| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2005 12:20:36 PM · #1 |
What I REALLY want in a camera...
I want the following....
A FULLY MODULAR Camera system....
In this case...an SLR system with removable lens. But I don't want it to stop there.
You see, I want a removable LCD screen. And as an option I can purchase a 3" viewscreen that I can just pop-in (yes this means designing the buttons for such a nice screen). But not only is it removable. It also functions as a stand alone 3mega-pixel pocket cam.
So you can simply pop the unit it off and keep it inyour pocket. I know...people will laugh and say just buy two cameras. But why waste the LCD screen.
;)
Also, I want a new mounting system. Screwing in a removable base is bothersome. I don't want a base attached to my camera. I want my Camera to easily last into the base not the other way.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:27:38 PM · #2 |
Saj I did some quick calculating. As near as I can tell your camera would have a suggested retail of $65,219 USD. But you would be able to get it at B&H for $695 USD (with battery charger no less).
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:34:30 PM · #3 |
i want the lens to be built into my eye. sci-fi me.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:39:35 PM · #4 |
I'd love a camera with two views, one of the wide area, and one of a select zoom area, so I could track a bird in the sky for example. Whatdya think?
Oh ya, the built in eye one works for me too, bring on the borg! |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:42:49 PM · #5 |
Funny stuff. I think you might be interested in checking out the new Sony 750i camera phone.
My wish list would be an 8 MP Full triplet colour sensor (actual = 24MP in 8 million photosites) with anti-shake that had a deep socket mounting ring. The purpose of the deep socket mounting ring? Extra depth would allow for the use of all metal adaptor rings for whatever lens system you wanted. Buy an adaptor for Nikon glass and mount it to the 18-70 DG. buy the adaptor for Canon and grab a 70-200 f2.8L and save the money on IS. Want to go shooting with a friend, bring along an adaptor ring and share his Olympus or Minolta or Contax.......... lenses.
What a way to breathe life into old quality lenses that are collecting dust on shelves in second hand stores.
My belief is that this should be the next move from Sigma. They already have rights to the sensors. They seem to have a grasp on the workings of Autofocus lens internals of most brands of body. It should be a 1.4x or 1.3x crop factor to keep the size of the photosites large. It would need to use dual processors to handle the information and keep up with 6FPS. A spot of Nand flash memory would help with the image buffering. Two smaller on board memory buffers (one for each processor) would work just fine. Make the camera compatible with SD and CF cards. The sensor would blow the 1d out of the water.
Give me that for $3000 US and I'd start saving. Give me that for 2000 US and I'd be appreciative. Give me that for 1800US and I'd be happy. Give me that for 1500 US and I'd be ecstatic. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:58:00 PM · #6 |
I'm all for the eye implants things. Forget the borg, it's LaForge time.
Speaking of which, I just spent a couple grand on getting my eyes lasered a month ago. Decided to get that instead of a 20D. I've gone from around -4.5 to 1.0 to 1.2 depending on how dry my eyes are. I am really hoping they continue to get better. Shooting a P&S instead is a bit of a bummer, as are the halos in high contrast, but I'll live with it.
I like the idea of additional viewfinders. I think it is the Fuji that has a 1.3x viewfinder, with a slightly darker masked area on the edges to show where the sensor doesn't cover. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 12:58:55 PM · #7 |
I'd really like a wider spectrum with IR and UV visible on a cam, cos birdies and other animals can see some stuff in UV that we cannot.
Those 360 camera looks cool too. Ya know for cheesy frozen kung fu stylie shots.
On the subject of out there stuff.... ever heard of a 3D printer.... it exists: //www.zcorp.com/products/printersdetail.asp?ID=1
Hummm, I wonder if I could print out my 3d kung fu shot....? |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 01:02:34 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I'm all for the eye implants things. Forget the borg, it's LaForge time.
|
That technology is SO old! My mate had a hairband eye thing years ago!
laser eye surgery, cool. Beats having glass steam up (from hot or cold) just when ya want to take a shot. My glasses are a pain in the bum sometimes. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 01:10:10 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
What a way to breathe life into old quality lenses that are collecting dust on shelves in second hand stores.
|
Camera companies don't want to breath life into the old lenses. Their money is in always something new. I'am always shocked that Pentax didn't dump the K mount when they went to Autofocus or now with Digital. I've used an ist D with my 18 year old 24mm- how sweet is that!!!
Edit: How would you handle the different electronics (or lack thereof) with the multiple mount system?- oh well that is for an engineer to figure out.
My dream system- I have most of it. What I need is the Digital back to slide into my Pentax 645. Maybe about 144mp CMOS (I'd settle for 96). Ultra High Speed Save (RAW file in 1.2 seconds perhaps). Ultra low noise at 800 and a low end ISO of 25.
Message edited by author 2005-09-08 13:16:45.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 01:31:43 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
... It should be a 1.4x or 1.3x crop factor to keep the size of the photosites large. |
If it was a full triplet photosite, could they electronically connect four photosites together, so that you could select either lots of pixels or good low-light performance/higher speed?
Originally posted by eschelar:
It would need to use dual processors to handle the information and keep up with 6FPS. A spot of Nand flash memory would help with the image buffering. Two smaller on board memory buffers (one for each processor) would work just fine. |
Why just two? Why not make it configurable by the user? You would be able to buy more memory/processor if you needed more speed. The extra hardware could go into a holder that would be similar to a battery grip (e.g. BG-EG1 on dRebel) that you would screw into the body.
Originally posted by eschelar:
Make the camera compatible with SD and CF cards. |
You could have the system write to two (or more) cards at once to increase burst size. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 02:52:12 PM · #11 |
One innovation I'd like to see in a DSLR is a sensor that the user could clean, easily and completely, without any ridiculously over-priced brushes, swabs or pads, and not have to worry about damaging it. Why should a camera have to go back to the maker for 2-3 weeks just to get a little speak of dust and a smudge of grime removed? Make it so that cleaning a sensor is comparable to cleaning a lens.
Message edited by author 2005-09-08 15:09:30.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 03:18:22 PM · #12 |
Oh BTW...
My dream of a 8mm - 500mm lense might not be out of the question....
They are looking at liquid lenses. Firstly for things like telescopes. But essentially the lens is adjusted by "spinning" the element. This determines the thickness of the lens. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 03:59:55 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
One innovation I'd like to see in a DSLR is a sensor that the user could clean, easily and completely, without any ridiculously over-priced brushes, swabs or pads, and not have to worry about damaging it. Why should a camera have to go back to the maker for 2-3 weeks just to get a little speak of dust and a smudge of grime removed? Make it so that cleaning a sensor is comparable to cleaning a lens. |
Or build 'em all like OLympus sensors, with a built-in vibrator to keep 'em clean?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2005 04:00:43 PM · #14 |
Wouldn't it be cool if there was such thing as a hovering, flying camera for home use that you could fly like a remote control helicopter and sneak up on animals and other stuff while you sit at home and see a screen and click the shutter and stuff.
Or an instant camera that also captured the smell of the area and imprinted it on the film. :-D (If the user desired, I know theres a few placed I've been that I don't want to re-smell)
Message edited by author 2005-09-08 16:01:15. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 04:06:28 PM · #15 |
An 8-500 is nowhere near out of the question. Back when Nikon first came out with their 24-120 I jokingly told our Nikon Rep (I was selling cameras at the time) that I wanted a 12-600. He told me that all Nikon lenses are essentially designed by a computer, they tell the computer what they want and it lays out the elements and configuration and then the engineers take over- it really came down to weight and cost. He said if I didn't mind paying 85k for it and then hauling around 500 pounds he'd get them started. Then he corrected himself and said, better make it 850k. "Since you'll be the only crazy person that will want to haul one of those beasts." Of course now with the way lens technology has started to run away it might only weigh 250 pounds.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2005 11:08:01 PM · #16 |
Pollybean - I was referring to Laforge's eye implants as in the later movies, not the hairband thing.
Hankk.
1. Triplet colour information is processed into one image (the sigma has a 10mp that becomes a 3.Xmp that is full of true and accurate information. This increases true resolution. 3.xMP pictures can sometimes out-resolve 6mp pics from Nikon D70's and Rebels and are considered on par. Raw images from this type of camera are VERY large and are uncompressed, but cannot be printed as such. Interpolation procedures can be applied to create some amazing things. Photosite size is based on the smaller number of megapixels, so actual noise levels (pre-noise reduction) are equivalent to that. Having said that, I'd settle for a 6mp 1.3x or 1.4x too as it would be similar quality to the 5D, but with telephoto crop!
2. There is usually only one processor in most cameras. Nikons got things stirred up big time when they added a processor in the D70 to assist in pushing information through the buffer and getting in written. This allowed the D70 to be far more responsive than the 300D. Recent developments in technology (faster memory and faster write-speeds) have made this second processor less important. Buffers are flushed fairly quickly now and can be considerably larger than before. Kodak is currently working on having a second processor right at the chip to help rip information off it faster. This is very useful for increasing shot speed. This is important as sensors get more pixels. Processors cannot be added effectively in battery grips because of limitations of BUS speeds. The reason Canon only has 1 processor is that the speed of the BUS limits information transfer. Once the processor has information, it is fast enough that it can perform multiple operations (organize, apply sensor map autocorrections, interpolate, denoise, compress (for JPG) and all the little adjustments made by the users choices). Passing information from place to place in the camera is what causes slowdowns. Having on board dual processors and dual flash buffers would allow information to be ripped quickly from the sensor and realize high FPS rates. Another part of the camera would be flushing the buffers and writing. This is ususally only effective in increasing JPG write speeds.
Having more than 1 card available for writing is an interesting way of doing things and would be a great use of a BG. I already have a 1GB Cf and a 1GB SD. I will have a 2GB 150x SD within a couple of months. |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 11:39:01 PM · #17 |
I want integrated wi-fi control and transfer of images. and about 20 frames per second with a max of 100 RAW files and 300 Large JPG in burst mode.
integrated (non removable) 2 tera byte storage capacity.
live prievew (the 20Da has it today) 30x preview zoom for reviewing images or adjusting focus while using the live preview
very clean and noise free iso 25 to 3200 (with iso 6400 enhanced option)
option for peltier and or liquid cooling so you can do long exposures with out sensor glow (several hours of course)
25,000 mAh battery pack for months of battery power with our recharging. then recharging should only take 15 minutes
James |
|
|
|
09/09/2005 11:58:38 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Oh BTW...
They are looking at liquid lenses. Firstly for things like telescopes. But essentially the lens is adjusted by "spinning" the element. This determines the thickness of the lens. |
liquid lenses (for telescopes and such) is a VERY old technology
can be traced back the the 18th century, but they did not work very well
read up here
Liquid lenses
James |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 11:22:41 PM EDT.
