No New

Archlich said:
Cameras don't make my photography better. My photography can't be helped by any cameras to be "better".
Cameras are tools, not some magical elixir that's fused with creativity...there's nothing wrong with them being improved.
Click to expand...

a very astute observation. so many of us get caught up in gear acquisition, and justify it as means to better photographs.
 
PKR said:
Tim; I've thought about this. Maybe others will add to my list?

A well constructed modular camera. Similar in build theory to the Red Camera, popular in the Cine world.

Modular updating of sensor, CPU package, battery management, that kind of thing. Upgrade your camera as needed. With a modular design, when chipsets become unavailable or obsolete, you just opt for a current unit. In the case of Red, the lens mount is available in C, Canon and Nikon. I wouldn't expect to see a big maker do that but, if modular, others may offer units that mate with the "Mother Body"?

As for profit, Red Camera seems to be very profitable. They just came out with a series of lenses and have been expanding their model system.

Expand on a known menu system. New cameras of a pro line, by a single manufacturer, should stick with a known menu system.

Be able to disable any menu items never used.. like "toy camera mode". Be able to disable any buttons on the body that aren't used. If I don't use Cine, I don't want to bump the button. I want it off, all the time.

I'm still thinking..

http://www.red.com/builder
Click to expand...

i'm actually wrapping up a blog piece on the Ricoh GXR in which i talk quite a bit about the benefits of a modular camera. look for it on 35mmc in the coming weeks.
 
bayernfan said:
i'm actually wrapping up a blog piece on the Ricoh GXR in which i talk quite a bit about the benefits of a modular camera. look for it on 35mmc in the coming weeks.
Click to expand...

I think with the quick movement of technology, it's an intelligent approach.

Why not be able to buy a great camera that satisfies ones needs at 20mp that can be a 60mp camera with a different module? Advancements in LCD viewing come about, you upgrade if you like... or not.

Phase One sort of does this with their various camera back - modules. But, it's not as an extensive system design as Red.
 
Timmyjoe said:
I Just out of curiosity, not to hijack the thread, but what would you want to see in a new camera that would make you consider getting back in the market to purchase? I can't think of anything my current cameras don't do that I'd want to see in a new camera body.
Click to expand...

PKR has made some good suggestions. Mine is rather simple and, I think, possible with cameras where a lot of mechanical functions have been replaced with electronic functions - longer lasting, more durable bodies where many of the improvements are accomplished by firmware updates rather than a new camera model. I really like to get used to a camera and its controls to the point where I devote very little thought to its operation while I am shooting.
 
Back in the day, I'd be hard pressed to shoot more then 2-3 rolls of film in a day or even over a vacation. Today, I can easily shoot 500-1000 photos in that same amount of time and and get better photos for it (well, this depends on what I'm shoot too). But what that also means is far more wear and tear on camera too
 
" The camera store I shop in is very good. How do I tell them I don’t want to buy any new cameras for a while? Maybe I’ll buy lenses."

I am pretty much with you on this up to a point anyway. I certainly have to admit to having a fetish for lenses - I love trying them to see how they render especially vintage ones but also the exotic new ones now hitting the shelves 20mm f0.95 for example. These are a bit like a drug - at least till I get one. Then I have to admit there will only be a few I really enjoy over time.

As for new cameras themselves and new camera technology, I can take them or leave them pretty much. And if I am tempted to buy a camera, almost without exception its a model from anything up to 3-5 years ago at least. Hell my main cameras are still my Nikon D700 and Leica M8. I also tend to keep my older cameras if per chance I do buy a new one as I have a nostalgia thing going - my experience tells me that if I sell an old camera and it was a good camera I enjoyed using, a few months later there is a better than even chance I will want to buy the same model again.

My photography store has learned and the minute I walk in the store they start lining up the lenses for me to inspect - and they know my taste - something like an old Nikkor or even a German Schneider. Other than this forget it.
 
Bill Pierce said:
PKR has made some good suggestions. Mine is rather simple and, I think, possible with cameras where a lot of mechanical functions have been replaced with electronic functions - longer lasting, more durable bodies where many of the improvements are accomplished by firmware updates rather than a new camera model. I really like to get used to a camera and its controls to the point where I devote very little thought to its operation while I am shooting.
Click to expand...

It's kind of what I had in mind for the user interface. But, imagine.. your everyday 20mp camera that you know well, becoming a 60mp camera via a rental plugin that's used for a specific project. No learning curve. All's the same except for the output and maybe a firmware flash. When finished, you plug your 20mp module back in, the firmware recognizes the switch .. and you're back to the friendly camera that was a race car for a day of two. No change in controls, no new manual to read and understand quickly .. bob's ur uncle!

pkr

Edit:
I hope all our friends and, their family and friends, are okay in NYC!
 
michaelwj said:
Support your local store by buying film!
Click to expand...

Most of us who pay our bills with our camera work deliver it in digital media.. as that's what the customer wants. There isn't much choice in the matter. Film turn around is much too slow for today's media customers. Some get the files just after they are made, with RF transfer methods. I use film, but rarely for work.
 
"If You Build It, They Will Come"... a "Field of Dreams".

As a business strategy 'incremental change" seems to have become the de facto approach... "In business, what’s dangerous is not to evolve" - Jeff Bezos. I guess one could include "that it is dangerous not to appear to be evolving" ; )

In my attempt to build the perfect kit I may have [somewhat] closed myself off to new possibilities... As a customer of the photo / image products it's important to be open to incremental changes (and/or what is motivating these changes), but ultimately we may choose to spend our money on what is useful...

If nothing else, that realization has slowed my purchasing habits [in many areas].
 
I get your point and my main shooter is a 60 year old Rolleiflex but you are just ranting like an old dude. Maybe you don't go after the latest but people get into photography everyday and they buy new so manufacturers vie for the sales. How do these companies generate sales year after year if they don't release new product?
 
Archlich said:
Cameras don't make my photography better. My photography can't be helped by any cameras to be "better".......
Click to expand...

Would you agree to they can make it easier to take a picture.

Not from the perspective of Auto-Everything, Lord knows that we have more than enough of them. Why Olympus put artistic choices on a dial in the front of the Pen F is beyond me, shutter speeds go there.

I mean a camera that allows you to leverage what you've learn previously to take pictures. LOTS of photographers know and love manual cameras. Many of use are looking for a camera where we can leverage what we know as well as writing in cursive (some of us know how to use cameras better (ok, I do)).

Perhaps Cameras can't make me a better photographer, but the can get the He!! out of my way and let me be the best me I can be.

B2 (;->
 
PKR said:
Tim; I've thought about this. Maybe others will add to my list?

A well constructed modular camera. Similar in build theory to the Red Camera, popular in the Cine world.

Modular updating of sensor, CPU package, battery management, that kind of thing. Upgrade your camera as needed. With a modular design, when chipsets become unavailable or obsolete, you just opt for a current unit . . .

http://www.red.com/builder
Click to expand...

PKR, I'm familiar with the RED camera, but what struck me when reading your post was how you were also describing the old Hasselblad 500 series cameras with the digital back. The Zeiss lenses were all very high quality, the body build was also very high quality. And after the first digital back was introduced (I think it was 16MP), every year or two they came out with a new digital back that would work with all the original body and lenses, but had a higher MP count, until I think they got to 32MP or something around there.

Now the digital backs were priced really high, and I never got on well with the Hasselblad 500 series cameras (only used them with film), but I applauded Hasselblad's design concept, like I applaud what you are saying. I would love a modular camera, where the camera body and lenses would all remain the same, so all the controls would remain the same, but you could just swap out digital backs/sensors to make it a 12MP, 16MP, 20MP, etc. camera. Kinda like film cameras were back in the day.

Best,
-Tim
 
PKR said:
I should add to my anti camera marketing people rant:

When I first began learning about digital sensor technology, I found that it wasn't pixels that mattered but, pixel sites / aka photo site. With Bayer that's G,G,R,B; 4 pixels per site. The writer of the paper I was reading, a scientist - photo enthusiast, explained that when reading about pixel count, divide by 4. As with most modern technology, a dead pixel will turn off its home site. Also, pixels that don't receive a photon during exposure (mostly because of vertical alignment) poll neighboring photo sites for a on/off state through firmware. This doesn't happen with silver halide.

The writer explained that when the sensors got good enough to be sold to the public in cameras, the marketing people didn't like the "photo site" concept and used a discrete pixel count, because it was a "bigger number" and would be more impressive in AD copy.
Click to expand...

That "explanation" seems an awfully circuitous way to say something completely misleading if not ultimately completely wrong.

A pixel ... or "picture element" ... is a position on a Cartesian coordinate plane ("sensor(X,Y)" when you're talking about a imager sensor) with, typically, red, green, and blue components as its composition. A sensor implements this by having X by Y photo sites. A typical Bayer array sensor uses not four photo sites but a matrix of nine photo sites to generate the color information for every pixel it outputs. The matrices overlap such that the effective area of the sensor includes (2*L) + (2*H) photo sites (basically all the photosites outside of the sensor(X,Y) coordinate space needed to generate the RGB color information for each coordinate (x,y)) in addition to the number of pixels.

So there are MORE photo sites in a sensor than pixels produced by the sensor, not less. Someone was basically filling space with a lot of hot air.

The only thing that seems correct in there is that*the traditional, typical Bayer array sensor has red, green, and blue filtered photo sites in the proportions GGRB.

G
 
Timmyjoe said:
PKR, I'm familiar with the RED camera, but what struck me when reading your post was how you were also describing the old Hasselblad 500 series cameras with the digital back. The Zeiss lenses were all very high quality, the body build was also very high quality. And after the first digital back was introduced (I think it was 16MP), every year or two they came out with a new digital back that would work with all the original body and lenses, but had a higher MP count, until I think they got to 32MP or something around there.

Now the digital backs were priced really high, and I never got on well with the Hasselblad 500 series cameras (only used them with film), but I applauded Hasselblad's design concept, like I applaud what you are saying. I would love a modular camera, where the camera body and lenses would all remain the same, so all the controls would remain the same, but you could just swap out digital backs/sensors to make it a 12MP, 16MP, 20MP, etc. camera. Kinda like film cameras were back in the day.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Yeah Tim, change sensors like changing film. But, it would be restricted (likely) to pixel count, unless others stepped in (open source..not likely) and made modules for other cameras they didn't produce. But again, look at the M 4/3 lens thing. I wouldn't have believed that possible years back. Most camera companies build camera bodies to sell lenses. I have a Nikon collection, from AIs to AF-G. If the Mother Body, for lack of a better term locked the lens brand in, is it a big deal of a Li battery mfgr created a module and battery that was much better than Nikon had? I would think Nikon would license it or make it not warranty breaking to use the latest off brand module. As long as they sold those lenses and expensive modular bodies that would last the die hards 10 years.

As the phone market grows (did you look at the Red Hydrogen link?), camera companies may have to join hands to survive. A universal lens mount?

Jim Jannard's page.. He's a really good designer and brings really smart, creative people to work on his projects.
http://jannard.com/

pkr
 
bayernfan said:
i'm actually wrapping up a blog piece on the Ricoh GXR in which i talk quite a bit about the benefits of a modular camera. look for it on 35mmc in the coming weeks.
Click to expand...

I hope you also address some of the downsides of a modular system like the Ricoh GXR.

(BTW: I owned and loved shooting with the GXR, it was an excellent camera, but the concept didn't catch on in sales volumes enough to be profitable for a couple of reasons.)

G
 
Godfrey said:
That "explanation" seems an awfully circuitous way to say something completely misleading if not ultimately completely wrong.

A pixel ... or "picture element" ... is a position on a Cartesian coordinate plane ("sensor(X,Y)" when you're talking about a imager sensor) with, typically, red, green, and blue components as its composition. A sensor implements this by having X by Y photo sites. A typical Bayer array sensor uses not four photo sites but a matrix of nine photo sites to generate the color information for every pixel it outputs. The matrices overlap such that the effective area of the sensor includes (2*L) + (2*H) photo sites (basically all the photosites outside of the sensor(X,Y) coordinate space needed to generate the RGB color information for each coordinate (x,y)) in addition to the number of pixels.

So there are MORE photo sites in a sensor than pixels produced by the sensor, not less. Someone was basically filling space with a lot of hot air.

The only thing that seems correct in there is that*the traditional, typical Bayer array sensor has red, green, and blue filtered photo sites in the proportions GGRB.

G
Click to expand...

G;

I'll trust you're correct as per a sampling algorithm, not physical sites.. But, I think you got my point re marketing cameras .. the mp race.. no?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm

pkr
 
Obviously the long and winding road down to the latest technological advancements that marketing is eager to convince you is a "must have" will only lose it's attraction once you develop a vision. A personal way of seeing the light.

Then you will realize that you can do it with any camera simple enough that you are in command and not the menu some designer overloaded with features no one needs after the feature count has been done and the reviews have been written. Unless printing for billboards or insanely cropped fashion details in double page spreads, no one needs 60MP. Nice to have, sure, gives you some leeway to get sloppy.

The results I can get with my 5 year old digital camera with a measly 18MP are stunning.
And if everything comes together in a great image, then it was me taking the picture, not the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom