user237428934
User deletion pending
about 1600 EUR for the Sony 850. And that is a mass product compared to that possible full frame rf.
My digital camera design is...
- Thread starter Juan Valdenebro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 4K
about 1600 EUR for the Sony 850. And that is a mass product compared to that possible full frame rf.
user237428934
User deletion pending
With my newly acquired Hexar RF you can set ISO in 1/3 steps over the top wheel and the handling is ok.
emraphoto
Veteran
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.
Bart-K
Member
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 😀. Well, that just the way I feel about it, can't help it...
Bart
maggieo
More Deadly
A free M9! 😀
David Hegar
Established
Just wait until M9 comes down to $1,000 (used)...and gaffer tape the LCD screen.
user237428934
User deletion pending
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.
jsrockit
Moderator
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.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
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
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
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
gavinlg
Veteran
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
Truth is beauty
Just because I don't want to use it... Never, as with film... So for me it just adds space and weight.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
-doomed-
film is exciting
I second this.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes! Well . . . can we just add switches for WB and ISO?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Actually, I kind of like a screen.
F
former member
Guest
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.
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.
wiedo
Established
Don't you need a ISO dial?
AgentX
Well-known
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:
braver
Well-known
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 😎
Similar threads
- Article
