being said - what's the answer to that main
question of mine?)

Click to expand...

I do understand very well what u mean and agree with u on almost everything but not on:

GoranT said:

never mind picture quality!

Click to expand...

I do mind a lot! And I guess a majority of users do mind image quality (IQ). This means that cameras with very little features and good IQ will sell much much better than cameras with the most perfect feature-set but bad IQ. Samsung cameras for example are very rich in features and the IQ is not bad but just not as good as Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus... all these manufacturers (mfr's) do sell better than Samsung. Certainly mfr's are motivated mainly by what can produce profit.

Secondly including too many features may result in many undesirable consequences:

Increasing the cost of the camera thus making it more expensive than the compition (other cameras of the same class from other mfr's). Many of the features that u are after, may be patented (require the mfr to pay a royalty for including the feature on their cameras).

Each feature needs to be controlled by either buttons, rings or on menus. The more features a camera has, the more complicated and confusing these means of controls will be (specially the menus). And if a camera is complicated and not easy to use, it will be heavily criticized for it. A famous example: Olympus C-7070. It had a very impressive set of features and controls for the enthusiastic users but was described with all sorts of terms in complaint against this aspect. I really felt that was unfair criticism: When there are few features, people complain about the ones that are missing. And when many are offered they complain that the camera has become complicated and too difficult to use. So what do customers exactly want? The impossible.

Realting to the last point above, the complication is not just for the user but also for the designer (mfr). Too many features may adversely affect the size/weight, ergonomics, IQ...etc. Notice how there is generally inverse proportionality between IQ and features (the more u have of one, the less u'll find of the other on any given camera).

Offering different subsets of features on different concurrent or successive models, means more sales for mfr's generally. Many people do buy more than one camera as a result of this not-so-innocent policy on the part of mfr's. Take me for example, I badly wanted to have an all-in-one camera (just ONE camera for both still and movie), but because of this "wise" policy I ended up buying the Canon Pro1 (more serious but not updated) in addition to the A610 (updated but not serious). If Canon had offered an updated Pro2, I wouldn't need the A610. But intentionally they don't offer everything in one package.

The perfect camera does not exist.

There are several really nice ones out there though...

--

Life is like a roll of TOILET PAPER; the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes.