Anupam
Well-known
Agreed. But since that "sensor" thingie would need batteries anyway, could you please make mine an F3. And while you are about it, how about slipping that thing into an M4-P. Thankyouverymuch. Ah! we can dream.
Skeletor
Member
I dont get the point having an electronic focus detection but no AF. If the focus detection works the AF would be correct too.
Rob550
Newbie
My perfect DSLR would be a Nikon body with Canon L lenses and CMOS sensor. I have a 30D and love it, but the body feels light and plasticy to me, even with Verticle grip. In short Nikon Bodies with Canon lenses - nice! ;-)
-Rob-
-Rob-
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well yeah but then you'd need a motor to focus the lens, and an AF/MF switch, and suddenly it's all getting too complicated and expensive. Manual focus with detection would be purely a software feature, right?
It's true, the grips on modern cameras look awful to me, though I admit, my 40D feels very good in the hand. A different good from the Spotmatic, though. I feel as though DSLRs all look like minivans.
And don't worry, I am aware I won't get what I want. ;-) But that Digilux and Schneider look BEAUTIFUL.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I believe you, but I'm curious, what camera was that?
anandi
Gotta catch the light.
Chris101
summicronia
My ideal dslr sensor would be a thin piece of plastic. There would be some sort of metal ion embedded in the surface of the plastic that would react when struck by light. The pixels would be placed at random, rather than a regular array, and would also vary in size, depending on the intensity of the light that struck them.
Instead of sending a copy of the array data to a storage device, the sensor itself could be fixed, say by dipping it in some sort of solution. As each sensor would be inexpensive to produce, you would keep one for every photograph you made. Then it could be reproduced any number of times, by many different means, and with an infinite possibilities of post-processing techniques.
Now that would be a sensor technology I could get behind!
Instead of sending a copy of the array data to a storage device, the sensor itself could be fixed, say by dipping it in some sort of solution. As each sensor would be inexpensive to produce, you would keep one for every photograph you made. Then it could be reproduced any number of times, by many different means, and with an infinite possibilities of post-processing techniques.
Now that would be a sensor technology I could get behind!
HSI
The Fourth
The D3 is the perfect DSLR.
amateriat
We're all light!
This:
It was merely a "concept" camera that they ran up the flagpole a short while back. Don't know how many people saluted, but I sort of liked it. Doubtful if they'll make anything of it in terms of a production model.
- Barrett
Last edited:
pmu
Well-known
Nikon D3 in Nikon F100 size. Perfectomundo.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Axel
singleshooter
Rob, actual Nikons are made from plastic-fantastic, too. And they are as light as all the other digibodies - or at least the most of them.
Regards, Axel
minoltist7
pussy photographer
perfect DSLR in terms of ergonomics for me is Panasonic Lumix L1/ Leica Digilux 3. with Varioi-Elmar zoom lens. They have full manual controls, not hidden in numerous menus - shutter speed on top, and aperture ring on the lens, the same way as it was on classic Olympus film SLR
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
This:
It was merely a "concept" camera that they ran up the flagpole a short while back. Don't know how many people saluted, but I sort of liked it. Doubtful if they'll make anything of it in terms of a production model.
- Barrett
It's not as bad as I would have thought, actually. But the thing that makes the Spotmatics beautiful--and the other classic SLRs people are mentioning here--is that they have an elegant, unified overall design. Whereas that design is more a case of some classic elements grafted onto some contemporary minivan-type curves.
Perhaps one of the reasons we like rangefinders so much is that they never had the opportunity to be rendered ugly by 1980's popularity. And the classic ur-rangefinder, the Leica, doggedly clung to its design fundamentals through the years. Whereas the SLR gradually, inexorably sprung all manner of extra functions and funny-looking protuberances.
I spent a lot of money for my 40D, because I wanted great IQ, a metal body, and good lenses. But 90% of its features I never use. I would have loved to have paid much less for only the features I wanted--but by and large they're not available without the bells and whistles.
Ade-oh
Well-known
I cleverly converted all my 35mm film cameras to digital by buying a film scanner. It works for me!
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Sam N
Well-known
Unfortunately, most of the features you never use don't increase the cost of producing the camera very much. A similar camera with less features wouldn't be much cheaper. The 40D is a steal now at under $1000.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I agree but it would have to focus better. Maybe with a Katzeye.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well, my 40D just got a little more perfect today, as I took possession of an M42 > EF-S adapter. It works perfectly, even the focus confirm, and in aperture priority, which is the mode I always have it in anyway. I suspect I'll be turning to the Canon a lot more often, now that I don't have to pay a thousand dollars for good glass.