My dream digital camera

This is my dream camera. I do street, landscape and events

photography. I don't need a longer lens than 85mm.

 

Take a Nikon Coolpix 8400 camera. It?s small enough to carry

anywhere. It also has that amateur/tourist look about it that doesn?t

attract too much attention. The body is sturdy enough, being made from

magnesium alloy.

 

Replace the 6.6 x 8.8mm photo-sensor with a 22 x 15mm APS-C size photo

sensor. That would make the camera really useable at ISO 400. With the

smaller sensor, noise starts to appear at iso 100 and by iso 400 it?s

really objectionnable.

 

Replace the electronic view finder (EVS) with a bright optical finder.

 

Add a sharper 24-70mm or 24-85mm F2.4 - F3.5 lens, so long as it does

not protude into the optical finder. Add image stabilization for hand

held photography down to about 1/8th of a second.

 

Fast autofocus in low light.

 

Turn on time in a fraction of a second

 

Provision for real manual focusing.

 

Simultaneous write to two memory cards: one for raw images and the

other for jpg

 

So, what's your dream camera ?

Except for the two memory cards thing (ain't happening!), I'll take the exact camera you described, provided it has a flash hotshoe, and the focal lengths you list are "35mm equivalent" rather than actual.

 

Anyway, my dream digital camera, which would make film completely irrelevant for me:

 

* APS-C sensor, the kind in $900-$1500 DSLR's, to keep price reasonable and quality high.

 

* Noninterchangeable lens with a 35mm equivalent focal length.

 

* Lens must be f/2.0 or faster. This will allow for moderately shallow depth of field effects.

 

* A viewfinder with 1:1 magnification. No SLR, to keep the size down. No EVF, since it won't work with DSLR sensors. So the viewfinder would have to be rangefinder-style manual focus, which I find easier to focus anyway. Provide autofocus as well. Parallax-correcting framelines would be a welcome touch. (hey, Canon did it on the mass-market Canonets)

 

* Flash hotshoe, with possibly a small flash built-in for convenience.

 

* Camera should be a moderate size. Smaller than a DSLR, larger than many of the tiny digicams out there. It should look nice, preferably all black. High quality plastic is fine.

 

* Accepts Compact Flash cards.

 

* Price: Hopefully no more than $1000.

 

If this camera were available, I'd buy one today and have it shipped via overnight express. Then I'd throw out all my film, and give away my current digicams!

My 1ds II's sensor in a shrunken version of my Mamiya Press--that is, an interchangeable-

lens leaf-shutter rangefinder, with at least one fast lens, and a long rangefinder base

length.

 

Autofocus not a high priority, but being able to shoot from the LCD would be good,

including enlarged view for focusing.

 

Option to swing IR cut out of the way.

 

Absolutely must have good lens markings for DOF and scale focusing (the single biggest

failing of the EOS system, and AF SLR systems in general).

 

Factory option to order as B&W only--losing the Bayer filters should add at least a stop.

 

Even having the the killer EI 3200 sensor in something like an E-10--leaf shutter, fixed

mirror, f2 zoom--would be good. Really, that sensor in anything that doesn't jump and

howl the way an SLR with a moving mirror and focal plane shutter does would be so great.

Sorry to disturb the dreaming, but along with the APS-C size sensor, you must bring along the bigger lenses of a DLSR. You can't keep the small lenses when you increase the sensor size. No more "small enough to carry anywhere... amateur/tourist look".

<i>"DLSR"</i>...that's DSLR of course.

A 4/3 version of Minolta X50.

"Sorry to disturb the dreaming, but along with the APS-C size sensor, you must bring along the bigger lenses of a DLSR."

 

It's doable. Remember, its not a SLR, but a P&S, just like it's 35mm film counterpart, and whose zoom lens remains small.

But the "zoom" 35mm p&s's for the most part don't have serious quality lenses. Suitable mostly for consumer application 4x6s.

Craig,

 

We all know that. The reference to a 35mm p&s zoom lens is in regards to its size, not its usual imaging quality.

 

Cheers!

You can have your cake and eat it too paul, you can have an APS C sensor and a small lens. Look at the Olympus Stylus Epic, it has a full frame sensor and the camera is tiny.

 

And that's exactly what I want. I'd like to see Olympus remake the Epic with Canons 1.6x CMOS sensor (6MP would be fine). I would like to see them put a 22mm f1.8 lens on it (to give a 35mm equivalent to be just like the old Epic). I don't need any big screens, or hot shoes, or fancy modes. Just slide over the clamshell, and push the shutter button.

 

They can use the same buttons on the back that the current film version has, and then add a simple histogram display and maybe a tiny display to show the image with a blown out highlight indicator. I don't want it any bigger and I'll pay $300-$400 for one.

I stand corrected.<P>Please pass the ketchup, this crow is a little dry.

The arguement that lenses have to be made bigger to cover the bigger sensor does not hold water. On the film side look at a Nikon F5 film camera and compare it to an Olympus Stylus Epic- they both use the same size film yet the Olympus can be built as small as it can. If that little Olympus lens can cover a 35mm piece of film that same lens should be able to cover an APS sized sensor. The problem must be the cost/PROFIT MARGIN to put that size sensor in a compact body is not in line enough to make it economically possible for one to be built and be cheap enough. If you want a small enough body that you have to resort to XD cards that's another thing, but a digicam the size of an Olympus Stylus Epic with an APS sized sensor that uses CF cards is plenty pocketable.

<i> .."If that little Olympus lens can cover a 35mm piece of film that same lens should be

able to cover an APS sized sensor."..</i>

<br><br>

Your argument is what doesn't hold water. Even in the case of film, if you think even for an

instant that that small, compact Olympus Stylus lens is the performance equivalent of the

Nikkor

35mm SLR lens that it is much smaller than, you're fooling yourself. And that doesn't

begin to take into account the differences in design necessary to acheive a good lens for a

digital sensor.

<br><br>

Film and digital sensors are very different kinds of light sensitive material. One of the most

important differences is that film is very insensitive to the angular direction of the light

striking it where this is simply not so with a digital sensor. A digital sensor is a 2D array of

pixels. The pixels are a light sensitive element in a well with a little lens on top. Light

striking the sensor grid

significantly off an orthogonal angle causes many kinds of problems ... light falloff at the

corners and edges, mosaiking, chromatic aberration, and defocusing. For this reason, it is

relatively easy to make a very compact lens that will cover a 24x36mm piece of film

cleanly and with good performance but much harder to design a compact lens that will do

the same satisfactorily with even an APS-C sized sensor.

<br><br>

In the case of film, you can use a simple, 3-5 element lens design that places the primary

nodal point

very close to the focal plane. Light incident to the film plane is orthogonal only in the

center of the format, at the edges it is striking the film at a significant oblique angle. As

long as you

don't put the nodal point too close so the film so as to cause too much corner/edge falloff

(due to inverse square law), it will work pretty well.

<br><br>

A lens of such design on a large digital sensor will produce a crappy image. Lenses

optimized for digital sensors need additional path length and correction elements to angle

the light such that it strikes the sensor much more closely to the orthogonal, right out to

the corners. That means these lenses will be larger and more costly, making the whole

camera larger and more costly.

<br><br>

Small, inexpensive digital cameras with APS-C sized sensors and compact lenses remain a

pipe dream given current technology. Who knows, though: we might get there in a few

years and a few breakthrough developments in sensor architecture and lens design.

<br><br>

Godfrey

So I guess a camera like the Epson rangefinder is not a good idea using all those "non-digital" Cosina/Voigtlander or, god forgive anyone who'd try, Leica M lenses on a digital sensor instead of a piece of film? My "non-digital" Canon lenses seem do quite well on my 10D and Digital Rebel cameras too. I'm not telling anyone the lens on the Olympus Stylus Epic would equal a top Nikkor lens in use. It doesn't on film either, but I am saying that little Olympus lens probably would be as good as most lenses used in today's digicams.

 

Lensmakers are using your same explanation to try and sell "digital only" lenses as the only right thing to use today. Images I see in galleries on this site everyday tell me that is more marketing hype than reality.

The point of my note was about the difficulty in making the kind of super compact 35mm

format lenses as in a Stylus Epic work with an APS-C sized sensor, not a Leica M or Cosina

LTM lens.

 

Remember that the lenses for SLRs are already have a design with a nodal point much

further from the film plane ... Due to the swinging mirror, they cannot have their nodal

point so close or they'd run into mechanical interference. Thus most are already closer to

the telecentric design required for digital sensors. This is why makers of high end DSLR

cameras work with SLR lens lines in the first place.

 

The Epson RD-1 presents what is currently a unique challenge in sensor/lens

compatibility as the short depth of the Leica M and LTM bodies does put the nodal point of

short lenses relatively close to the focal plane. However, most if not all of the short focal

length Cosina and the modern M short lenses are also inverted telephoto designs,

similar to what is used on SLRs. Some are not, however: I believe those lenses are

incompatible with the RD-1. Cosina's own 15mm Aspheric (which is an inverted

telephoto design!) requires special processing, simulating a center gradient ND filter, to

cure the greater than 2 stop corner/edge falloff from not being adequately telecentric for

the half-format sized sensor.

 

I had one of those lenses ... on 36x24mm film there's only about a 1 stop corner falloff

wide open, but imaging onto the RD-1 sensor creates a far greater falloff than with film...

 

Godfrey

<i>I'm not telling anyone the lens on the Olympus Stylus Epic would equal a top Nikkor lens in use.</i><br>I'd put my Stylus Epic 35mm 2.8 up against my Nikkor 50mm 1.4. It does pretty damn well all things considered when you get a camera and lens for $80. I've done enlargements with it to 16x20 size and have been amazed by the detail it can render.

easy:

 

canon 20d's high iso / low noise ratio / fps rate

 

 

pentax istD's size and viewfinder

 

olympus's sensor cleaner and E1's built

 

minolta d7's in camera antishake tech

 

nikon d70's flash sync

 

fuji's S2/3's DR

 

and I'll settle for 1.5x and 8mp;*)

Keep in mind that if you make the sensor APS-C size, the camera is no longer small and light. To get the focal length you describe, and, in particular, the speed of f/2, your lens is going to get huge, and front heavy. The reason Canon, for instance, can put a relatively fast 28-200mm equivilant lens on the Powershot Pro1 is because the sensor is so small. It would be much, much larger and heavier if it had to cover an APS-C sized frame.

 

Oh, and the optical viewfinder? Where is the optical path? Through the lens? Will you be putting a mirror in it, then? Or will it be a rangefinder? Again, these compications add weight, bulk, etc. to the camera, which is why TTL EVF finders are the norm on point and shoot digital cameras.

 

I suggest to get the camera you want, it would be better to cut the megapixels to 3, improve the noise filters to make ISO 400 useable, and improve the EVF viewfinder to make it less grainy.

Oh, about the Olympus Epic.... I have one, and yes, it's tiny 35mm lens is f/2.8 and covers a full 35mm frame. Since it is on a P&S camera, with no mirror path to contend with, and no TTL viewfinder, the lens is very close to the film plane, and can be made pretty small. If you want a fixed focal length lens, then, yes, you can make it pretty small, with a small number of elements. A zoom lens, particularly a fast one, is an entirely different matter. If you add an optical TTL viewfinder, you are going to end up with a huge lens.

I'm assuming that a dream camera does not need to be possible with current technology.

 

A digital rangefinder with minimal light fall-off and a 35mm full-sized sensor plus a really nice optical viewfinder with a large base length. And don't forget the controls - no fiddly little buttons and menus. Give me dials! And at a price point comparable to a nice film rangefinder.

 

Robert

A "Technika" with Minolta IS built around the 20D chip and electronics.

I'd love a good rangefinder for handheld shooting. I believe one could add movements to the chip to shoot computer or Monitor tethered by using the image circles of M or SLR lenses.

I like Carl Smith's little aps sensor stylus idea, but with a couple more manual controls than the original Epic Stylus, to allow metering and focus to be independent. It is rumored that Ricoh is going to offer a digital "GR1" sometime soon. Should be interesting to see what they think that is.. maybe something like Carl is proposing?

 

As for lenses and digital sensors, wasn't it until recently the conventional wisdom that the best part of a standard 35mm lens (or any lens) is the center portion, and that dSLRs benefitted from this because that's the part that the sensor ends up using?

what about this one??<div></div>