FF camera body with interchangeable mounts

[Saorsa]

The electronics is likely simpler than the mechanical interface.

Yes, I haven't seen a DSLR with a DB-25 connector on the side, ever and that's a monster compared to a micro USB connector. How about storage capacity? How much space would it take to handle 16 or 32 GB of storage just 15 years ago?

Here is your legacy



In any electrical interface current requirements drive the design.

[Inkanyezi]

I think the initial post of this thread asks for features that are not useful to many of us - if any.

The industry as a whole is driven by sales. If a design does not sell, it is out. It really doesn't matter whether it is years before its time or if a product in many respects is much better than the mainstream of the industry. If the public won't buy, it goes down the drain.

We have scores of examples from the past, maybe more in the camera industry than most other. When Topcon around 1960 made the ultimate behind the lens light measuring system, it was about seven years before its time, and they chose a bad mount, but what really killed it was the public response. People didn't buy. At the time it came, brands as Exakta and Edixa still sold well, even though they were past their "best before" date. Asahi Pentax was on the rise, as was Nikon. Minolta partially copied the Topcon concept seven years later and Nikon was unable to do so because of holding on to the old system of registering f-stop before AI. Even the AI system is not as functional as the Topcon of many years before.

But even though the innovation became mainstream after about ten years, it didn't save Topcon.

We have a similar example now, although it is unlikely that the design will pull a large company down. There is one manufacturer, that has adopted the presently best system for untethered - yes unfettered - shooting: Samsung. The inclusion of WiFi, a standardised interface, has been unique for a few years, and so far only Olympus has followed. None of the two large companies has catered to a need for simpler remote control than tethering with an non-standard interface. Canon has its own system that is heavily unstandardised as well as really bad in most respects regarding the user interface. Nikon did make an attempt long ago with a standardised network interface, but there is nothing WiFi around the corner still, and none of them has a reasonable user interface. So far only Samsung and Olympus, but Olympus only in the high end product.

So the real problem for innovation in the camera industry is actually that people buy Nikon and Canon and dodge any innovative product. There are early adopters, and time will show whether there are many enough of them to keep the innovative products afloat. Canon is a very good example of a company that does not see a need to innovate. We didn't have much innovation from that side through most of the almost six decades I have been into photography. They made many copycat "innovations", and the only real innovation I have seen was the mirror system in RM that allowed a shorter flange distance than any other SLR. Everything else was "borrowed". The EOS was not innovative, as its main features were what Minolta did about a decade before. Minolta went down the drain, but lives on as Sony. In the hands of Sony, quality has become better and Sony has been in the lead of innovation for some time, contenders being Fujifilm and Samsung. Nikon and Canon are not innovative, but are mainly riding on inertia.

Inertia won't last for ever. We have seen one of the largest companies in the world, that once was the emperor in the field of photographic film as well as chemicals for processing, go down the drain for a technical revolution, a change of paradigms, that they could not adapt to, even though they were at the very spearhead of the new technology (Kodak). They had inertia, but somewhere around the year 2000 there was an abrupt change in the market of their main product. As people didn't buy any more, it couldn't survive.

So the main obstacle for innovation in this industrial field is market acceptance. People don't buy Samsung, even though in some respects superior to the mainstream products. People don't buy Fujifilm even though vastly better in many respects than the mainstream products. People buy Nikon and Canon only because of market inertia. It is not the large range of optics, as most people won't ever need more than one lens, and it is not reliability or functionality. It is pure inertia.

And time will show how long it will take for innovations to get into the mainstream, and who will survive. Kodak went down because people would not buy any more film, and the watershed was when digital became good enough to compete. But perhaps the even greater factor was economy. Even if we would buy a new memory card as soon as the first one is full, it would still be cheaper that film ever were.

I don't think it's fruitful to see it as a matter of sensor sizes. The 4"x5" sizes are for ever gone from the mainstream market, and things get smaller. We have better image quality from smartphones and touchpads than we had from miniature film when it took over the market. µ4/3 is far superior to miniature film, when it comes to image quality. With f/1 lenses it becomes competitive to full frame also regarding bokeh. The Fujifilm X-trans sensor in APS-C format performs better than any full frame Canon sensor.

So if you wish to drive the market toward better products, the smart move should be to abhor Canon and Nikon and buy Fujifilm, Samsung and µ4/3 cameras instead of the dinosaurs. Only a falling market would drive those large companies into innovation to the benefit of us.

But a Swiss Army Knife approach? I don't think so. We already have it in the superzoom cameras, but most of today's photography is done with smartphones. They cater to the needs of everyday photography.

[dhimsbugs]

I think Nikon has been much better with their support of legacy lenses than most.

With the exception of really old lenses (Non-AI) I can use every one of my Nikkors on my current cameras. The only really old one I have left is a Micro-Nikkor that is Pre-AI and only gets mounted on tubes or bellows.

Some bodies don't support the mechanical AF but only my Nikon 1 requires me to use manual focus with them.

I also prefer the Nikkon, because I have a Nikkon good quality.

[pnodrog]

I think the initial post of this thread asks for features that are not useful to many of us - if any.


...... We have seen one of the largest companies in the world, that once was the emperor in the field of photographic film as well as chemicals for processing, go down the drain for a technical revolution, a change of paradigms, that they could not adapt to, even though they were at the very spearhead of the new technology (Kodak). They had inertia, but somewhere around the year 2000 there was an abrupt change in the market of their main product. As people didn't buy any more, it couldn't survive..........

........It is not the large range of optics, as most people won't ever need more than one lens, and it is not reliability or functionality. It is pure inertia. ......

I worked for Kodak for a few years in the late 60's. It had even then become a ponderous corporate. At that time any technical staff were well down the ladder with the finance and marketing staff totally dominant. It did not surprise me at all that the company was unable to respond quickly enough to the digital threat. Interesting to note they are now dominant in the supply of medium format sensors but the company is only a shadow of its former glory. No doubt the corporate culture has changed and values technical staff far more highly than they did in the past.


People only requiring one lens may become even more typical and force an adjustment on the industry. With bigger and better sensors and the ability of software to correct lens distortion a wide angle to mid telephoto zoom lens followed by digital zoom may meet all but the most demanding requirements.

We may even start seeing lenses being supplied with a disk containing its comprehensive individual factory calibration results that can be used by PP software to remove/correct all the lenses shortcomings. The calibration may eventually be stored within the lens and provided to the camera so the required corrections are performed in camera. Cheap low quality but high performance results plastic lens?

[ajohnw]

Nikon were king at one time due to the mount. Mechanical bodies wear out/need servicing and lenses involve far more expenditure so if a pro and lots of lenses buy Nikon as they stated they would maintain compatibility. Canon at that stage was more or less a bystander - then came digital and that changed. A real innovation.

Seeing mention of Topcon. I actually owned one. It had a leaf shutter. That had one advantage, flash sync at all speeds and one disadvantage which for many things didn't matter - top shutter speed of 1/500 sec.

Kodak were most definitely the king of CCD sensors but an irritating company called Sony concentrated on smaller ones and the camera market. Kodak also tended to specialise in particular type of read out. They did move in that direction but probably too late. Then came CMOS. Crap initially but slowly improving. Sony decided to forget CCD development and switch to CMOS rather a long time ago now. Prior to that Canon it seems developed their own CMOS sensors that had extra ordinary low noise performance. Actually in terms of pure dark noise they may well still lead.

The only innovation of late is mirrorless but that's not really an innovation. It's a little like iPads - take mobile phone technology and stick it in something else that in this case no longer includes the phone. Mirrorless in real terms comes from compacts etc. but still takes pictures. All these sort of things are just making better use of available technology. Some would question better in this case. It's nothing new really only sensor size changes.

Some "innovations" go unnoticed. One camera I know of has highlight and lowlight metering built in. Given all the talk about this area people might think it should be in all cameras but I know of no other signs of it. Perhaps a histogram is better. Pass.

The current moves on cameras at this level appears to be even better jpg's.

John
-