My digital camera design is...

rxmd said:
Sounds like a used M6 and a roll of film. Why digital at all?

(Otherwise, good luck with the price requirement. How much does the cheapest full frame camera cost new?)
Click to expand...

about 1600 EUR for the Sony 850. And that is a mass product compared to that possible full frame rf.
 
Bart-K said:
But if you want half/third-stops I'm afraid you would end up with too many setting to fit on a dial and I absolutely hate setting ISO via the menu/screen.
Click to expand...

With my newly acquired Hexar RF you can set ISO in 1/3 steps over the top wheel and the handling is ok.
 
leica x1 with a great manual focus interface. hell, if the sky is the limit perhaps a aperture, distance scale lens? fine with the 1 focal length.
 
tom.w.bn said:
With my newly acquired Hexar RF you can set ISO in 1/3 steps over the top wheel and the handling is ok.
Click to expand...

Why do you find setting ISO in full stops only to be a limitation? I'm not trying to argue, just curious. Personally, I usually only use ISO-settings 100, 400 and 1600 and I don't adjust it very often, only if light levels change significantly... Haha, I just realized you might find I'm contradicting myself. Why would I hate setting ISO via the menu if I only change it seldom :D. Well, that just the way I feel about it, can't help it...

Bart
 
Bart-K said:
Why do you find setting ISO in full stops only to be a limitation? I'm not trying to argue, just curious. Personally, I usually only use ISO-settings 100, 400 and 1600 and I don't adjust it very often, only if light levels change significantly... Haha, I just realized you might find I'm contradicting myself. Why would I hate setting ISO via the menu if I only change it seldom :D. Well, that just the way I feel about it, can't help it...

Bart
Click to expand...

When I had the Canon 40D I made the observation that I didn't like the grain beginning at ISO 1600. At ISO 1250 it was still ok to my eyes. So with the M8 I consider ISO 640 acceptable but regarding noise ISO 1250 is ugly. So If there were 1/3 steps there could be a fair chance that at ISO 1000 it's way better. But that's only my subjective thought.
 
Leica X1 style (sized) body (ok, slightly larger to fit additions), built-in EVF, fixed 35mm equiv lens with manual focus ring and aperture ring, f/2.0, full frame, fast AF.
 
dmr said:
I would like to see some kind of a RF with a full-frame digital sensor and a film transport. Screen not important. If it has tons of those teeny buttons, the deal is off!

Yeah, dream on!
Click to expand...

I'm with you, but unfortunately, those teeny buttons are what make it possible to get an image that isn't rubbish. They allow you to get one that is just merely lousy.
 
David Hegar said:
Just wait until M9 comes down to $1,000 (used)...and gaffer tape the LCD screen.
Click to expand...

No... M9 doesn't have a switch to shoot pointing to both sides of the street (sun/shadow) with a single instant click... And I'd prefer a lighter camera. A bit smaller wouldn't harm either.

Cheers,

Juan
 
rxmd said:
Sounds like a used M6 and a roll of film. Why digital at all?

(Otherwise, good luck with the price requirement. How much does the cheapest full frame camera cost new?)
Click to expand...

There are good reasons for this dream...

1) I have never liked any digital camera.
2) If there are good mechanical bodies for $600, why do you think a sensor MUST cost thousands?
3) You're wrong about "M6 and a roll of film": with a roll of film there's no way to get the best from both kinds of contrast scenes, and that's the base of my design...
4) Why not shoot film? Shooting film is all I do.
5) B&W film is great, and color film too, but printing color shots lost the best of it since color negatives stopped being enlarged... Digital printing is a shame, and makes more and more sense getting a good color digital original and avoid the huge loss we suffer in scanning... By now, yet I shoot color film... But maybe in the future we could have a sensor that makes skin look as great as film... Then, I'd use a digital camera happily, and just for color.

YMMV...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Why would you purposefully not want an LCD screen? They don't cost much to put in, and they're pretty much crucial in digital camera use...
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Here's mine:


M mount
No screen
Manual focus
Manual aperture
Manual shutter speed
Meter, full frame sensor


One main switch only: hard light / soft light (first position for less contrast/saturation, second for more)


Small, light and cheap, $1000
Click to expand...

Yes! Well . . . can we just add switches for WB and ISO?
 
The older Digital cameras used an LCD screen for WB, ISO, metering mode, EV compensation, and necessities. It did not display the image that was taken. So it is more like the LCD screen of a Nikon F4 or N8008s.

Full-frame Digital sensors are not cheap to manufacture, and represent a large cost in the pricing of a camera. Like anything electronic, the manufacturing process gets better all the time and prices come down.

I would love to see an open-source firmware kit. The first digital imager that I used "was not usable out of the box". I even put together a "quick-look display" capability for it. It required a VAX 11/725 equipped with a DRE11c high-speed interface. About 200pounds of computer.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Here's mine:


M mount
No screen
Manual focus
Manual aperture
Manual shutter speed
Meter, full frame sensor


One main switch only: hard light / soft light (first position for less contrast/saturation, second for more)


Small, light and cheap, $1000
Click to expand...

Don't you need a ISO dial?
 
fdigital said:
Why would you purposefully not want an LCD screen? They don't cost much to put in, and they're pretty much crucial in digital camera use...
Click to expand...

Only reason I ever thought of was to make a specific kind of camera as simple and tough as possible. (Cheaper, too, but I don't know how much cost an LCD and the associated electronics actually constitute in a digital...)

For press guys and documentarians shooting in war zones/disaster areas type thing, or an ultra-reliable backup for general pro use...the LCD always seems to be really vulnerable to hits and abrasions. The unintentional consequence of this type of camera would be appealing to traditionalists.

I still think you'd need some sort of plug-in or wireless (bluetooth) handheld device to fully navigate your options and review pics...but then again, maybe the camera could be made so simple as to obviate the need for menus. No need for volume or display settings if there's no speaker or screen; ISO dial on back and dial controls or a very simple oldschool monochrome LCD on top. Then you could just review photos when you have a chance to connect to your laptop during your down time.

A more likely solution would just be a strong, well-sealed cover for the LCD, of course.
 
Last edited:
maggieo said:
A free M9! :D
Click to expand...

LOL, that's what I was thinking. $1000,- is rediculous for what is essentially an M9 with no way of doing stuff like formatting SD cards or reviewing other essential settings like whitebalance. Taking out the screen won't drop the price more than $5000 when almost all costs involved are caused by the custom made full frame sensor.

For me, with current technology, the M9 would be perfect. Except... when I compare current technology to shooting a roll of Trix, I definitely choose Trix. Something may change in the future technology wise (wide dynamic range monochrome sensors!), and I do want an M9 pretty bad, but the perfect camera for me already exists, and I got two of em :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom