Are we there yet? (Post your dream camea specs) or when is enough, "enough"?

[rbsinto]

For me, "Enough was enough" back in 1985 when Nikon brought out the FA.
It has everything I ever needed in a camera, and is the most Space-aged of the bodies I shoot with.

 

[DougK]

I'd love to see an afforable digital large format/view camera option, but other than that one wish I'm good with what I have.

 

[christian.rudman]

one day

one day

i'd love to see alot more work on the raw format, hopefully bringing the digital spectrum of useless, uncompromising, degradable and incompatible formats into a single coherent format of raw. also a lot more work in the dynamic range capture so instead of the 18 pictures combined into one for an overbloated and cartoonish hdr image we could just take one hdr-exposed image.

definitely slimming down the components in dslr bodies would be another great step.

but what i really want, what i need really, is a re-introduction of the polaroid format. someone to team up with project impossible and re-introduce polaroid cameras with classic looks and updated features. the instant gratification of a polaroid is exactly what people want from digital, and a polaroid that could both give you an instant hardcopy image (if you choose so from the touch screen on the back, once again, dreaming big here) or/and save a copy in raw format to a card in the camera.

but a resurgence of film is what i would love to see, and bringing back the photolab on every corner and having people actually concerned with what they are shooting. the beauty of film will never be replaced by digital frames and hd monitors. its all about the hardcopy, we need to figure out how to improve that field i believe.

love this thread, it was a great idea and wonderful to see everyone's thoughts on the future of photography.

my timeframe for all this is never, but beyond 10 years before it would even be considered.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Interesting. I always thought that the really interesting thing about Polaroid was not its instantaneous nature, but the fact that each image was a unique original. I remember how crestfallen I was when it turned out that I had let my last box of 4x5 Type 55 film/negative sit too long and the chemicals had dried out. Arg.

What a lot of us amateurs were free to ignore in Polaroid's prime was that our casual use of their products was supported by a legion of professional photographers who valued the instant-feedback to check focus, lights, color balance, etc. When digital supplanted those functions >WHAM< down came the hammer. The thing that makes me nervous about current trends is how far from user-serviceable any of the current tech is. We are absolutely tied to the current technological trend in terms of recording the most important things in our generation. Inside the digi-bubble, all is fashion and ferment. Outside in the world of prints and "output" one has the sense that "print what you need" is the only way to afford the outrageous cost-per-ml of ink.

 

[konicaman]

Almost there. The megapixel race will probably continue although it is kind of crazy. I still use my 10D now and then; it produces very nice A3 prints with only 6 megapixels. I rarely print any bigger than that. 20 Megapixels in my 5D MKII is nice but usually overkill. There are rumors that Canon is ready to launch a 50 megapixel FF sensor - so what? I don´t really care!

The only improvements I´d like to see are:
Better dynamic range
Simple user interface á la M9/X100 on a DSLR

 

[mfogiel]

The digital cameras will begin to be useable for my type of amateur photography, when you will be able to get decent tonality in B&W - this is my point of view. For the time being, I find them only competent in colour, but I hate to say this - when I look at colour exhibition prints, I still prefer shots taken on film.

 

[bigeye]

If I could realize 1/30th of the potential of the gear I have, I'd be very happy. Whether digital or film, it ain't the gear that's holding me back.

(Aside from the apocalyptic doubt for film, this is the best time to be an amateur film photographer. Films are better and the cameras are extraordinary and less expensive than at any time before.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

If I could realize 1/30th of the potential of the gear I have, I'd be very happy. Whether digital or film, it ain't the gear that's holding me back.

(Aside from the apocalyptic doubt for film, this is the best time to be an amateur film photographer. Films are better and the cameras are extraordinary and less expensive than at any time before.)

Hard to argue, but there are those who will. They LIKE mushy, grainy, slow films that are prone to reticulation. And as you say, the cameras are silly-cheap unless they can take digital backs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bigeye]

Roger:

A decent 500cm body is ~150GBP and the nice 150mm CF has dropped down to 190GBP (KEH.com). Canon PowerShot turf.

A new CFV-39 digital back for it will be 8600GBP, though...

- Charlie

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Charlie,

I stand corrected. They are silly-cheap even if they do take digital backs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bigeye]

Roger: Sorry, not trying to be puerile. I'm just amazed at the collapse. -Charlie

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger: Sorry, not trying to be puerile. I'm just amazed at the collapse. -Charlie

Dear Charlie,

No need to apologize. Your comment was more accurate than mine, and important. The collapse is indeed astonishing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bizarrius]

Just the M9 with a bit more stable software and higher speed flash sync.

🙂