What shape does everyone think the new high mega pixel body will be?

[35mm Film]

I was checking out studio cameras for future work with a design studio and was thinking about the body of the new 46mp that is rumoured to heading our way. I then compared them to the new EOS cinema cameras and thought the C100 body with missing firmware could be used. Any thoughts?

 

[Louis]

I now know why no one has replied to this.............

 

[35mm Film]

I’m sorry if my photoshoped image offended anyone. I thought people would think it was fake it or maybe it’s my shocking gramma. If you have some feedback Louis please share, as I am open to constructive criticism. I was only thinking that the larger format cameras like the Pentax 654D and the Hasselblad hd40 looked similar to the EOS C100 body which might make good starting point for a Studio camera.

 

[Cgdillan]

Maybe if it is going to be medium format. But not for 35mm sensor. I think it would be overkill for a FF camera

 

[preppyak]

The ergonomics make sense for video work, where you have a rig and attachments going on. For hand-holding and doing photography, the ergonomics are crap. The DSLR form is WAY better

 

[35mm Film]

The ergonomics make sense for video work, where you have a rig and attachments going on. For hand-holding and doing photography, the ergonomics are crap. The DSLR form is WAY better

Totally agree with you. I hope the form will be DSLR and not a larger body like the 40mp Pentax 654D and the 40mp Hasselblad hd40. I also hope its priced above the 5DmkIII and not like the Pentax 654D at
$10,000.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think it'll be in good shape.

 

[funkboy]

Blue.

<grin>

On a more serious note, I think your design is pretty spiffy. Reminds me a lot of the Colani designs of the late '80s that led to the T90, my all-time favorite Canon camera (& the one that I really learned photography on). But Canon doesn't seem to be in the mold-breaking business much anymore, not in DSLRs anyway (maybe in cinema cameras though).

From an ergo perspective, the two camera shapes I'd like to see are:

- T90 (of course)
- AE1-style

We pretty much have a retro SLR styled camera in the Oly E-M5, which as it turns out is also pretty much the best digital camera Olympus has ever made. If Oly made native μ4/3 versions of their f/2 zooms I'd think about it...

 

[bchernicoff]

If we consider that the shape of today's DLSR was inherited from their film forbearers and ask what can the shape be when no longer constrained by roll/sprocket/spool assembly...I think it's an interesting question. I think the overall layout must be pretty similar. I guess I would like to see the grip, LCD, and controls separated from the mirror box/viewfinder/lens mount so that the one can rotate 90 degrees to the other to allow for portrait or landscape orientation without the need for a 1D-esque tall body.

In other words, my right-hand never changes, I just use my left hand to rotate the mirror-box piece. That would be neat.

 

[Cgdillan]

If we consider that the shape of today's DLSR was inherited from their film forbearers and ask what can the shape be when no longer constrained by roll/sprocket/spool assembly...I think it's an interesting question. I think the overall layout must be pretty similar. I guess I would like to see the grip, LCD, and controls separated from the mirror box/viewfinder/lens mount so that the one can rotate 90 degrees to the other to allow for portrait or landscape orientation without the need for a 1D-esque tall body.

In other words, my right-hand never changes, I just use my left hand to rotate the mirror-box piece. That would be neat.

that would be cool

 

[drummstikk]

This would be the kind of design I'd expect if they ever made a square format sensor. This has been discussed here before and only about 4% of readers seem to agree with me this is a good idea.

I'd love a sports camera that didn't force me try to jerk the camera 90° because there was a diving catch of a grounder instead of a leaping catch of a line drive. Let me shoot everything square and I'll apply the crop that doesn't amputate limbs later. (Or leave cropping to the client, as my primary customers prefer.)

 

[KyleSTL]

This would be the kind of design I'd expect if they ever made a square format sensor. This has been discussed here before and only about 4% of readers seem to agree with me this is a good idea.

I'd love a sports camera that didn't force me try to jerk the camera 90° because there was a diving catch of a grounder instead of a leaping catch of a line drive. Let me shoot everything square and I'll apply the crop that doesn't amputate limbs later. (Or leave cropping to the client, as my primary customers prefer.)

The problem I see with that is the same as the problem you get when doing portraits. Most printing is done in standard sizes (4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 13x19, etc) to fit standard frames. When you compose a picture, considerations are usually not taken of what the aspect ratio of the final print will be. In the past manufacturers produced focusing screens with 5:4 lines so that you could ensure good composition whether you printed 4x6 or 8x10. A square sensor would not help in composing a scene well within a given aspect ratio, without additional crop lines in the viewfinder.

 

[TeenTog]

I personally only crop when I have to, but I can definatley see Canon going with a new aspect ratio. However, My guess is that it will look pretty similar to the 1D X, with a few alterations (don't ask me what) to make it more distinctive, and to stand out from all the 1 series cameras.