The Perfect Digital Camera

[nstock]

Yesterday as I was driving home after having (once again) shot both

digital and film for a wedding, I got to musing what I would like to

see in the perfect digital wedding camera.

 

First of all, I would like it to be manual focus with a SPLIT IMAGE

screen. I can set my digi cam to manual focus but the screen is not

made for manual focus and makes this less than perfect.

 

I want to get rid of all the modes.. "P" "S" bla bla bal.. MAYBE leave

aperture preferrred. Prefer to have the capture have more latitude.

 

Dump TTL (sorry, I know it works and it does and I use it, but is it

THAT much better than Automatic Flash checked and adjusted with a

light meter? Dump it and just have avaialable a PC socket and use Auto

or manual flash...)

 

Have the flash synch at up to 1/500.

 

The auto features I would keep are the ability to change the ASA (ISO)

at will and the white balance (auto modes and custom abilities), the

auto frame advance (motor drive advance) and the chimping window!

Keep a 6-8 megapixel resolution at the fine end.

 

I know I know.. everyone is used to AF, "P" mode, etc etc.. but after

using the digital most of the day I picked up the old FM (and an FM 2n

would be better for this work but it is not what I have) and I banged

away my shots quicker and I think more accurately than I could have

with the modern DSLR.

 

I know that since the capture method for digital is not proprietary

(like film formulas were) the only way camera companies can compete is

with the electronic bells and whistles so it is unlikely my manual

digital SLR with limited auto features will ever arrive on the market.

However, would it kill these guys to at least put a SPLIT SCREEN in

the VF so when I do shut down the AF I can still focus easier?

 

ALl that having been said, what features would you want on the

"perfect wedding camera?" What currently avaialable features would

you dump and what would you keep?

 

I really need to work closer to home so I have less time to think on

that long drive back!

[fotografz]

1DsMKII or 1DMKII, optional split prism screen installed, Leica or Contax manual focus

lenses via an adapter (far better manual focusing control than any Canon EF AF lens),

Camera set to Manual. The only thing missing is stop down metering ... which I rarely use

anyway... being a mostly wide open shooter ... and even at f/5.6 it's still easy to compose.

 

BTW, there is a third party screen maker who now offers split prism screens for the 10D

and 20D. Even though Canon doesn't advertise it the screen can be replaced ... it can and

is being done. No endorsement meant here until I get mine, install it in the 20D and use

it for awhile. It also can be ordered in an enhanced brightness version which I also

selected as an option. Those who already have it installed claim it is considerably brighter

viewfinder and easier to focus than the one that comes with the Canon.

 

BTW, some legendary manual focus lenses can be had for a song these days and adapted

for use on any Canon EOS mount camera ... including some long throw Zeiss zooms and

primes like the Leica 50/2 Summicron ... which are some of the highest rated lenses of all

time. I got my 50 Summicron for $350. in mint condition. The results are quite revealing...

like suddenly the skin doesn't look plastic for example.<div></div>

[rick_waldroup3]

Even though I do not shoot weddings anymore, I'm with you Nancy. For a lot of work I do, I shoot a Nikon D2H. For my personal use, I shoot rangefinder cameras. While the Nikon is great, sometimes I feel more and more like a button pusher than a photographer. I love the speed of digital, I just wish the camera makers could make them a little more user-friendly. Now, having said that, the idea of putting a Zeiss lens on my Nikon D2H sounds interesting....

[al_kaplan1]

I always preferred a course micro-prism to a split image when I was shooting SLR's, and for longer optics a plain ground glass screen works fine. The 30 year old design of the Vivitar 283/285 auto exposure still works as well as anything made since.

 

I've been saying for years that it's usually less trouble to just set things manually than to try to figure out a work-around to defeat automation for those times when you know the camera is going to get it wrong. How about a nice compact manual digital SLR the size of an Olympus OM-1 or Pentax MX with a reliable meter that's there if you want it, standard shutter speed dial where you expect it to be, standard PC synch outlet, full frame of course.

 

The whole modern concept that all you gotta do is shoot enough frames, choose the best later, and fix the screw-ups in Photoshop somehow doesn't sound like the description of either an artist or a craftsman. As a pro photographer you're suppose to KNOW when to push the button, you should be able to "see the picture" BEFORE you raise the camera to your eye, know where to stand and which lens will get the framing you want before you're standing there.

 

As for those great Leica and Zeiss prime lenses, WOW! Eat your hearts out, zoomers...

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>I want to get rid of all the modes.. "P" "S" bla bla bal.. MAYBE leave aperture preferrred.

Prefer to have the capture have more latitude.</I><P>Agreed.<P><I>Dump TTL (sorry, I

know it works and it does and I use it, but is it THAT much better than Automatic Flash

checked and adjusted with a light meter? Dump it and just have avaialable a PC socket and

use Auto or manual flash...)</I><P. Nope. TTL (at least on the Nikon) is superior and

faster.<P><I>Have the flash synch at up to 1/500.</I><P>Agreed.<P><I>but after

using the digital most of the day I picked up the old FM (and an FM 2n would be better for

this work but it is not what I have) and I banged away my shots quicker and I think more

accurately than I could have with the modern DSLR.</I><P>That is because with the DSLR

LCD

you are tempted to keep checking o see if you got the shot, you can of course turn off the

display. Also it's because you don't yet know your camera sytem well enough to start

trusting it in most situations.

[o._i.]

Al, I agree. It's too easy nowadays for a photographer to look at an image the size of a postage stamp and decide that he/she doesn't like it and erase it. You don't learn from your mistakes that way, and often you can see things in an enlargement that you can't see in a 35mm size frame. Lots of people seem to think that digital can replace or equal Leica or Hasselblad. They're wrong. The "perfect" wedding camera? I don't think there will ever be such a thing, just as there will never be a "perfect" camera for all situations. View cameras, rangefinders, SLRs, TLRs, pinhole, all have their place and their applications. Digital will never be able to replace all of them. Look at how many people still like rangefinders. Now they're even making digital rangefinders. To me it's kind of like fishing; is there one "perfect" lure that will catch all kinds of fish under all conditions? No. The equipment must be adapted to the specific type of fish you want to catch. So it is with cameras. You wouldn't use the same kind of lure, line, pole, etc for bass that you would use for marlin or tuna, right? BTW, happy Father's Day guys.

[Spearhead]

<i>I know that since the capture method for digital is not proprietary (like film formulas were) the only way camera companies can compete is with the electronic bells and whistles</i><p>

 

This is not true. Sensors in dSLRs can be specific to the manufacturer. In-camera processing algorithms, which have a lot to do with how the images look when they come out of the camera, are completely proprietary. There are few "bells and whistles" differences between equivalent ranges of dSLRs. <p>

 

While I agree that manual focusing could be improved, I have never understood why people can't put their camera on "M" and work from that setting. It seems like the effort must be extremely high, like turning that dial that one time will break someone's finger.

[chris m., central florida]

I shoot a ton of verticals. I'd love to see a camera with the shutter, mirror box, sensor and viewfinder all oriented for vertical viewing vs. horizontal. Or maybe even a square format affordable digtal body (6-8 mp).

[picturesque]

I would like to zone focus with my digital, but since I have a 1.6x crop camera, the distance scale on my 16-35mm lens is so compressed, that I can't reliably do that. That's my one biggest gripe.

[picturesque]

Marc, what adapter do you use and what other Zeiss/Contax lenses (from super wide to telephoto) would be good candidates? I know I can search and find some answers, but why not ask the expert?:)

[steve_levine]

Don't knock TTL. As a fill flash method ,I feel the modern TTL sytems are a quantum leap of technology. The ability for things like Nikon's matrix 3D flash amazes me. I used to mess around with a flash meter to balance ambient and flash, now a micro chip does it for me in a few nano-seconds.

[darren]

<p>It sounds like you guys want the Epson RD-1 digital rangefinder. There's a review <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/epson/rd1/">here on Photo.net</a>.

 

<p>Lots of manual goodness like traditional rangefinders, has a Leica M mount, 6.1 megapixel, etc.

 

<p>Now all you have left to complain about is the price :-).

[fotografz]

Nadine, I'm hardly an expert, but I know a few ; -)

 

There are both Zeiss and Leica lenses that are quite nice on the D30 through the 20D (one

of which I assume you are using from your 1.6X description). They provide superb built

quality, and silky manual focusing. They have aperture rings which are easy to read and

set for zone focusing.

 

In the Contax manual focusing system there are a few lenses that fit the size of the 20D

quite nicely:

 

18/4 legendary for it's performance. 21/2.8, so good it no longer is in the price range of

anyone in their right mind. 25/2.8 which is very highly corrected (and like all the contax

lenses, offers that T* coating we know and love from the Hasselblad lenses). 28/2.8, 35/

1.4, 85/1.4, (a bit big but a lot smaller than many 85/1.4 lenses).

 

The Contax 60 macro, 85/1.2, 100/2, 135/2 are all unequalled in their range but have a

aperture lever that prohibits use on the Canon digital cameras.

 

Here are the 25/2.8 and 85/1.4 with a Canon 20D so you can see the size relationship:<div></div>

[fotografz]

Nadine, if I recall correctly, you also shoot Hasselblad. Well, they make Hasselblad to EOS

adapters also. Nice, if you want to cut down on lenses you carry to a shoot.<div></div>

[picturesque]

Marc, thanks for the info. I do shoot with a Hasselblad and have the 50, 60, 80 and 120. And I have the 20D now and just ordered the split image focusing screen you mentioned. I was going to wait for your review, but I see it takes a while to make so I got impatient. Now what are the adapter brands I need to look for?...pushing my luck with your generous advice, but I can ask, can't I?

[fotografz]

Nadine, I have used three kinds of C/Y to EOS adapters, and found this one to be my

personal favorite. They also have the best Leica R to EOS : I paid $86. ea. + shipping and

Insurance

 

HKBBSTORE: rudyhswang@gmail.com

 

 

 

The Hasselblad one, $67. + shipping:

 

fotodioxEBAY@comcast.net

[fotografz]

Peter, IMO, skip the 50/1.0. Had that lens for a couple of years. Nothing like the Contax

55/1.2 or even close to a Nocti. Big, heavy and very slow focusing with sloppy manual

focussing ... it's only imaging attribute is that it is fast.

 

The Leica's I have ordered are: 19/2.8 (Canon wides suck) ... I had this lens before and

know it's attributes and flaws. 35/1.4 & 80/1.4, I know these are old designs, but they

have certain characteristics in their softness that lend themselves to my style of shooting...

while maintaining that Leica warmness to color shots when compared to Zeiss glass ...

however, I just went for a Contax 85/1.2 60 year, and if I get it I'll scratch the Leica 80/1.4

(according to the seller, it DOES work on his 1DsMKII ). Leica 100/2.8 Macro... nothing

more need be said about this lens ; -), 180/2, ditto. I already have a R50 Summicron

which blows away just about anything in it's path when on the 1DsMKII.

 

I'll be taking delivery of a R-9 and Digital Module in 3 weeks, so I also ordered a R28-90

for general shooting. I'm not much on zooms, but a couple from Zeiss and maybe this one

from Leica for walk around stuff are okay. I'm intrigued by the fact that the Leica Module

will be a Kodak CCD sensor with engineering and software by Imacon .... and includes

Adobe DNG support. This is technology found only in MF backs ( which I already own and

am familiar with the Flexcolor software). Kodak has struggled with CMOS, but not so with

CCD, most the MF backs have Kodak CCDs in them. The issue will be how it performs at

higher ISOs. But having a 1DsMKII covers my bum in that respect.

 

Have you used the New R50/1.4 on your Canon Peter? Also, what do you know about the

Leica 70-180/2.8 APO? Ever use one?

 

BTW, have had the split prism screens in my 1DsMKII for some time now. It reveals how

often the AF doesn't quite get it right when shooting with fast glass like the 85/1.2L. It's

something I'd recommend to anyone shooting Canon even if they never use manual

focussing.

 

Nadine, if I get this Contax 85/1.2 my nice Contax 85/1.4 will be up for grabs including

the adapter for EOS mounting !!!!

[fotografz]

BTW Peter, here is the source on e-bay for those adapters (both Leica and Contax to EOS:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?

ViewItem&category=107919&item=7523701656&rd=1

[nstock]

Can you change the screen on the Fuji S 2 to a split? How about the F 100 (film) or the 8008s (film) cameras?

[picturesque]

Nancy, have you checked what Nikon offers? Isn't the S2 based on the N80? Also, you might want to check with the vendor Marc suggests. They are developing screens for the Nikon D70 and the Olympus E-1 according to their website, and they say to ask about others, so I'd ask.

 

Here's a stupid question for Marc or anyone else who knows--what happens with the conversion factor with these lenses on the 20D? Hasselblad lenses? and Contax/Leica lenses?

[al_kaplan1]

It shouldn't matter the brand of lenses as far as the conversion factor goes. If you have a 1.5 factor it will make any 80mm lens have the angular coverage of a 120mm on full frame 35mm.

[picturesque]

Yes, but what about the medium format lenses being put on 35mm 1.6x camera bodies?

[mattalofs]

It shouldn't change. If anything, mf lenses might seem sharper on a digi with an APS sensor since you'll be using the center of a lens designed to throw an image of a 6*6 cm neg.

[fotografz]

They remain the same focal length. An 80mm MF lens is an 80mm on a 35mm camera.

The crop factor doesn't change either. A 1.6X factor on a 20D makes a 80 MF lens the

equivalent of a 128mm.

 

Nadine, I did get that Contax 85/1.2 lens (although I am now missing one of my arms and

one of my legs ; -) So, if you are interested in my Zeiss 84/1.4 pictured above I'll sell it to

you for what I paid for it just a few months ago. Let me know.

[picturesque]

Thanks for the info again and for the consideration, Marc, but I would use my Hasselblad 80mm for that focal length, although I know it is 1.3 stops less wide. I'd want to use a Zeiss lens for the no-plastic skin quality, so I'm definitely going to get the Hasselblad to EOS adapter. Now if you were selling the 25mm, I'd jump. I really want the ability to zone focus (as well as have the Zeiss or Leica quality) with about a 35mm angle of view on my 1.6x camera.