The ideal digital camera?

Published by: wktd 2009-01-09

I have been reading a lot about the coming death of film on this forum and other places and this got me thinking. I am really happy with shooting film at the moment as I am pleased with the results. Of course, if film disappears or becomes prohibitively expensive or cannot be processed anymore I will be happy to move to digital but what would be the ideal camera for me?

Thinking about it, I have realised that what I enjoyed about using film cameras had nothing to do with the medium but more with the handling of my cameras (Pentax Spotmatic and Bronica SQ). What I like about them is that I can focus manually, set the aperture easily with an aperture ring on the lens (next to a distance scale, useful for hyperfocal focusing) and set the shutter speed with a simple dial on top or on the side of the camera.

My ideal digital camera would therefore have no autofocus and only 3 dials (ISO settings, white balance settings and shutter speeds). Even an LCD screen would not be necessary (I find it quite 'exciting' to receive my pictures from the lab, and I could wait untill I get home to upload the pictures on a computer). I think the only cameras which come close are the new Leica M8, the Leica R9 or a medium format camera with a digital back, but they are really expensive.

I am NOT trying to start a film vs. digital debate here. I am just curious to see if other people are more into the �ritual� of taking the picture and do not mind so much about the numerous features of their cameras. Do you think there would be a market for a basic (in terms of features), fully manual digital camera (something like a digital Spotmatic F or a digital Nikon FM3a)? Logically, such a camera should be cheaper (if there was real demand) and would really appeal to me. What do you think?

You aren't going to find a DSLR without autofocus. If you don't want to use auto focus, then don't. All modern lenses are capable of both. Viewfinders are small, and difficult to use, but you can get split focusing screens to aid in manual focusing.

As for layout of the controls, they are not difficult to use. Any of the mid range DSLRs, or "prosumer" have the controls in logical places. My canon 20D has a nice big thumbwheel for setting the aperture, and wheel by the shutter for shutter speed. As for white balance, it's a non-issue if you shoot in raw, which you should if you really care about your photographs. You can control that on your computer in post process.

If you are moving to digital from film, there will be a learning curve, on the shooting end, and on the computer end. There's just no getting around that. Don't let it sway you from jumping in. There are plenty of great books, and web resources out there to help smooth the transition.

I agree with you. All the features I need are present on the current crop of dSLRs. I would just have the feeling to pay for a lot of features I wouldn't need (5 fps, multi-pattern metering, autofocus, auto-bracketing, picture style modes... on a Canon D30 for example). I was just wondering if there would be people interested in a more basic camera (which should be cheaper as it offers less) and therefore if there would be a market for it.

Being new to photography I have to say that I enjoy digital the most because of the ability to be able to learn faster than what I could shooting film. Being able to step outside and try new things and then download them on the pc and see the goods, and the bads, of my choices (it also adds to the excitement of picture taking too), speeds up the learning curve quite a bit. I guess for me that is why I really appreciate digital the most. I do have two film cameras in the closet though and if development wasn't such a hassle for me, I'd be more interested in using them.

Other than that... there's not much out there that fits perfectly. My wish is that they would make a Spotmatic or K1000 with a digital back as an inexpensive option for students who want digital capability. 6-8mp, metal body, match needle meter (with modern battery), classic looks, used with all of those nice Takumars. As close to $500 mark as possible.
Well the latest Pentax 6mp model is actually under $500 ($470 for body with rebate). It has a lot of things that a K1000 doesn't - spot metering, aperture and shutter speed shown in the viewfinder, DOF preview, mirror lock-up, flash sync to 1/180... needless to say it has plenty of other features I don't much use, but those are features that to me are pretty important. IMO the K1000 is a bit overrated; sure it's simple but is lacking useful features that can be found on other mechanical Pentaxes. The digital is also of metal construction on the inside, and I can use my old screw-mount Takumars on it with an adaptor. What the K1000 has that my modern camera doesn't is mechanical operation without batteries, and the knowledge that it could probably be used to hammer in nails and still work. But I think it's fair to say we won't see a digital camera that can be operated without batteries, and my answer to the bit about durability is usually that when I spend that much on a camera I try not to drop it :) I agree that the old manual cameras were aesthetically very nice, and I certainly wouldn't mind having old-style dials for shutter speed and ISO on my digital camera, but I certainly don't mind having more features included, as long as they don't get in the way. If there was one thing that would make all modern digital SLRs immeasurably better, in my view it would be bigger and brighter viewfinders, preferably with interchangeable screens.

Camera, Canon, Nikon - Lester A. Dine Inc.::
A. Dine Inc.s designs cameras specifically for Dental Photography. All Dine Dental Cameras are built for the busy finding the ideal digital SLR for
http://www.dinecorp.com/index.php?cPath=1HOME

I think you hit the nail on the head with the Leica. Also check out the Epson R D1. It is a rangefinder, but it may be right up your alley. You will find that the the transition from slr to dslr is quite smooth. Especially if you have 2-5 grand to spend. Personally I went to digi about 4 years ago. Nikon FTB to D1. I now have a D200 and a Coolpix 5200. I love the technology and my 90 second photo processing. Thing I miss the most is hanging around the lab with my other photographer buds.

I have been reading a lot about the coming death of film on this forum and other places and this got me thinking. I am really happy with shooting film at the moment as I am pleased with the results. Of course, if film disappears or becomes prohibitively expensive or cannot be processed anymore I will be happy to move to digital but what would be the ideal camera for me?

Thinking about it, I have realised that what I enjoyed about using film cameras had nothing to do with the medium but more with the handling of my cameras (Pentax Spotmatic and Bronica SQ). What I like about them is that I can focus manually, set the aperture easily with an aperture ring on the lens (next to a distance scale, useful for hyperfocal focusing) and set the shutter speed with a simple dial on top or on the side of the camera.

for one, film cameras have been popular for nearly one hundred years. aside from food, what else can say that? as for the layout of modern cameras, i agree. although there are a handful of cameras that keep the nostalgic feeling of changing the shutter speed and f stop by a rong on the lens nowadays, i still feel as though having everything laid out on an lcd on the cameras back is impractical and confining. call me old-fashioned (actually, no dont. i dont think i can say that at 19 years old), but i much prefer film to digital, for several reasons...one being the fact that you have to either live with your mistakes or get better and learn how to take a damn picture.

i agree with you on that aspect, but i think film is far from over...other formats have come and gone...110, APS...but 35 millimeter film has set too many standards and precedents to simply be written off in history books.

Well, If you have $32,000 to $50,000 laying around, check out the new Hasselblad H2D-39! Talk about a mind blower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know this is not being realistic, but it does make for mouth watering reading. :shock:

Maybe we'll get cameras that can take pictures like the ones in Blade Runner.

As far as "normal" photography goes, I think you're right. But then there's always new features they can add for the basic consumer, and then things will go 3-D, and then who knows what.

I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit. In the future, what will the cameras offer that current day models don't? More megapixels, that's a given, but what else can be increased? Eventually, we're going to hit the same point that film did - in that it reached a reasonable peak in which little more inovation could be acheived. The only real improovements would have to be made for auto mode, but most serious photographers aren't impressed by any sort of auto feature, it seems.

Furthermore, performance wise, 3 fps is much too fast for me anyways, and a screen larger than 2.5 inches would be overdoing it.

TO be honest, I'm very, very interested to see what the new Canon pro line (whenever they crank out a new version of the 5D, and XTi) will offer.

I'm waiting for the day when digital cameras come with interchangable sensors, so you can choose the body you like and the sensor you like.

This is particularly salient for me right now, as I just bought a Lumix DMC-LX2, which is a brilliant camera from the point of view of usability and handling, but the sensor is crap. Well, not crap, but not as good as it should be. (Good enough for me, fortunately, as I virtually never print.) But it burns my butt that I can't get a camera with that kind of handling, but with a top quality sensor!

I also prefer the interface of the "old'film cameras. If I could get a digital like that, I'd go for it. Unfortunately they don't make big viewfinders with digital cameras.

Maybe one exception is the leica M8, but I have yet to handle one.

But it burns my butt that I can't get a camera with that kind of handling, but with a top quality sensor!

I don't think you'll ever get interchangable sensors, except in digital backs for larger camera systems, but I think high quality sensors in small point-n-shoot style cameras are just around the corner.

Sigma is supposed to be releasing a pns size camera with the same sensor as their flagship DSLR. I have little interest in their DSLR, but if I can afford it (and it lives up to expectations) I'll probably be getting a DP1.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092604sigmadp1.asp

At some point the sensor technology in my Canon 20D has to trickle down to a pns camera for under $100. Sure, there will always be better technology available, but I think I could be very happy with something like an Olympus Stylus Epic with a sensor similar to Canon's APS-C sensor DSLRs.

If we rememebered our lessons from 35mm film days 6megapx would be plenty...

Steph...i just made the jump to digital myself.(and only to af about 2 years ago!)..and like you, i like things simple! Most of the dslr's have thumbwheels for controlling aperature & shutter, you can operate all lenses in manual mode (though, as you get older you appreciate autofocus when your eyes just arent focussing as they use to!!) You dont need to look at your pictures on the screen....you can shut that off. In fact, the very nice thing about a digital camera, is you can fine tune it to how YOU like to shoot!! Enjoy it...

The ideal camera has an order pizza button ... and a cork screwer for the wine bottles.

Cheers everyone :)

In short.. you like feature rich cameras. Not everyone sees that as the ideal camera.
And I never said they should. I also obviously have a different definition of "feature rich" from others. I don't think you need all modern conveniences. I just don't see what for example would be the benefit of intentionally not having mirror lock-up. How exactly would having mirror lock-up limit my creativity? To my mind, by those criteria the K1000 and Spotmatic would also be "feature rich"; after all they have not only a TTL meter but also a pentaprism and mirror, that's not "back to basics", I was under the impression that the the 'roots' of photography went back beyond the 1960s and beyond SLRs.

I happen to agree with a lot of the points made in the original post. But I also disagree with the idea that SLRs of a certain era inherently represent 'grassroots' photography and any other features inherently oppose that. I thought the point of a forum was to discuss things, not just for opinions to be presented as fact and then everyone assigned into camps or boats depending on whether or not they appear to agree with said opinions.

I've just started working in my schools gigantic darkrooms and my ideal digital camera would have the shoulder than film has as far as highlights are concerned.

In short.. you like feature rich cameras. Not everyone sees that as the ideal camera.

One of the things that interests me about these type cameras is why some smart pns manufactuer doesn't just modify thier design for a rangefinder viewer rather than the screen inside the camera. As pure manual focus how hard could that be. Panasonic with the elmer lens comes to mind actually.

thats the beauty of the R-D1.. its a true rangefinder.

Unfortunately, Epson has some issues in regards to quality and support.

Unfortunately, the other alternative is the rather expensive M8. At almost $5k, I would expect a near perfect camera... which the M8 isn't (Infrared over-sensitiviy, flaring, banding, etc..).

If I can't get one that is a film camera with a sensor then i want that comes with a computer tech to process it I just dont have the time. Perferably a young blonde female.

Oh no, I like classic cameras. A lot. And I never said autofocus was necessary. I just don't equate "back to basics" with "back to a lack of very useful features". That doesn't mean modern, fully featured, or autofocus...

It means mirror lock-up (which is by no means a new invention, yet which was absent on some of the cameras that are usually held up as classic mechanical models - namely the K1000). Mirror lock-up to me is not a gimmick or an invention of advertising - it's an extremely useful feature which allows for sharp shots using certain lenses at certain shutter speeds that otherwise would not be sharp.
It means spot-metering. Now I'll grant that in-camera spot metering is a more modern invention. But it's very, very useful. A full-frame or center-weighted meter won't always cut it, and you can't always wander up to your subject with a grey card or handheld meter. The alternative - a dedicated spot meter - can of course be used but you don't always have time to use that first. Not all photography is done in a controlled environment or with time to spare.
Then there is the display of aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder. The K1000 doesn't have this. Plenty of other Pentaxes and other SLRs from around the same era do. Here's how I think about it... even old TLRs were designed so you could see what shutter speed and aperture you were using, while looking down at the waist-level finder. They didn't put the shutter and aperture displays on the side or on the base, because then you would have to look away from the viewfinder. The same is true of SLRs- although you compose a shot in your head you frame it in the viewfinder, and it can be helpful to confirm which settings you're using without having to remove your eye from the finder - especially when photographing action or with changing light conditions.

Now again I never said I felt the need for autofocus. I'm forever complaining about small viewfinders making accurate manual focus difficult, and I can never understand people who say "why would you ever use manual focus?" Manual focus is infinitely useful because it is infinitely adjustable (within the lens's limits of course), with no need to "Select AF Point" or otherwise trust the computer to know better than you what you want to focus on.
And I'm fairly certain I never said a modern DSLR was my ideal camera... and if I was to say that, it wouldn't be a surprise? You've obviously never read any of my posts. I don't like the terrible viewfinders, the endless menus, I don't like the obsession over megapixels and other specs or 'upgrading' (which we already get enough of with PCs), I don't like the idea of being limited to a choice between only two companies and I don't like the idea of film disappearing (both of which have been claimed as inevitable by various prophets of doom). I don't consider digital to be ideal and I certainly don't consider any dSLR to be my ideal camera. What I do think, however, is that the features I mentioned - mirror lock-up, spot metering and viewfinder display of aperture and shutter speed - are very useful, not gimmicks, and sometimes necessary. They're not the features of modern DSLRs. They're the features of 20-year old film SLRs.

Apparently I'm not in the same boat. I can't understand why those features (none of which require very modern technology) are a betrayal of "grassroots" photography. Frankly I would have thought that by that logic a Spotmatic or K1000 would have been against grassroots photography too since they have TTL light meters.

Finally, I know what the point of the thread was. But I didn't say modern DSLRs were "the way to go". I just chose to disagree with your post and others, and also to list a number of specific features that I would consider useful and which would be absent on a Spotmatic or K1000. That's surely not off-topic; the original post ended with "What do you think?", not "Only reply if you agree with me".

There might be a small niche market, consisting of probably the same people that are hanging on to LF format film cameras, and shooting black and white. It's not a market that the big companies care about, because there is no real money in it for them. I don't think you'll be able to get around paying for modes and features you won't use. They all have em.

My ideal digital camera would therefore have no autofocus and only 3 dials (ISO settings, white balance settings and shutter speeds). Even an LCD screen would not be necessary (I find it quite 'exciting' to receive my pictures from the lab, and I could wait untill I get home to upload the pictures on a computer). I think the only cameras which come close are the new Leica M8, the Leica R9 or a medium format camera with a digital back, but they are really expensive.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people in the same boat. I'm a member of a rangefinder forum and those guys are just now getting into the digital realm with the release of the Leica M8. We are talking a lot of "grassroots" photographers that are a bit put off buy the feature rich offerings of today's DSLRS.

The only camera I have found that close to what you are looking for is the Epson r-d1 (rangefinder since you did mention the M8 Leica). Looks, feels, operates just like a Consina Voigtlander Bessa R3a but with a digital back (6mp). ISO, White balance, Shutter, Aperture, are all settable via manual dials and levers (no menus to navigate). The rewind knob was morphed into a navigation scroll when you do manipulate the camera settings or preview the photos. The digital screen in the back flips around so its hidden. Once the digital back is turned inward (hidden) it is practically impossible to notice that the camera is digital. Even has the film advance lever which is still used to set the mechanical shutter. The design is spot on... merging the old with the new taking advantage of shooting with a rangefinder. When I shoot.... I completely forget that its a digital camera. The mount is Leica's M-mount. You don't have to buy the expensive Leica lenses though. Voigtlander has a whole line of great M-mount lenses at a fraction of the cost. Shoot a lot of low light, hand held? The Voigtlander Nokton 35 f1.2 is a bargain at $819. You'll be amazed how slow of a shutter a rangefinder can be shot handheld. Oh and lets not forget the 1:1 rangefinder... bright and so nice...

Now for the bad stuff:

* Still expensive brand new (but a fraction of an M8 ). Mine was purchased as a refurb for $1400.
* Its a rangefinder... not necessarily bad but does have its adv as well as its limitations.
* only has the 28 35 and 50 framelines.
* Quality is from Epson is very questionable. There are reports of people getting and exchanging 2-3 times before then get an R-d1 that is properly aligned.
* Due to Quality Control issues.. one also has to question its longevity.
* People have reported battery runs out too quickly. Spares are difficult to find.
* Epson support/service in the US does not know a single thing about this camera. When you do get service, it usually is sent to Epson in some other country which means a long turn around.
* Since Epson's venture into the digital rangefinder world left a sour taste in their mouth, future support from Epson is questionable

note: I'm a big Epson fan in regards to their other products: V700 scanner and my 2200 ink jet. In regards to my r-d1, I have to admit its a love but worried relationship.

so far...

I've been shooting the r-d1 for a month straight now...(mostly of my newborn son). My Canon DSLR has not seen much use lately... it will probably be many months before the novelty of this camera wears off. The camera appeals to a small group of people and I can only recommend it to those who really research this camera... its not for everyone. It fits me like a glove... I absolutely love it...

Here's a review to get you started:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/epson-rd1.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

note: some of the issues reported were fixed in the latest firmware.

Other than that... there's not much out there that fits perfectly. My wish is that they would make a Spotmatic or K1000 with a digital back as an inexpensive option for students who want digital capability. 6-8mp, metal body, match needle meter (with modern battery), classic looks, used with all of those nice Takumars. As close to $500 mark as possible.

Thing I miss the most is hanging around the lab with my other photographer buds.

The truth is, and it is sad, I see my son in law spending several times the amount of time on his computer that I ever spent in a lab. Yes he does things I couldn't do and his photos don't his spare kids in the corners but still he works harder than I ever did. Worst of all his customers don't really know the difference.

I love playing with different styles of cameras. If there were digital version of some of my favorite film cameras, I would be in heaven. I went from an EOS-5 to a 10D, so everything was pretty much the same except for adding an LCD, but if I could have an affordable digital version of even an Agfa "Brick" to add to my collection, I'd be so happy. There was a manufacturer that was developing a digital sensor (http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp) that you could put into many different 35mm film cameras. When I first heard about this I was so excited, but then it turned out that by the time it came close to release, the resolution was too low for me and it would work in only certain cameras. If someone made a good, high-res version that could be used in any 35mm camera.... That would be my ideal. And one for MF cameras.

Sure.. your response could be applied to any number of the modern DSLRs..... Heck... one could make the argument that a "grassroots" (for lack of a better term) digital camera is pointless because even the cheapest digital point and shoots have Autofocus. Heck... its no surprise that newer fully featured cameras are the way to go.. That wasn't the point of this thread as per the original poster's lines below:
---
My ideal digital camera would therefore have no autofocus and only 3 dials (ISO settings, white balance settings and shutter speeds). Even an LCD screen would not be necessary
----

So your ideal camera is a modern DSLR.... no surprise there.

Obviously Steph and I like the old classic back to basics camera with a simple digital capture... obviously you are not in the same boat.

I come down with the author of the thread.... (of course)....

I'll go you one farther. why doesn't somebody come up with a record only back that can be fitted to an existing slr camera. If they can do it for medium format but the size of the chip is what make it so expensive how about one less expensive for an old film camera.

A do it yourself installation of course.

I think there is allot of room for improvement.

How about greater dynamic range? If our eye can do it, I don't see why a sensor one day couldn't. I think 32bit HDR in camera photography is just a matter of better sensors and algorithms.

I would love to have a camera with higher fps. It would make shots like this:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/208789623_19c369d9a1_b.jpg
allot easier to make.

Bigger, higher resolution and higher contrast ratio LCD (or other type) of screens would be great. I can only imagine a screen the size of the whole back of the camera with touchscreen buttons.

In camera panoramic photo stitching.

High speed Wifi file transfer.

Or how about a 80gig mini hard drive in the camera. If a Ipod can have a 80gig hard drive, why can't DSLR's have them?

A viewfinder that would actually let me reliably use manual focus (for macro photography)

ISO 3200 with NO noise.

Ultra deep depth of field. Made with in camera compiling of several different shots at different focus ranges.

I think DSLR's were about being as good as film, It's time to image where photography could go without comparing it to film.

Wow, good post. I'm a mechanical person myself. I prefer mechanical, 35mm cameras. I feel more connected to it.

Mine is an Olympus OM1n. Just the most beautiful shutter sound around, IMO. I can see all the gears turning in my mind's eye. Turning mechanical rings for aperture and shutter speed, and knowing right where it is without ever looking... It is just great. I have to say I prefer the shutter speed dial of the Nikon, Pentax, and Canon over the other lens ring on the Olympi, but it is nothing to complain about really.

I think you should keep shooting 35mm. Have the negs scanned as they're processed, and get the best of both worlds.

As nice as it is to do imaging on the pc, it is just not theraputic like working in a darkroom. You can see things happening, you're working with your hands. The cameras and enlargers have these nice mechanical moving parts. It's just magical.

To someone who has to sit in front of a computer all day at work, I don't really look forward to it as much when I get home.

Yet, I'm still going digital. It is just too convenient to ignore forever, like cell phones. But I'm jolly well going to keep that OM1n around, and put a roll through it from time to time, to remind me what photography really used to be like.

There is actually one camera that could fit your needs perfectly. The new Nikon D40. It's layout is simple, and autofocus is supported only with lenses that have focus motors built in, as there is no such thing in the camera body. Take a look, see what you think.

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25420