What should a new high end film camera look like?

KM-25 said:
I'll take a high end Nikon SLR that uses all current F mount lenses.
Click to expand...

This.

Some of the new E series glass, like the 105/1.4 and 28mm/1.4 are up there in the rarified atmosphere with the best glass anyone has ever made, but you can’t use them on an F6 due to the way the aperture is controlled now. It’s not the resolution, it’s the rendering, which would transfer perfectly to film.

The F6 is probably the most competent, in photographic terms, film camera ever made. It does everything and it does everything well. Metering, shutter, AF quality, ad infinitum. Just update that, and, as Huss says, ditch the F6 menu system, which is probably the biggest reason I sold mine.

There’s your “high end” film camera. There’s nothing high end about fixed lens, pocketable compacts, even though it is possible to make one that is high end....for a compact purse camera.

I’d prefer an OVF, given the current state of the art of EVFs, but EVFs are likely to get there eventually. No engineer would ever claim that the idea of an EVF on a film body was “silly”. Not for me, but it’s hardly silly as a concept.

Us: “Camera company executives, are you listening?”
Camera company executives: “No.”
 
1++ to what was said above; the final iteration of film cameras like the Leica R9, Nikon FM2n/FM3a were just about perfect. And I doubt you’ll ever again see their like. If a film camera does appear, it will emulate the compact models of the 90’s (again, mentioned above). Don’t see an F7 anytime. The market is too small and the F6 is long-ago amortized.

EVF? Having a complex (not to mention bulky) system to record both analog and digital defeats the purpose. A compact camera, OVF with modern AF, highest performance short-zoom (35-70 or 28-50) or fixed FL and an f/1.2 or faster aperture, is more likely. Along with a 1/8000 sec shutter.

If it ever happens at all.
 
Thinking outside of the box on this one (at least trying not to be a downer):

Instead of introducing new film cameras, I would prefer that manufacturers consider establishing support and replacement parts for their better selling cameras from the past. If new film cameras were to be introduced then ideally they would be fairly basic in nature and kept as affordable as possible. This would provide an alternative to those consumers who do not like to buy used. Anything that manufacturers can do to increase the overall number of film camera users will ultimately lead to more demand for high-end film cameras. At that point camera manufacturers could think about expanding their focus (no pun intended).
 
How about a film body for the new Fuji digital medium format system? 127 film would be the perfect size (an opportunity to establish nearly exclusive film supply yourselves, are you listening, Fujifilm?) , but slightly panoramic crop to 135 or wasting some space on 120 might be more practical, perhaps the lenses even cover 645 well enough? Put some real thought into making it reasonably compact, give it a good optical view finder...
This would require a rangefinger-type af system like in the hexar at, contax g, Nikon L35 etc. Give us some kind of overlay in the viewfinder that shows the precise position of the at spot to account for parallax and it could be very accurate.

Or how about a body for m4/3 lenses that takes 16mm film, along the same lines as above? An opportunity to market special film, scanners, perhaps even enlargers and lenses... I'd buy that if somewhat affordable, squeezing the last bit of quality out of a small bit of film with high quality, precisely focused lenses would certainly give a great look, maximizing the impact of the film on the image as the film would be highly magnified, quite a logical step if film is mainly used for the look.
 
Ste_S said:
I guess it depends on what your classification of 'high end' is. Leica's are expensive and well built, but they're not high end in terms of technology. The plastic AF SLR is more high end in that respect.

Probably the most advanced film camera we're going to get is the Nikon F6.
Click to expand...

Electronics are absolutely nothing special today. F6 is just as high-end as high end calculator, because all what F6 does is available in consumer graded DSLR.

Same for EVF, it is not high end, it is dirt cheap mass made component comparing to mechanical marvel of Leica RF.

I realized what high end these days is after I went to Hamilton waterworks historical site. They can't replace some parts. Not because they can't make part. Nobody knows how to replace them anymore. Nobody left with knowledge of this precise work.

Same for cameras, stuffed with electronics and EVF camera is not high end.
It is another made in China.
But they can't build Leica M-A in China and soon they won't in Germany.
 
So, there are no high end electronics? Only something mechanical can be high end? I guess there will be no high end products in the future then.
 
Impossible to satisfy all people. Anything dreamed up or made will be a compromise.
Many have mentioned 35mm, both SLR and RF, Godfrey would prefer a 6X6. Maybe I would like a reissue of the Oly Pen FV, but with interchangeable screens. Who is right? Nobody and everybody. While were at it how about a return of 1 hour C-41 processing available everywhere, like it used to be.
 
james.liam said:
EVF? Having a complex (not to mention bulky) system to record both analog and digital defeats the purpose. A compact camera, OVF with modern AF, highest performance short-zoom (35-70 or 28-50) or fixed FL and an f/1.2 or faster aperture, is more likely. Along with a 1/8000 sec shutter.

If it ever happens at all.
Click to expand...

1. Why would an EVF be bulky? Says I as I type this on my phone which basically is a flat evf that can make calls and annoy people on rff.com. Also the evfs are tiny in m43 kameras like my Olympus PenF

b. you just described my Rollei QZ35w. P&S with 28-60 zoom that matches my Leica 28asph 2.8. And it has a shutter that goes from 16 secs to 1/8000 auto or manual!
 
ptpdprinter said:
I suppose before coming out with a new film camera we are going to have to agree on a lens mount. That ought to be easy.
Click to expand...

I suggest that if Nikon steps up here they can pick
their mount. Same for Leica. Hmmm I wonder what mount Lomo would pick?
 
It should have all the functionality of the Nikon FM3a and the reliability of the F2. Actually, the F2 is perfect, so if it were released with an eye level finder that had a meter readout, I would pay a few thousand for that. Maybe a titanium chassis to make it a bit lighter, but otherwise, the F2 is what it should look like with an updated finder.
I'm sorry but the EVF is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Add to that the fact that one would still have to have a reflex mirror for the EVF to work since the camera could not do this off the film plane. The image would have to be reflected into a prism then turned into digital information then projected. Why mess with a perfect system though?

Phil Forrest
 
Huss said:
1. Why would an EVF be bulky? Says I as I type this on my phone which basically is a flat evf that can make calls and annoy people on rff.com. Also the evfs are tiny in m43 kameras like my Olympus PenF
Click to expand...

Ok, not to be negative, but you do realize that it's not the same thing, right? An EVF in a digital camera is basically just a small screen that displays what the image sensor is capturing. When you press the shutter all that happens is that the information that's captured by the sensor is saved. However, if you have film at the film plane instead of a sensor then you would need some fairly elaborate system to have a sensor capture exactly what is projected unto the film plane for the simple reason that the film and a digital sensor can't both occupy the same space in time.
 
Jamie123 said:
However, if you have film at the film plane instead of a sensor then you would need some fairly elaborate system to have a sensor capture exactly what is projected unto the film plane for the simple reason that the film and a digital sensor can't both occupy the same space in time.
Click to expand...

The sensor would need to swing out of the way of the film plane when you snapped the shutter. I wonder if anyone has ever conceived of anything like that?

Anyway, not that elaborate, but none of this is going to happen anyway, due to market forces, or the lack thereof, not any kind of impossible engineering challenge.
 
Jamie123 said:
Ok, not to be negative, but you do realize that it's not the same thing, right? An EVF in a digital camera is basically just a small screen that displays what the image sensor is capturing. When you press the shutter all that happens is that the information that's captured by the sensor is saved. However, if you have film at the film plane instead of a sensor then you would need some fairly elaborate system to have a sensor capture exactly what is projected unto the film plane for the simple reason that the film and a digital sensor can't both occupy the same space in time.
Click to expand...

Larry said:
The sensor would need to swing out of the way of the film plane when you snapped the shutter. I wonder if anyone has ever conceived of anything like that?
Click to expand...

Huss said:
And just because I put my thinking beret on... sure there are workarounds to have both a digital sensor and film in the same body.
Let's think of the SLR format for a second. You know where the focus screen goes? Perpendicular to the film plane? Well replace that with the digital sensor, and have the film where the film always is. This version would still use a mirror to project onto the digi sensor - and the mirror could either flap out of the way so the film can be exposed, or it can be fixed and semi-transparent like in that high speed Canon film camera.
Et voila, film and digital in one body. I kinda like the TLR idea too though..
Click to expand...


Already covered that. I mean how hard can this be?
;)
 
jsrockit said:
The point and shoot market seems to be a great place to start based on the prices of compact high end p&s cameras from the 90s.
Click to expand...

100% agree. With the prices now being paid for Contax T3, Minolta TC-1, etc, there is certainly a market at a “high-end” price point. This would potentially make it economically feasible to actually produce high end p & s cameras using current production techniques.

Small and high quality is generally more appealing than large pro SLR sized cameras, particularly with the trend towards mirrorless camera design.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
......Actually, the F2 is perfect......

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

Yeah, Nikon could have stopped there, for people who just want to take normal photos, and have a huge support system for the body. I had an F2 and an F6 simultaneously for a long time, and when something had to go, I kept the F2 instead. On paper, that makes no sense, but in the hand, and up to the eye, it made a lot of sense.
Everything you need. Nothing you don’t. Not having to accommodate itself to AF, the VF is nicer for one thing. I know the F6 can do more things, but most people don’t need those things.
I guess it isn’t the ultimate futuristic high end camera, though, since it lacks “all the mod cons.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom