You design the camera...

Here's my old post on a look forward in 1940

The Future of the Camera, August, 1940

more on the nose than you might expect

The camera I use the most is the D500 - and that's the one I'd modify. Eliminate the "quad" selector on the top left - I don't need any of that as my version would be permanently in M mode with Auto ISO on or off as the only option. The level indicator would always be on. I'd replace the AF-ON button with a second joy stick. Both would be so I can have different AF modes and AF area selectability available to me - like one being set on GRP and one at single or 153-area. I'd also move the AF area selector from the left front to the back right or front top right so that I can easily change AF area modes with my right hand. The "i" and "info" buttons can go, as can the liveview selector as there is no need for video. No need for the frame rate selector either - my D500 version would be permanently stuck in high-speed mode, with frame rate increased to 12fps. I would very much prefer my D500 version to be housed in a D5-style body so that I have horizontal and vertical controls without the need to add a battery grip; dual XQD/CFx card slots would come along with that change. No need for all those connectors on the left or front either. In essence, the camera would be optimized for high-speed action photography and stripped of everything that's not needed for that application.

As for the Sony A7R3 - I'd be happy with it having the A7RIV body and modified menu system. For the rest, I am fine the way things are (or simply don't care enough to design a change).

The camera I use the most is the D500 - and that's the one I'd modify. Eliminate the "quad" selector on the top left - I don't need any of that as my version would be permanently in M mode with Auto ISO on or off as the only option. The level indicator would always be on. I'd replace the AF-ON button with a second joy stick. Both would be so I can have different AF modes and AF area selectability available to me - like one being set on GRP and one at single or 153-area. I'd also move the AF area selector from the left front to the back right or front top right so that I can easily change AF area modes with my right hand. The "i" and "info" buttons can go, as can the liveview selector as there is no need for video. No need for the frame rate selector either - my D500 version would be permanently stuck in high-speed mode, with frame rate increased to 12fps. I would very much prefer my D500 version to be housed in a D5-style body so that I have horizontal and vertical controls without the need to add a battery grip; dual XQD/CFx card slots would come along with that change. No need for all those connectors on the left or front either. In essence, the camera would be optimized for high-speed action photography and stripped of everything that's not needed for that application.

 

As for the Sony A7R3 - I'd be happy with it having the A7RIV body and modified menu system. For the rest, I am fine the way things are (or simply don't care enough to design a change).

That's a fair amount of customization Dieter, but it sounds purpose built. I like the D500, and almost got one because I liked the body, but then I don't do your type of photography, so speed isn't that important for me. You know that has me thinking why there aren't companies around specifically for customizing cameras like there are for cars. I bet there's money in it for some guys that got laid off from some of the shrinking camera companies.

Here's my old post on a look forward in 1940

 

The Future of the Camera, August, 1940

 

more on the nose than you might expect

That's interesting, prognostication at it's finest.

Easy, for me the F2 has always been one of the best designs and still my favorite. If I were to make one change it would be a digital version of the exact same camera.

Rick H.

I'd like a Micro 4/3 camera where the sensor can tilt and move forwards and backwards.

Actually, I wouldn't want much - just a high resolution digital back to fit my Nikon Film cameras in place of the film. Compact, staying close to the original size of the camera and operation with original camera controls. As to new tech, I have what I need in digital for the foreseeable future.

Actually, I wouldn't want much - just a high resolution digital back to fit my Nikon Film cameras in place of the film. Compact, staying close to the original size of the camera and operation with original camera controls. As to new tech, I have what I need in digital for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, I've heard about that digital back or attachment for film cameras for probably as long as digital has been a thing. I can't understand why it doesn't happen, because if it did I'd like one for a Nikon F100. That in my estimation was one nice camera.

I can't understand why it doesn't happen, because if it did I'd like one for a Nikon F100.

In its most modern version, Leica offered the Digital Module R (DMR) for their R8 and R9 SLR camera; before that there were the various Kodak models based on Nikon SLRs and there are digital backs for medium format bodies. I don't think anybody would consider the Leica DMR to "stay close to the original size of the camera" unless one thinks of the camera+winder/motor drive; then indeed the size, except depth, hardly changed.

As to why it doesn't happen - demand and price would be my guesses. I imagine the price for such a back to be about the same, if not more, than that for a DSLR.

In its most modern version, Leica offered the Digital Module R (DMR) for their R8 and R9 SLR camera; before that there were the various Kodak models based on Nikon SLRs and there are digital backs for medium format bodies. I don't think anybody would consider the Leica DMR to "stay close to the original size of the camera" unless one thinks of the camera+winder/motor drive; then indeed the size, except depth, hardly changed.

As to why it doesn't happen - demand and price would be my guesses. I imagine the price for such a back to be about the same, if not more, than that for a DSLR.

I'm sure you're right, but all the same you might expect some favorite film bodies from the past to be competitive with modern dslr bodies.

but all the same you might expect some favorite film bodies from the past to be competitive with modern dslr bodies.

The latest (?) failed attempt: Get digital images and video with an "old times" flavour... by Samuel Mello Medeiros — Kickstarter

Edit: it's back now: I'm Back® 35 - An 50's camera that takes digital photos? by Samuel Mello Medeiros — Kickstarter

I, for one, have zero interest of reviving an old film camera by adding a digital back.

The latest (?) failed attempt: Get digital images and video with an "old times" flavour... by Samuel Mello Medeiros — Kickstarter

Edit: it's back now: I'm Back® 35 - An 50's camera that takes digital photos? by Samuel Mello Medeiros — Kickstarter

I, for one, have zero interest of reviving an old film camera by adding a digital back.

How about keeping old film cameras alive by adding a digital back? Have done that and don't have anything bad to say about it.

Backs for 35 mm cameras will never be a good proposition. These cameras are all different in their dimensions, for one. And how will they compete with dslrs? And...

...... And how will they compete with dslrs? And...

Easily because many love their old cameras and they evoke great memories for some of us.

But wait for what you would be attaching to it and see if you are still happy then.

Nikon made this old style looking dslr. A hefty thing compared to the cameras it was trying to look like. Still, a good attempt. And they could put all the extra stuff inside the camera itself.

Olympus made the Pen F look very much like an old style camera. I like it (though would have wanted a larger sensor).

But when you have to attach all that you need to an existing film camera...

Using medium format cameras, you replace a large part of it by a digital back.

But a Nikon F3, for instance, will have to have it all added as an extra. Want a motor drive as well? It gets big in a hurry. Even with the Nikon based Kodak digital cameras they tried to put the extra bits inside the camera as much as possible. Not small.

It will certainly be a quite different experience from the one you enjoyed.

How about keeping old film cameras alive by adding a digital back?

I did consider it to continue to make use of the Rolleiflex SL66 and SL66E - but couldn't find a digital back that would attach to those bodies.

And aside from the Leica DMR, I am not aware of any digital back available that can turn a 35mm film camera into a digital one.

I guess Leica makes the digital camera I want (and a couple lenses), but I'd rather pay down the mortgage with the money instead.

Rather have the return of maybe six discontinued films than a digital back.

One of the things that's irritated me about digital is how frequently they need to be upgraded if you want to stay on the cutting edge. With the old film cameras new iterations were about every five years, and all you needed to stay on the cutting edge was the latest film formulation. Add to that the cameras were subjectively more attractive. A workable digital back for some of the older cameras would be a very nice thing for some of us old farts that loved their slr film cameras. People have noted that it's impractical, and that may be true, because I can't think of any other reason why they wouldn't do it, considering there's still a lot of us dinosaur's left that haven't turned into fossils yet.

You do not have to update or upgrade. If the camera you have delivers, no need to get a newer one. Just because a newer camera can focus 5 ms faster and has a burst rate of 2 fps more? No valid reason, unless you found that this was the exact reason why the images you created weren't quite up to your standards. That applies to both film and digital cameras.

You do not have to update or upgrade. If the camera you have delivers, no need to get a newer one. Just because a newer camera can focus 5 ms faster and has a burst rate of 2 fps more? No valid reason, unless you found that this was the exact reason why the images you created weren't quite up to your standards. That applies to both film and digital cameras.

Good point, but I guess a lot of people like having the latest, and greatest even if a particular improvement doesn't apply directly to what they shoot. To your point, I didn't upgrade from the Sony A7RIII to the A7RIV which I normally would have done because practically speaking I felt I would have been losing some of the things I liked about the A7RIII. Nonetheless, the larger body, and higher res evf would have been nice.