Hello, Everyone, What function or feature would you expect most in your next camera

[Nickding]

What function or feature would you expect most in your next camera body？Faster focusing. better censor, higher metpixels, or new functions like Wi-Fi?

[Manfred M]

Higher dynamic range, improved colour depth and lower base ISO (ISO 25 as a base, versus ISO 100).

[DanK]

Hi Nickding,

I see you are quite new here. Can you add your real name and location to your profile? We use real names here, and locations often help us give good responses.

Re your question: I suppose greater dynamic range, but to be honest, I rarely give it any thought. My current camera is lightyears better than I dreamed of 5 or 6 years ago. To paraphrase Ansel Adams, in my case, the piece of equipment most in need of improvement is the 25 cm behind the viewfinder.

Dan

[RustBeltRaw]

Leaf shutters, or any method of raising the sync speed. 1/1000th or so would be fantastic. Faster focusing, extra dynamic range, and a big, quick buffer would all be welcome, but sync speed is my main beef at the moment.

[lukaswerth]

Higher dynamic range is always wishful, but my camera already has the highest of all DSLRs. It is an instrument which can do quite a lot. So in general, I am actually not looking so much for technological progress, but rather for completions of my technique, and to stay intellectually independent from the high-grade perfection of my camera. But as a Nikon user I would wish for an equivalent of that wonderful 17mm PC-lens which Canon makes.

Lukas

[rpcrowe]

As with Manfred, I'd like to have ISO 25 capability...

I would also like the following (not listed in order of importance):

1. dual memory slot

2. auto-focus capability with a lens that has f/8 as the maximum aperture: to use 1.4x TC with 400mm f/5.6L and keep AF

3. audio record linked to the image so I could record brief information about an image

4. built-in secondary shutter button for vertical shots: I don't like size or weight of battery packs

5. built-in espresso maker for refreshment during shooting (just joking )

[IzzieK]

5. built-in espresso maker for refreshment during shooting (just joking )

Not a bad idea for winter shoots, Richard.... (you know I'm going to pick on this one, do you?)

Actually I am still looking at that D800E...until then, I'll never know what I want next. 'Won't be long now ....

[steve welle]

Leaf shutters, or any method of raising the sync speed. 1/1000th or so would be fantastic. Faster focusing, extra dynamic range, and a big, quick buffer would all be welcome, but sync speed is my main beef at the moment.

can anyone explain why shutters cannot be replaced by some type of totally electronic control of regulating exposure? Would it just take too long to transfer the data from sensor to buffer to get exposures shorter than typical flash sync speeds? Is the time it takes to transfer data from the first to last pixel long enough that it would cause uneven exposure when you want to expose for a msec or less? In live view or video mode the camera is regulating exposure time of each frame electronically, although at 60 fps I suppose that the sensor must be collecting photons for more than 10 msec per frame - so data transfer time would be a non-issue. Any engineers out there who can enlighten me?

[Colin Southern]

can anyone explain why shutters cannot be replaced by some type of totally electronic control of regulating exposure?

My suspicion is that there would be grave risk to the sensor whenever the full sun was visible in the shot if it didn't have a mechanical shutter - and dust management would be a nightmare.

[shreds]

better censor,

Noooooo. I will do the pp. Don't want anyone else interfering in what I can and can't shoot. There are too many rules already.

[inkista]

can anyone explain why shutters cannot be replaced by some type of totally electronic control of regulating exposure?

Well, they can, of course. But one issue with doing away with physical shutters altogether is that any charge on the sensor needs to be completely cleared before the image is taken, otherwise you can get ghost-imaging. It's one of the reasons for shutter lag in liveview-only cameras: the data from the liveview has to be cleared off the sensor, first.

Would it just take too long to transfer the data from sensor to buffer to get exposures shorter than typical flash sync speeds?

Depends on how things are implemented. On the GX-7 and the other Panasonic mft cameras that do "silent mode", this is definitely the case. They're reading the data off the sensor line-by-line so a full scan of the sensor takes long enough that movement of the camera or subject registers in the image. I really wish they'd figure out how to implement silent mode while doing a full dump of the sensor rather than line-by-line. It's the main reason they've deactivated flash altogether in "silent mode."

However, on cameras like the Nikon D70, otoh, could do global sensor dump with electronic shutter control (but still had physical shutters which eliminates the wait for charge-clearing), and could sync to higher shutter speeds as a result. IIRC, the 70D could sync up to the max. shutter speed of 1/8000s, although you had to trick it into not self-limiting at its "official" sync speed of 1/500s.

[steve welle]

My suspicion is that there would be grave risk to the sensor whenever the full sun was visible in the shot if it didn't have a mechanical shutter - and dust management would be a nightmare.

I agree about the shutter affording protection, but the camera could have a shutter with an option for opening it before a shot when you need a very short exposure.

This was mostly an academic question to satisfy my curiosity rather than a need for a faster sync speed, but Lex mentioned he wanted faster sync speed so there must be a need for it by some photographers. The books and online material I have read have discussed stopping action by increasing shutter speed, but rarely mention flash sync speed as an issue. If your sync speed is 1/200 it takes almost 5 msec for the slit to pass over the whole frame (how much less time I am not sure - another question for the camera engineers - how much time is allowed for the flash to fire when calculating sync speed?). So if you select 1/4000 ss it takes more than 10 times longer than that to expose the whole scene. Probably irrelevant for most shots. If you are shooting a bird far away that occupies 10-20% of the height of the frame you still get an extremely fast exposure of the subject. If you photograph a runner whose head is is at the top of the frame and whose feet are at the bottom of the frame, the difference of a few msec in capture time of the head and feet might in theory cause the runner to look like she is leaning forward (or back, depending on direction of slit movement) more than she actually is even if no lateral motion blur is evident. Most would not notice or care about such things.

[inkista]

I agree about the shutter affording protection, ...

I dunno. In my G3, the mechanical shutter is open most of the time, and the sensor is exposed when I take a lens off the body. Dust has only been slightly more problematic for me than with my dSLRs, and I change lenses all the time in less than ideal conditions. OTOH, I live somewhere pretty dry.

... Lex mentioned he wanted faster sync speed so there must be a need for it by some photographers. The books and online material I have read have discussed stopping action by increasing shutter speed, but rarely mention flash sync speed as an issue. ...

This is because sync speed is typically not an issue when it comes to "freezing action" and flash photography. The flash burst is typically much faster than most sync speeds, so if you are careful to eliminate all or most of the ambient on the subject and light then, then the flash burst can do the "freezing" even with longer shutter speeds (typically how high-speed photography of things like balloons bursting or bullets going through apples is done).

A faster sync speed is more typically required to shoot with a shallow DoF in the daytime. If you are, say, in sunny-16 conditions (iso 100, 1/100s, f/16), and you want to shoot at f/2 to get a shallow DoF, and you've already bottomed out your iso at 100, then you need six more stops (f/16 -> f/2) of shutter speed to get there, and a 1/250s sync limit is in your way. You could add ND filters, of course, which is the more traditional way to go, or use HSS; but high-speed sync tends to rob you of about two stops of flash power.

But this is why the X100S with its leaf-shutter capability to sync to 1/1000s is so prized--because Fuji also added a physical three-stop ND filter in the camera that you can engage at will.

[Brownbear]

No noise and beautiful colour at high ISOs.

[Nancy Moran G]

One that would tell me what I am doing wrong!
Just kidding, as said above, I would still want 'control' or 'manual' way to make my image.
As a newbie, not sure what else I would want, other than seeing my LCd in daylight better.
N

[Colin Southern]

I agree about the shutter affording protection, but the camera could have a shutter with an option for opening it before a shot when you need a very short exposure.

There are some models with an electronic first curtain, but for some reason we haven't seen much of a change to the technology over all these years.

This was mostly an academic question to satisfy my curiosity rather than a need for a faster sync speed, but Lex mentioned he wanted faster sync speed so there must be a need for it by some photographers. The books and online material I have read have discussed stopping action by increasing shutter speed, but rarely mention flash sync speed as an issue. If your sync speed is 1/200 it takes almost 5 msec for the slit to pass over the whole frame (how much less time I am not sure - another question for the camera engineers - how much time is allowed for the flash to fire when calculating sync speed?). So if you select 1/4000 ss it takes more than 10 times longer than that to expose the whole scene. Probably irrelevant for most shots. If you are shooting a bird far away that occupies 10-20% of the height of the frame you still get an extremely fast exposure of the subject. If you photograph a runner whose head is is at the top of the frame and whose feet are at the bottom of the frame, the difference of a few msec in capture time of the head and feet might in theory cause the runner to look like she is leaning forward (or back, depending on direction of slit movement) more than she actually is even if no lateral motion blur is evident. Most would not notice or care about such things.

Above X-Sync one needs to use high-speed sync which is just a fancy term for the fact that the flash acts like a constant light source, so most of the timing problems just go away.

[skilsaw]

"Professional Output Mode" that gives outstanding pictures regardless of inputs.

[inkista]

I suppose there are a lot of features I expect to see. Generation to generation there are always improvements in sensor performance, whether that be resolution, high iso noise performance, or dynamic range. I expect to see touchscreens and wi-fi. I expect to see more processing features. I expect to see gimmicky stuff like in-camera HDR or panostitching or whatever that I'd rather do in post myself. I expect to see AF performance improvements. I expect cameras with smaller pixel pitches to start losing their anti-alias filters.

What I hope to see would be software features like those implemented in Magic Lantern. Some cameras have them, others don't, but things like focus-peaking, inset zooms, and built-in intervalometers should be standard. But other ML features AFIAK don't show up anywhere: like automated ETTR and RAW-derived histograms/blinkies, etc., that really really should also be standard across cameras. Not to mention cool features like dual-ISO mode [essentially single-shot HDR]. I'd also like it if most cameras allowed you to save to DNG as well as native RAW, so you'd have a choice, but I think only a handful of cameras do that now.

And along with the capability to save to DNG, I'd also like to see it done with Adobe "smart previews", so that wi-fi could then be used to directly edit images on a tablet with a version of Adobe Lightroom, without having to transfer the entire RAW file, but being able to sync the edits made to RAW files on a desktop when you finally get around to transferring them (figure this one's coming, but without in-camera support for smart previews, we're going to have to wait and throw computing cycles at generating them from the RAW). But maybe I'm just building air castles.

What features would I upgrade for, though? Hmm. Harder to say. I'm considering upgrading from my G3 to the GX-7 for the corner tiltable EVF, IBIS, faster sync speed, and silent mode. But I also want to wait to see if the GX-8 (or whatever) has PDAF in it. It's usually not a single feature or element of a camera that will catch me, so much as a group of features, and well, future cameras have future features I haven't seen yet, so...

[Bobobird]

@Richard - 1 to 4 of your wish list is in the 1D-X.

[steve welle]

Above X-Sync one needs to use high-speed sync which is just a fancy term for the fact that the flash acts like a constant light source, so most of the timing problems just go away.

Thanks for the feedback Colin and Kathy. I am aware of the issues when using flash such as high speed sync use, but my examples refer to cases where flash is not used. It seems to be under-appreciated that sync speed limits how fast the whole scene can be captured top to bottom regardless of whether flash is used. Seems to me that the issue might be relevant mostly to sports photographers trying to freeze very fast action. In my shots it's not really an issue and as suggested by Kathy I have used flash rather than shutter speed to freeze action in indoor settings.