Dream camera for 2010

[bgb]

digital version of the OM-2n ... not going to happen but something along those lines would be cool ... Zuiko glass is just sooooooooooooo nice 🙂

 

[clicker]

A Zeiss RF digital full frame under 4K

 

[Benjamin]

A decent, bright, optical viewfinder. Preferably of the brightline type, it doesn't have to be an RF to have brightlines.

Fast/ish, wide prime lens/lenses. f/2.8 is okay, I guess, for a 28 or 35.

RAW B+W sensor only with a strong emphasis on increasing the dynamic range of digital imaging, and a good ISO range. I.e, at least 3200. I can live with some noise.

Manual, dial-type, controls with an aperture ring on the lens.

I can live with any focusing system that works, AF is fine as long as it's easily overridable and some thought is put into the placement of the AF and AE locking system.

No: rubbish shutter lag, scene modes or art filters, obscene trendy styling, or more buttons than a space ship.


Strip it down, keep it simple. Kind of like the X1 but, with a wider lens and a RAW/B+W only sensor.

The X1 may well be as good as it gets at this point, for me.

 

[swoop]

I'm torn between a D3s and a Canon 1D Mark IV. I'd love to have either one for specialty assignments. Events, pitch black environments, places where looking professional is just as important as being professional (you have no idea how often I get dismissed for having a dinky little camera), and situations where I'd need a long quality telephoto.

The sad thing is that either camera with a lens or two costs just a bit more than an M9.

 

[DougFord]

[FONT=&quot]My dream camera would be an updated Contax T3 (not digital). Upgrade the lens to the current 35mm 2.8 c-biogon design, have all shutter speeds available at every aperture and add a full manual mode. The jog wheel should be user programmable for adjusting either EV comp or manual focus distance on the fly.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Three quarter sized zeiss zm with built in silent motor film advance. Three frame-line sets, 28/35/50. All black 😎
[/FONT]

 

[Brian Puccio]

As someone who used a 5D for a while (and a 5Dii for a short amount of time), I'd like to see a digital rangefinder with a sensor at least of the quality of the 5D for less than $2000. I'm not sure how much a pentaprism, AF chips and other components cost compared to a manual focus range finder mechanism (with no AF chips or much else), but assuming they're about the same, it could be done for less than $2k.

 

[Trius]

OK, how about anything that takes both Zuiko and Hex glass?

 

[LeicaM3]

I want a monochrome Digital Back for my M3!

+ 10^6

nothing to add

 

[shyoon]

I'd love to see a manufacturer produce a digital camera with only the most essential features and analog controls. I would think that Olympus or Panasonic with their Micro 4/3rds format would probably be best placed to produce a camera like this. They're on a good path with that fast 20mm lens. Add a fast wide-angle (12mm f2?) and I'd be pretty much set. Make it GF1-sized with shutter speed and ISO dials and add a large optical viewfinder with framelines for the aforementioned 12mm and 20mm lenses. Add a 2"-2.5" LCD for image playback, manual focusing and minimal menu's.

Now that would be an appealing camera system and one that I believe would entice a lot of film users.

 

[amateriat]

Right now, I'm smitten with what I've got (my two Hexar RFs, Leica M2, and Contax Tvs). All I want is for all my favorite film types to stay in the catalog for a little while (won't bother to mention them here, but the Portra line and BW400NC figure largely on the list).

Digital dream-camera? For the time being, I've given up. Given the further implosion of the global economy (never mind Mr. Dow's Cheshire-cat smile at the moment), and print media in particular, where's the support for a future high-end camera market in general?

(All right...I've had a rough day, and am perhaps just a bit sour on account of it. I don't think things are quite that dire, but sometimes things I see get me going. Let's just say that my "dream" digital camera is about as far from what's considered "state of the art" as could be imagined.)


- Barrett

 

[wgerrard]

Not a camera wish, but I'd like to see big, fast EVF's enter the OEM market. I'm pretty sure we won't see built-in OVF's on cameras like the M4/3 (i.e., no mirror and no RF prisms), so better EVF's are a good thing to wish for.

 

[Jason808]

Digital Bessa for under 1200. I could live with 1.5x sensor out of the D300

 

[dseelig]

Me a m9 with 6400 iso and a M9 that had frame lines for a 24 mm lens. Of coarse I want it for 4 grand or so would not care if they farmed out manufacture of the body to Japan. zPS make the m9 frame lines accurate for 2 meters.

 

[Frankie]

A B/W only panchromatic frame in digital aerial cameras is standard practise for nearly a decade. Look up Z(I DMC or Vexcel UCd or UCx. However, such cameras starts at $1 million but at 112 M-pixel.

Colour is achieved by marrying RGB pixels captured with far smaller R/G/B [and Ir] only smaller cameras. Unclibrated colour frame alignment actually produced the desired effect.

It can be done and the resolution is stunning. I would buy such a camera and have some serious fun. All any manufacturers had to do is to remove the Bayer filtration layer in existing camera CCD's.🙂

 

[Gary E]

It would be super for Leica to make a M9BW or MBW1, no LCD with only a ISO dial in the back (50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, OK even 3200 for you low light shooters out there). RAW + JPG image output to simulate Tri-X (or your choice B&W film). So essentially shooters will use it like any other M with Tri-X film loaded. We don't see instant output with film, and we don't chimp through menus with film. Sometimes it's nice to anticipate what my skills and decisions have produced a few days later (or the same night for you home developers out there).

A simple digital M like this would surely cost less than what they're asking for the M9, no? Though with Leica, they would say OK and subtract the options for color, take off the LCD and charge us $6,800 ($200 off for the parts not used) :bang:

 

[dof]

Call me old-fashioned, but I was among those looking forward to seeing the R10 come to fruition (actually even more than the M9). As long as we're dreaming here, and well why not, I'd still like to see this camera. Of course I really want to see my idea of what it might be:

• Let's call it 18 megapixels
• Excellent high ISO performance
• Form factor of the R6
• New set of auto-focus lenses
• Backwards compatibility with the R-series lens catalog

 

[Frankie]

It would be super for Leica to make a M9BW or MBW1, no LCD with only a ISO dial in the back (50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, OK even 3200 for you low light shooters out there). RAW + JPG image output to simulate Tri-X (or your choice B&W film). So essentially shooters will use it like any other M with Tri-X film loaded. We don't see instant output with film, and we don't chimp through menus with film. Sometimes it's nice to anticipate what my skills and decisions have produced a few days later (or the same night for you home developers out there).

A simple digital M like this would surely cost less than what they're asking for the M9, no? Though with Leica, they would say OK and subtract the options for color, take off the LCD and charge us $6,800 ($200 off for the parts not used) :bang:

See http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1218494&postcount=34 and read on.

Feel free to contribute.

 

[JoeV]

Blasphemy, I know, but composition is important in my photography, which is why I don't like the approximation of a rangefinder's parallax error.

But perhaps there's a way to overlap a live-view electronic finder's display into the center portion of an secondary optical viewfinder, using a prism, so that you get the exact image framing from the electronic live display, combined with the live view of the surrounding non-image area from the optical finder. The best of both worlds. The live view electronic display would be mounted within the side of the optical finder, with a prism inside that overlaps its display onto the optical finder's image. The optical display itself would have a blacked out central portion where the electronic display is overlapped onto via the prism. So you end up seeing a live EVF display in the central (say, 2/3rd's) portion of the viewfinder, with a live optical view surrounding it.

Focusing would be autofocus with manual assist, like the u4/3 G1's, rather than using a mechanically coupled rangefinder. This frees up the possibility of adapting legacy lenses, but without the problems of loose rangefinder cam tolerances, and also permits a new line of autofocus lenses optimized for the digital sensor.

The best of both worlds: a real optical viewfinder, with the accuracy of composition from an EVF, and able to see the area outside the image-taking region, without the mechanical tolerance problems (and cost) of a mechanically coupled rangefinder.

BTW, for those who haven't tried it, focusing the G1's EVF is a cinch; the image snaps into sharp focus without the need for a split-image prism, or rangefinder's double image. Applying this type of display to the hybrid display mentioned above would be entirely practical.

~Joe

 

[shadowfox]

I want a monochrome Digital Back for my M3!

I would buy this also.

Although it'd may be a tad easier to make and sell one for SLR's that has detachable backs already.

Imagine that, an OM-1/2/3/4 back that has a full-frame sensor on it.

You push a button to turn on the sensor, cock the shutter and click, then you turn off the sensor. Unless someone can figure out a way to do this automatically without messing with the body (maybe a sensor connected to the flash contacts).

 

[ferider]

Blasphemy, I know, but composition is important in my photography, which is why I don't like the approximation of a rangefinder's parallax error.

But perhaps there's a way to overlap a live-view electronic finder's display into the center portion of an secondary optical viewfinder, using a prism, so that you get the exact image framing from the electronic live display, combined with the live view of the surrounding non-image area from the optical finder. The best of both worlds. The live view electronic display would be mounted within the side of the optical finder, with a prism inside that overlaps its display onto the optical finder's image. The optical display itself would have a blacked out central portion where the electronic display is overlapped onto via the prism. So you end up seeing a live EVF display in the central (say, 2/3rd's) portion of the viewfinder, with a live optical view surrounding it.

Focusing would be autofocus with manual assist, like the u4/3 G1's, rather than using a mechanically coupled rangefinder. This frees up the possibility of adapting legacy lenses, but without the problems of loose rangefinder cam tolerances, and also permits a new line of autofocus lenses optimized for the digital sensor.

The best of both worlds: a real optical viewfinder, with the accuracy of composition from an EVF, and able to see the area outside the image-taking region, without the mechanical tolerance problems (and cost) of a mechanically coupled rangefinder.

~Joe

Exactly 🙂 (see post #27): project variable framelines or part of the EVF, or both into an optical viewfinder.

I'm convinced this will come. Just when is the question ....