Dream cam?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
So /p/, what's your dream cam?
mine would be something like this:
Interchangeable back (all are backside illuminated) full frame mirrorless camera with movable flange distance as well as 5 axis sensor based IS, which can be coupled with optical IS (as well as other sensor movements).
EF mount, but movable flange distance allows thousands of lenses to be used.
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 20, 24, and ultra high detail 50mp backs available.
electronic and mechanical shutter from 1+ hour to 1/8000 second exposure. manufacturer provides lens adapters for everything from fd to 645.
no mirror, so leaf shutter lenses can be used.
special line of leaf shutter lenses made, first releases being standard prime 50mm T1.4 and T1.8 (also comes cheaper with non leaf shutter versions, same optics though). comes with great manual.
no idea how much something like that would be priced, probably a fuckton
sorry for sloppy writing
Oh wow this thread again. Didn't we have fun with the one last week.
Dream cam is the one you have with you *tips fedora*
>>2876995
Thanks for the valuable input anon
maybe I should just make a thread about this imaginary camera instead, and if it's possible
Kill yourself my man
>>2877054
was it the pentax that pissed you off?
>>2876990
>not haslelblad mirrorless
>>2877001
There is no possible valuable input in this thread. It's a bunch of faggotry that will never happen. Herp derp let's buy 63 different backs for varying megapickles.
On a serious note, you say you want leaf shutter lenses, but also be able to use other lenses? What the actual fuck? So you want it to have a curtain shutter in the body, as well as being able to operate lenses with shutters?
my dream camera is a full frame digital voigtlander bessa, with mechanically cocked shutter and all.
>>2876990
You guys think too small. For me its the Geoeye 1.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 420 Image Height 279 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:10:16 11:17:42 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 400 Image Height 266
My dream cam would be a digital Bronica. The back would be interchangeable between film and digital, digital back would have fully articulated 3.2 inch touch screen. Sensor would have built in electronic shutter that would go up to 1/32000 second and the max mechanical would be 1/4000. Camera would have TTL meter built into the body and also have wifi and nfc and shoot using DNG as its RAW format. Camera would use rotary shutter for fast sync speeds. Lenses would have aperture rings on them and the pro line of lenses would all be superfast primes. Ranging from a 35mm f2 at the wide end to an 80mm f1.7 as the standard and lastly a 200mm f2.4 portrait lens. There would be constant aperture zooms as well in f3.5 and f4 flavors
>>2877079
Get an Epson RD-1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIOk6kmYOWc
>>2876990
My dream camera is whatever body with great lenses. Could be my K-3 with DA* and Limited lenses, K-1 with D-FA* and FA Limited lenses, Nikon D810 or D500 with whatever great lenses Nikon has
The key feature is the awesome lens, then the body that can be mounted on.
>>2877292
>fool frame
>RD-1
>pick one
My dream camera exists but is way out of reach.
>>2877299
awkward as fuck to use
>>2877304
How so?
>>2877292
the diagonal angles on the topside are ugly. i'm glad they fixed that with the bessa R-series bodies
>>2876990
I dream of that 4MP digital back, for sure.
Or... I can dream about the Leica S system and having a stable of those rediculous lenses. Nothing feels like it and it is nimble enough to be a "carry around"
>>2877079
Came here to post this, wouldn't even care about megapickles, they could ram a 10 year old sensor in there and I'd still rush out and buy one
>>2877326
After testing an S006 a long while back, I'd have to agree, the ergonomics and glass is second to none.
Never the less, I've had to "settle" for a 645Z, although I'm glad I did, it's got a lot more features built in and that delicious Sony sensor. The lenses are honestly not half bad either, but what I really want is that 28-45mm zoom, which would cover my wide-angle needs forever. I really hope Pentax makes more lenses of that caliber.
>>2877130
>mirror lens
Kek
>>2877305
Watch any videos on it. It'll take you 15 minutes to operate the camera, and that's after your spend them setting up the shot, and that's if you don't get a random error and a black image or rainbow color glitch
>>2877486
>watch any videos on it
>take you 15 minutes to operate the camera
There's a small delay, but it's no different than using MF/LF on a tripod.
>>2877310
I actually like the diagonal topside. The squared off "stepped" shape of the R-series has always seemed "cheap" to me.
>>2877961
i wouldn't mind the diagonal if it wasn't so high up compared to the lower side. in the R-series it's squared off, but the difference between the low and top side is quite short. the thick shutter dial is almost flush with the topside
looks so lopsided on rd1
>>2877379
The Z is awesome - out of my reach by a mile, though. And frankly, I don't photograph enough or well enough to remotely justify.
>>2876990
>Interchangeable back (all are backside illuminated)
Someone's been reading up on their sony marketing :^)
>manufacturer provides lens adapters for everything from fd to 645.
why would you use full frame lenses on a medium format body? would you just crop out the pixels or would some of those interchangeable backs be "full frame?"
If we're going for pure fantasy, why stop at 645? why not 67, or 4x5, or an 8x10 digital?
>>2877268
>There would be constant aperture zooms as well in f3.5 and f4 flavors
why? like a 2.8 and 4 flavors would make more sense?
>>2879632
f/2.8 zooms on a 645+ camera would be, to say the least, usable.
>>2877493
You misunderstand; You have to take the time that you spend setting up the MF camera part of it (On a tripod of course, you can't really handhold this thing), and add another 15-20 minutes to set up the digital part, which will then after that fail 3/4 shots because of it's bad design.
a digital aps-c camera with the constax g2's crazy good looks. I just love that sensor array-looking top area
>>2879632
They would make more sense, but f3.5 as the max for a constant aperture zoom would mainly be for size purposes. An f2.8 zoom on 645 would be too large to be practical. Just look at how large most of the f4.5 zooms are already. an f3.5 or f4 zoom on 645+ would be the size of the Olympus 14-35 F/2 at least, and that lens is massive already despite being for four thirds sensors
>>2880595
I was gonna say you're describing an X-Pro2, but if all the AF/RF window thingies are what you like then yeah, you're kind of SOL.
>>2876990
Depends on the format, and style of camera. I don't shoot digital so it's all film
>35mm rangefinder
Leica M3, though I have an M4-2
>35mm SLR
Alpa 9d
>120
Hasselblad 500c (have)
>large format
Deardorff 8x10
>>2876990
I digital back with 62mm X 62MM sensor for my Hasselblad 500C/M
I would have "film" modes that would replicate the look and ISO response various films used to have.
Otherwise ISO from 25-6400 plus some uberfast ISOs
>>2881234
I bought a Rolliewide with a 55mm lens because I was a poorfag and coundlnt afford a 50mm f/4 FLE
I kept it even after I bought one
Alpas are odd balls cameras. Not sure as I never borrowed one to try out.
My view camera is a Gandolfi 11X14 plus 5 lenses. Got it secondhand in an estate sale. Only used it for around 50 plates.
