Desired fantasy gear

[ERO]

Chalk up another one for replaceable focusing screens in the 5D3. That was an unforgivable omission in a camera at this level. Most of our stuff is manually focused studio work so we have to fall back on either 5d2, 1d series or medium format bodies, which is not always ideal. My old eyes need all the help they can get.

Would love to see the new rumored TS-E 45 & 90 appear with the same features and resolution as the 24.

Oh, and one of those Manfrotto tripods, please.

Now for the fantasy stuff - what I'd really like would be a simple, ultra-high quality, manual only, full-frame 35mm body with mirror lock and knurled rotary knobs on top for shutter/aperture/ISO. Nothing else - no autofocus, no fancy electronic stuff that needs a one inch thick manual. Like an old F1, but digital. Don't even need an exposure meter. It would probably have hairs sprouting from the hand grip.

 

[sanj]

I would love a body with option of full frame and crop with the flick of a switch.
This fantasy stems from something I read in this forum earlier. Was it a Nikon camera?
I do not know Nikon gear at all so not sure.

But something like this would be great for me. Advantages of FF and crop in the same body! While we are at it, let the crop have even faster frame rate.

I believe the Nikon D800 has this. It effectively becomes a built in TC. I would love that too.

You could create an action in photoshop to autocrop your photos from the centre of the frame by 1.5 times and there you go. Problem solved.
However the "higher framerate"-function when less pixels are used is interesting (but not for me). I would like to go in another direction though - less noise! Use 25% of the pixels and reduse the noise by 50% or something by grouping the pixels together 2 by 2 or something, letting those 4 pixels simulate 1 larger pixel. THAT would be an interesting "crop" mode for me (although it would not be a crop mode since it would not crop, it would be high sensitivity, low resulution mode). I have no need for faster framerates (however I understand that other photographers may need all the FPS they can get.)

22 mpix to use at low ISOs
11 mpix to use at high ISOs
6 mpix to use at superhigh ISO.

Interesting

 

[Don Haines]

A nice remote control kite rig for aerial photography....

 

[Don Haines]

EF-S 400 4 IS

Why not try the EF 300mm f/4L IS, as it is the equivalent of 480mm on a 1.6x crop body?

Maybe because it would be the equivalent of much more mm (actually 640) on a 1.6x crop body and some need it?

No, a theoretical EF-S 400mm lens on a 1.6x crop body would be the equivalent of 400mm. Note: EF-S lenses, which is what the OP requested, can only be mounted on a 1.6x crop body, so there is no crop factor.

Nope!

A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens is a 400mm lens, no matter which body you mount it on.

For example, take the EF-S 18-200 and the EF 70-200, mount them on a crop camera, and you will get the same field of view. This is the same field of view as a 320mm lens would give on a FF camera.

Also, some EF-S mount lenses made by third parties will fit onto FF bodies. I have used a Sigma 10-20mm lens on a 5D2. It works, but the vignetting is SEVERE! It really looks like you were using a fisheye lens.

 

[ERHP]

Crazy I know, but I'd love to see a 1200mm f/5.6 with the newer tech used. Wonder if they could get it under 25lbs. Sure it would be pricey, but the topic is fantasy gear...

 

[lholmes549]

I would love a body with option of full frame and crop with the flick of a switch.
This fantasy stems from something I read in this forum earlier. Was it a Nikon camera?
I do not know Nikon gear at all so not sure.

But something like this would be great for me. Advantages of FF and crop in the same body! While we are at it, let the crop have even faster frame rate.

I believe the Nikon D800 has this. It effectively becomes a built in TC. I would love that too.

It's not quite as good as a TC because with a TC you have more pixels on your subject whereas with the Nikon crop modes you are simply cropping the image in camera.
So yes it looks closer on the back of the camera but it's the same as taking an uncropped photo and cropping it in PP. Less work I suppose but less control over the crop and same number of pixels on the subject.

 

[sanj]

I would love a body with option of full frame and crop with the flick of a switch.
This fantasy stems from something I read in this forum earlier. Was it a Nikon camera?
I do not know Nikon gear at all so not sure.

But something like this would be great for me. Advantages of FF and crop in the same body! While we are at it, let the crop have even faster frame rate.

I believe the Nikon D800 has this. It effectively becomes a built in TC. I would love that too.

It's not quite as good as a TC because with a TC you have more pixels on your subject whereas with the Nikon crop modes you are simply cropping the image in camera.
So yes it looks closer on the back of the camera but it's the same as taking an uncropped photo and cropping it in PP. Less work I suppose but less control over the crop and same number of pixels on the subject.

Really! Wow, I learnt something. I know its basic for some...

 

[sanj]

A nice remote control kite rig for aerial photography....

Yep!

 

[Eimajm]

I'd like to see an affordable F4 super-telephoto from Canon.....well we are talking fantasy arn't we?

 

[qwerty]

It's not quite as good as a TC because with a TC you have more pixels on your subject whereas with the Nikon crop modes you are simply cropping the image in camera.
So yes it looks closer on the back of the camera but it's the same as taking an uncropped photo and cropping it in PP. Less work I suppose but less control over the crop and same number of pixels on the subject.

If you have a high-enough resolution sensor, cropping behaves like an optically perfect teleconverter -- whether a teleconverter or cropping is better depends on whether your sensor or lens is better. The advantage of in-camera cropping is that you can shoot at a higher frame rate because you have fewer bits to process and push to storage.


On that note, my wishlist of almost-feasible-but-not-gonna-happen-anytime-soon-and-I-couldn't-afford-it-anyways camera gear includes

1) 5d body, 65 MP sensor without read noise issues (e.g. the equivalent of 4 m43 sensors in a 2x2 array, perhaps with accommodation for dead pixels to boost yield) @ 4fps (dual processor required currently) with choice of lossy raw compression (no line skipping; binning or better) or crop @ 6-8 fps and a true ISO 50 (not the overexpose-and-fix-it-later expanded ISO). That last bit would probably be the toughest with the tiny pixels due to full well capacity issues though, if Rambus's Binary Pixel patents are for real, maybe even an almost-real ISO 25 or lower is within reach (note that, as a geek, I am officially required to hate Rambus). I would probably pay $3-4k for it, Canon would probably charge $8k+.

2) Full frame mirrorless (new mount for reduced flange distance, but electrically compatible with EF, EF-S, and M lenses). Features and size equivalent to Olympus PEN range. Not gonna happen until someone scares Canon management into realizing that mirrorless is for serious photographers too (though Sony has a FF mirrorless interchangeable rumored).

3) 35-85 f/2 (as mentioned previously in thread). IS is nice, but I don't need it. I would probably pay $1.5k; Canon would probably charge $3k+

4) {12,14}-{24,28,35} f/4 or f/5.6 I don't need f/2.8 for a landscape lens, and don't want to pay for it or carry it around. (Though increasing aperture has less effect on the overall size of UWA lenses than on others.)

5) A TS zoom lens, say 17-{35,50} f/4

 

[AudioGlenn]

it takes forever to change AF point from one side of the frame to the other.

There's a setting that allows you to cycle through AF points so that when you reach one side and rotate the dial, the selected AF point automatically jumps to the other side of the frame.

See: Menu>AF5>Manual AF pt. selec. pattern>choose continuous

 

[timmy_650]

I would love to see a line of adventure Lens. So they would have the build of an L lens waterproof and great optics . But not super fast lens. Primes is what is in my mind. so like a 50mm f1.4, 24mm f2.0 85mm f1.8. Some like that. With a smaller price tag then the normal L lens.

 

[fwuethrich]

Camera:
- full frame like the 5d3 with in-camera pre-processing like the jpgs
- in camera taging presets
- better dynamics & noise behavior than the 5d3
- Pic quality at ISO 102000 same as current jpegs at 12500 of the 5d3
- possibility to extend pic size to 40+ Megapixel up to 1600 ISO
- in camera auto delete of pics with bad quality
- fast autofocus with live view
- possibility to make 2 pics simultanious with two or more diffrent settings
- geo tagging without the loss of battery life
- in-build lens correction also for non canon lenses ... and of course for raw ;-) ... my point is that i like the possibilities of RAW but hate (and have sometimes no time) to do this with LR or PS ... so if i can reduce the post-production work without to compromise o pic quality i would be more than happy


optics:
- a 14-105mm/f4 IS or even faster faster L lense with fixed length (sandstorms killed some of my L lenses...) at the same weight and size as the current 24-105

and if i can dream ...
- a light (600g) 24-300/f4 IS L tele with in-build 2x coverter ... sandproofed


others:
- an android app to fully control my camera without cable

 

[docholliday]

Only one thing... a 1Ds Mk IV - full frame, 48mp, 10fps, NO video anything. The 1 series is pretty much perfect for what I need, but I could care less about anything video on it. If I wanted video, I'd go get a CineAlta or ARRI Alexa.

That, or it'll be a Hasselblad H5D-200MS that uses autofocus Zeiss lenses (instead of the Fujiblad lenses)...ah, I miss my MF digitals!

 

[Grulon]

Some sort of diaphragm shutter could prevent dust from entering the camera during lens changing.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

As so often Sanj starts an interesting thread. I really enjoy reading this, what strikes me is that most people are talking in evolutionary terms, a little better of this or that. Where are the wishes for the impossible? I am actually not sure what I would like. I want to be able to keep control over as much as possible, even blurry pictures can come out as art, but with the option of letting the camera make choices of course like automatic rating or auto delete if you so wish.

Also like The Bad Duck says, AF points spread wider, but that would come down to the glass also I guess.

An updated 24-105 is something I'd like (evolution not revolution), maybe 2.8, better IS, maybe a little longer.

 

[ksagomonyants]

Something like this?

 

[CarlTN]

*Higher viewfinder magnification combined with larger "apparent field of view" via the finder...for all Canon bodies (except maybe the Rebel line). An image through the viewfinder, with a 50mm lens mounted, focused at or near infinity, should show objects exactly the same size as the naked eye sees them...AND NOT SMALLER than the eye sees them.

get a 7D

The 7D suffers from it too...

 

[KyleSTL]

*Higher viewfinder magnification combined with larger "apparent field of view" via the finder...for all Canon bodies (except maybe the Rebel line). An image through the viewfinder, with a 50mm lens mounted, focused at or near infinity, should show objects exactly the same size as the naked eye sees them...AND NOT SMALLER than the eye sees them.

get a 7D

The 7D suffers from it too...

The 7D does not. It is a 1.0x magnification viewfinder and has 100% accurate field of view (50mm lens focused at infinity). However, it is a crop sensor so the apparent field of view is smaller, even if it has the same magnification as the naked eye.

The last (35mm) camera to have a close-to-1.0x viewfinder was the Pentax MX (0.97x and 95%). Nikon's largest was the Nikkormat EL2 and FT3 (0.90x and 92%), the largest Canon is the TL, FT QL, Flex R2000, Flex RP and Flex (0.90x and 94%). Note that all of these cameras are manual focus film SLRs.

In the autofocus era, here are the biggest viewfinders from the 'big two': Canon - 620/630/650/RT (0.80x and 94%), Nikon - N2020 (0.85x and 92%).

In the digital era there is only one APS-C camera with a 1.0x viewfinder - Canon 7D (1.0x and 100%). Many other crop cameras come close, namely - Nikon D90 (0.96x), Canon 40D/50D/60D (0.95x), Pentax *ist D/*ist DS/*ist DS2/K10D/K20D/K-x (0.95x), Sigma SD1 (0.95x), Nikon D200/D80/D300/D300s/D7000/D7100 (0.94x).

The largest viewfinders for any less-than medium format DSLRs are the one's found in the 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx (0.76x and 100%). Nikon's biggest are the ones in D3/D3s/D3x/D4/D600/D800 (0.70x and 100%).

The medium format Leica S2 has a viewfinder with 0.86x magnification and 96% accuracy (along with a crop factor of 0.8x, resulting in a normalized size of 1.03 in 35mm terms - which comes out to be 35% larger than the ones in Canon's 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx).

So, I do think a magnification of 1.0x would be a huge step ahead of what is available, or has ever been available.

 

[CarlTN]

*Higher viewfinder magnification combined with larger "apparent field of view" via the finder...for all Canon bodies (except maybe the Rebel line). An image through the viewfinder, with a 50mm lens mounted, focused at or near infinity, should show objects exactly the same size as the naked eye sees them...AND NOT SMALLER than the eye sees them.

get a 7D

The 7D suffers from it too...

The 7D does not. It is a 1.0x magnification viewfinder and has 100% accurate field of view (50mm lens focused at infinity). However, it is a crop sensor so the apparent field of view is smaller, even if it has the same magnification as the naked eye.

The last (35mm) camera to have a close-to-1.0x viewfinder was the Pentax MX (0.97x and 95%). Nikon's largest was the Nikkormat EL2 and FT3 (0.90x and 92%), the largest Canon is the TL, FT QL, Flex R2000, Flex RP and Flex (0.90x and 94%). Note that all of these cameras are manual focus film SLRs.

In the autofocus era, here are the biggest viewfinders from the 'big two': Canon - 620/630/650/RT (0.80x and 94%), Nikon - N2020 (0.85x and 92%).

In the digital era there is only one APS-C camera with a 1.0x viewfinder - Canon 7D (1.0x and 100%). Many other crop cameras come close, namely - Nikon D90 (0.96x), Canon 40D/50D/60D (0.95x), Pentax *ist D/*ist DS/*ist DS2/K10D/K20D/K-x (0.95x), Sigma SD1 (0.95x), Nikon D200/D80/D300/D300s/D7000/D7100 (0.94x).

The largest viewfinders for any less-than medium format DSLRs are the one's found in the 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx (0.76x and 100%). Nikon's biggest are the ones in D3/D3s/D3x/D4/D600/D800 (0.70x and 100%).

The medium format Leica S2 has a viewfinder with 0.86x magnification and 96% accuracy (along with a crop factor of 0.8x, resulting in a normalized size of 1.03 in 35mm terms - which comes out to be 35% larger than the ones in Canon's 1Ds Mark III and 1Dx).

So, I do think a magnification of 1.0x would be a huge step ahead of what is available, or has ever been available.

Interesting, I will try my 58mm lens on my friend's 7D, focused at infinity. I know my 58mm at closer than infinity, magnifies the image a lot...as does my 70-200 f/4, when focusing closer. And I suspect my 58mm lens, is actually more like 53 or 54mm at infinity.

However, I will never buy a 7D...I've decided I kind of detest them. I much prefer my 6D, its ergonomics, and its file output. Whether the AF is weaker or not, I can certainly get 99% of the shots I do with it, in focus (and this includes fast servo work at times). I assume if the 6D had a 1.0x viewfinder, it might also need a larger "prism/mirror box"...and thus cost more than Canon would want to spend on making it at the 6D's desired price level...but I could be wrong.

The only other Canon DSLR bodies I will buy in the future, are a 1DX, or else a 1DX successor, and/or a 6D successor. Unless I wind up needing to shoot a lot of video, in which case the recent hack of the 5D3, makes it appealing for that. My neighbor recently bought a 1DX, so I hope to use his a bit at times.