My ideal camera

F

Flatfish

Messages
271
Compact to fit in pocket.
Larger sensor to reduce noise.
Noiseless up to ISO 1600
Zoom range from about 24mm to at least 130mm though more is better.
Lens brightness about f2.8
Enough in built technology to eliminate the need for photoshop.
Built in neutral density grad filter and a few others.
 
Not necessarily.
Compacts are already in existance.
Sigma have made 2 compacts with large sensors (both rubbish). Noiseless ISO 1600 will be possible when decent camera makers copy Sigmas large sensor.
The Panasonic Lumix TZ7 already has a zoom range of 25mm to 300mm and the Lumix LX3 has 24mm to 60mm at F2.8 all the way.
Olympus have made 2 SLRs with built in filters, just not the filters that anyone actually wants.
My wifes canon compact has enough built in post shooting options to nearly fulfil my requirement to eliminate photoshop. I just need changing colours to sepia b&W, cropping, red eye removal, basic stuff like that.
Once all this lot is combined into one camera then my dream will have arrived.
Oh, greater dynamic range would be nice too. Fujifilm is working on that one.
 
Flatfish said:
Not necessarily.
Compacts are already in existance.
Sigma have made 2 compacts with large sensors (both rubbish). Noiseless ISO 1600 will be possible when decent camera makers copy Sigmas large sensor.
The Panasonic Lumix TZ7 already has a zoom range of 25mm to 300mm and the Lumix LX3 has 24mm to 60mm at F2.8 all the way.
Olympus have made 2 SLRs with built in filters, just not the filters that anyone actually wants.
My wifes canon compact has enough built in post shooting options to nearly fulfil my requirement to eliminate photoshop. I just need changing colours to sepia b&W, cropping, red eye removal, basic stuff like that.
Once all this lot is combined into one camera then my dream will have arrived.
Oh, greater dynamic range would be nice too. Fujifilm is working on that one.
Click to expand...

It was really the Photoshop reference that encouraged my comment. I suppose it depends if you mean Photoshop or photoshop. Adobe Photoshop is a HEEEUUUGELY powerful program that does all sorts of wonderful things, but if you just want the functions you've mentioned above, then it's pretty much here.

Personally, I'd rather do the editing on a computer. Even the largest camera's screens are still too small for my eyes, these days :)

Ian
 
Many years ago before the digital age I passed a three year City and Guilds exam at a standard that got me admitted as a Licentiate Member of the Royal Photographic Society. I used a medium format Bronica and a manual Nikon. I used meters and tripods. Had great fun. Learned a lot. And my photography reached a standard that satisfied me. Then came the digital age. I was in at the 2mp stage with a little Casio. Then a Nikon DSLR. Now things have become ever more sophisticated. I am up to a 13mp Nikon Compact. But I have given my daughters my more expensive gear and settled for a Nikon D40. It is light and easy to use and gives me all I need these days.
All my editing is done on my Apple computer which is linked wirelessly to two large screen TVs in my lounge and study. I print rarely these days, preferring to store and play back on TV. Backed up by music and other presentational tricks, things look good.
I still use an old 3mp Casio I have kept.

And guess what? Do you think anyone can tell the difference between shots taken by the 3mp,6mp or 13mp.? Not until you get to 10X8 prints.

So my ideal camera? One that works reliably and is comfortable to hold.
 
Fido said:
I used a medium format Bronica and a manual Nikon. I used meters and tripods. Had great fun. Learned a lot. And my photography reached a standard that satisfied me. Then came the digital age.
Click to expand...

I seem to have lost interest in photography. I learnt on a Russian Leica copy with a handheld meter, and graduated eventually to an OM1 with manual adapter, and like Fido, had tremendous fun, and felt like I'd really worked to gain some degree of proficiency. Digital just sucked all that fun out of photography for me. I don't get much satisfaction from knowing that I can point a digital compact in the right direction and then tweak the results with Gimp (that's Photoshop for skinflints, chaps, but please feel free to go off on a tangent). Since there's no point in going back to film, realistically speaking, I suppose my ideal camera would be as similar to a Leica rangefinder as possible, but digital.
 
As somebody who as spent his entire working life (since 1985) in the photography business in some shape or form, I've found that even though I learned how to use a camera with film and then lost interest, the digital imaging 'movement' has actually inspired me to use a camera again. Exactly the same principles apply, IF you try to get things right at the time of taking the photograph. It is my opinion that too many people using digital cameras adopt a "it's okay, I can fix it afterwards" attitude, which is clearly flawed. NOTHING is a substitute for making an effort to get the shot 'right' at the time of taking, so digital photography, for me, still holds that fun and excitement for me.

Ian
 
Been in and around photography almost 30 years now and adopt different approaches depending on the situation.
If there's plenty of time to think I try to pre-visualise the shot in my head and get it right in camera.
If it's a reaction shot, I'm prepared to spend time on the mac sorting it out as long as the basics are OK.
Nothing hard and fast.
I too had my interest re-awakened when DLSR's came on the scene after years of shooting film. All of a sudden it was great fun again!
 
I'm so rubbish at taking a simple picture that I used to pass it straight to my wife, for fear of wasting film and money.

Now I shoot 10 or 15, instant playback, review, keep/reject and bingo: a couple of decent photos.

So for a bozo like me digital has been a gift.

But for talented folk I can imagine it's been the opposite: all the art and craft and skill and knowledge is gone.
 
Rev-O said:
But for talented folk I can imagine it's been the opposite: all the art and craft and skill and knowledge is gone.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true - I remember watching a thing where David Bailey was given a £4 disposable film camera - and he still came back with the shots worthy of an exhibition - the tool (camera) is just a means to an end.

It still takes 'an eye' to compose it, and a brain to decide on the exposure, shutter speed, aperture etc - sure the all-singing all-dancing apparatus means that you get a technically good shot every time - but it'll be based on what it considers to be a "good" shot - or the sunny f/8 rule or something else fixed.

There's a yawning gulf of difference between taking a picture of a waterfall at say 1/2000sec and 1/2sec shutter speed - the photos could be taken less than a second apart and completely different atmospherically and artistically. Whereas artistically if a man with a combover is in shot, it's a technically good shot of the man with a combover (and the Sistine Chapel in the background out of focus because the camera focussed on the man with a combover and not the Sistine Chapel).
 
ChrisC said:
If it's a reaction shot, I'm prepared to spend time on the mac sorting it out as long as the basics are OK.
Click to expand...

Yes. Shots like the one below (I do quite a bit of low-level aircraft stuff) do require a little cropping, from time time. Astonishingly, this image didn't.

DSC_5056.jpg


Ian
 
Ian, mate, no-one has the heart to to tell that the photo is rubbish - can't you see the background is all blurry?

My seven year old can draw a plan with the background all sharp and in focus. Come on lad, you can do better than that.
 
Rev-O said:
I'm so rubbish at taking a simple picture that I used to pass it straight to my wife, for fear of wasting film and money.

Now I shoot 10 or 15, instant playback, review, keep/reject and bingo: a couple of decent photos.

So for a bozo like me digital has been a gift.

But for talented folk I can imagine it's been the opposite: all the art and craft and skill and knowledge is gone.
Click to expand...

It's just a different skillset. Photoshop is a fantastic digital darkroom.
 
Rev-O said:
Ian, mate, no-one has the heart to to tell that the photo is rubbish - can't you see the background is all blurry?

My seven year old can draw a plan with the background all sharp and in focus. Come on lad, you can do better than that.
Click to expand...

I suspect that your seven year old also knows that plane ends with an 'e' :lol:

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom