What is your dream camera?

David Mitchell

Well-Known Member
Hi all,

I just wanted to find out what everyones dream camera would be (or indeed a camera they would love to own in their collection).

A camera that I want to own at some point in my seemingly growing collection is a Zenit Photosniper, because its awesome and a bit different lol

tair5.jpg


Take money out of the equation, what camera would you want? :)
 
I hate to say it in here because I know how much people love their cameras. I mean... I do as well. I miss every single camera I had to offer in part exchange to move up to the next stage. My Dad was right in that I couldn't use them all, but I still miss them. It's just that I simply won't do the "want" thing. Maybe it's because I was retired from work for seven years following a bad riding accident. You quickly learn to buy only the things you need. I chose my two film cameras - an Olympus OM2n and a 1940 Leica IIIb and I wouldn't part with them for all the tea in China.

The Sony A700 is a little different in that I didn't choose it. In fact, I had no intention of having a digital camera at all. It was supposed to be pretty good when it first came out, but I daresay there are those (not on this forum) who would sneer at a camera over four years old and with a kit zoom at that. I didn't get on with it at first, but lately I regard it in the same way as my Olympus - I trust them both to come up with the goods and they don't let me down. I don't know much about what is available because I simply don't look. I will admit to liking the images I have seen from the new Fuji camera, but no... I wouldn't be tempted, even if I had the money. It's taken time to get to know the Sony and for the most part I like what it does. I see no reason to go chasing after something else. Life is too short to spend it wading through yet another instruction manual :)
 
mine would be the seitz 6x17 digital panorama camera .... £32k worth of genius
 
Hi all,

I just wanted to find out what everyones dream camera would be (or indeed a camera they would love to own in their collection).

A camera that I want to own at some point in my seemingly growing collection is a Zenit Photosniper, because its awesome and a bit different lol

tair5.jpg


Take money out of the equation, what camera would you want? :)

Are they hard to get hold of then??
I'm only asking as I could be kicking myself right now.........
I saw one, with a case, and many extras at the flea market in Malvern a couple of months back. It was very clean.........he wanted £40 for it.
 
Funky!! Does look like nice build quality.
So, is the idea of the design for extra stability then?
 
This looks cool :D

gun-camera.jpg
 
Last edited:
Haha ... This thread has just turned into a thread about cameras that looked like guns ... I opened it at work and suspected it might!
 
Haha ... This thread has just turned into a thread about cameras that looked like guns ... I opened it at work and suspected it might!

Lol sorrry! :D what would your dream camera be? Im guessing you may already own it though :D
 
Lol sorrry! :D what would your dream camera be? Im guessing you may already own it though :D

I do—and it is in the plural. During film days, for meat I shot with a Nikon F# system, variety of medium-format systems and large format systems. When I got an assignment for street, or photographing potentially dangerous people, I switched to Leica. Once the shift was done, I and every other shooter I knew, carried small, high-quality, compact cameras with fixed lenses. My favorite was the Konica S3 and many of its pictures were published.

My D700 has the meat-camera well covered. It is a superb camera and ultimately versatile. No need for medium and large-format cameras, since stitching is now so easy. It is also large and noisy, completely lacking in stealth like the Leica and Konica. It is heavy, and its lenses being full frame are also heavy. It is great when traveling by vehicle or shooting in a fixed location—but painfully heavy to carry when exploring a city on foot. Excellent follow focus, making it an ideal critter cam. With two lenses I have a range of 8° to 114° covered, plus the use of all my legacy glass from the film era. It is everything I would want in a dSLR.

At the end of the film era, I was planning on dumping my Leica equipment and going with the far more modern Contax G2. With digital arriving about that time, I decided I would wait for a digital G2. Alas, it was not to be for more than a decade. Yes, there were the Leica M8 and M9, but they are boutique cameras for collectors and people with ego problems. In essence 1954 cameras with marginal Kodak sensors with more noise than P&S cameras, no auto-focus, no LiveView, no video and so on. The red dot on the front apparently costs $5,500US. It is 2012, not 1954 and I though I used them for a half-century, I never really liked Leicas.

Now Fuji has built me a G2 and it is in every way a 2012 camera. The X-Pro1 has everything I wanted in the G2, but it also has a new sensor that is a bold step beyond the traditional Bayer mosaic. With a pseudo-random pattern, no low pass filter is needed and with the incredible sharpness of the Fujinon lenses is pretty much in a class by itself. Though the sensor is only half the size, quality is on par with the D700 at any ISO setting. It also has substantial IR capability. With a nearly opaque Hoya R72 IR filter, I can clearly preview the image on the LCD or EVF and use settings that allow hand-holding. The option exists for using just about any 35mm or medium format lens on the camera, though it would be hard to equal the Fujinons. Fuji just announced an M-mount, so my Leica lenses would be usable should I choose to bother with them.

While the body of the D700 alone weighs 995g, the XP1 with the classic photojournalist's trio of primes weighs only 967g total. It is my ideal urban, walkin'-'round, shootin'-stuff camera. Not silent, but quiet. It is what I always wished the Leicas could be. Unlike the Leicas, it is a real pleasure to shoot.

That leaves the Konica S3, and Fuji answered that one as well more than a year ago. If I am outside my apartment, it is in my jacket pocket or in a little pouch. Small, completely silent, non-intrusive and capable of superb image quality. Great for people, street and decisive moment photography. People just go on with their lives, ignoring the little camera, while I chronicle it with total honesty. Its silence comes with its leaf-shutter, that will sync at 1/2000th of a second, making it ideal for fill-flash either indoors or out. The flash is as close to the optical axis as possible, so there is only the most barely perceptible secondary shadow and often none. It is in every way, the S3, but well beyond.

I loved panoramic photography and own a WideLuxe 140 film camera that paid for itself countless times over. Stitching is easy, but even easier is the motion-panorama feature of both Fuji cameras. A choice of 120° or 180°, stitching is done in camera and it works very well. A splendid bonus when a 17MP pano will do.

So, I am equipped. The current kit totally reflects my legacy film kit, but a couple of decades more refined. At the moment, the only thing on the shopping list is the 14mm lens that Fuji has promised, but not yet announced. So yes, I own my dream camera(s) and shooting has never been more fun. I post new work daily on Facebook and greatly enjoy the feedback from shooters around the world. Major shoots become galleries on my own web-site.
 
Lol sorrry! :D what would your dream camera be? Im guessing you may already own it though :D

I don't really have one ...
I'd like a xpro1, Leica m9 some sorta digi back for my blad ... Mostly stuff I can't afford and would probably not give me much I can't already do ... Nikon d4 too ...
Lots that I'd like ... I dont think the dream camera exists really ... Sort to be a spoil sport ;)
 
I'd like a xpro1, Leica m9... ;)

I am not exactly secretive about my level of satisfaction, and a guy with an M9 challenged me to point out the advantages of the XP1. This is the list I came up with off the top. I will add M9 details in parentheses.


  • Very clean images at ISO3,200 and highly usable images up to ISO25,600. (ISO settings to ISO2,500. The Kodak sensor is reported to be noisy at ISO800 and above.)
  • Hybrid viewfinder and high-resolution LCD. (Traditional rangefinder/viewfinder only. M9 2.5" TFT LCD—230,000 Screen dots vs XP1 3" TFT LCD—1,230,000 Screen dots)
  • Rich and configurable information display in all three views. (LEDs only.)
  • LiveView. (None)
  • Movies, if that is your thing. (None)
  • In-camera panorama stitching which I use a lot. Panoramic photography has long been a part of my work, including the ownership of a WideLuxe140 film camera. (None)
  • Autofocus that is totally reliable wide open at f/1.4. Front and back focus is impossible. (No autofocus. Manual only.)
  • Superb Fujinon lenses with the option of M-mount lenses and lenses from just about every other system. (M-mount lenses, which require being sent to the factory for six-bit encoding for full functionality.)
  • Sequences at six frames per second—14 frames. (Two frames per second—8 frames.)
  • Same size camera but around 2/3 the weight—with the classic photojournalist's trio of primes, camera and lenses only weigh 967g in total. (1690g with angular equivalency.)
  • Great infrared capability with daylight exposures of 1/50th f/2.0 with ISO 1600-3200—marginally hand-holdable. The EVF and LCD provide an accurate preview of the IR image in colour or monochrome. (No idea if the M9 can do IR. If it can, there would be no preview possible.)
  • Walking dangerous streets with a camera costing $2,300 rather than $10,000.
  • Lenses that cost $600 rather than $2,000+. (The new 50mm f/2.0 Summicron is $7,195 / £5,400. 35mm f/1.4 Fujinon (50mm equvalent) is $600.)
  • Live histogram viewable in the EVF, OVF and on the LCD, with a thumb-driven exposure compensation knob that lets you dial in perfect exposure without removing your eye from the finder. (None.)
  • 30 seconds as minimum timed shutter speed, but bulb up to 60 minutes, with a visible timer on the LCD. (Bulb to 32 seconds.)
  • Option of shutter priority. (None)
  • HDMI out. (None.)
  • As well as 3:2—16:9 and 1:1 formats. (3:2 only.)
 
I don't doubt that for a second ... But it's that technology that I like!
Real manual focus, with real rf focusing ... I just like it ...
If they had put a real rf in the xpro1 it would be my ultimate digi I think

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe with a ff sensor ... ;)
 
I don't doubt that for a second ... But it's that technology that I like!
Real manual focus, with real rf focusing ... I just like it ...
If they had put a real rf in the xpro1 it would be my ultimate digi I think

And that would be a deal-breaker here. We used manual focus—not because it was somehow better—because it was all we had. I may have cost me something approaching a hundred thousand culls over the course of my working life. A large portion of the time, I shot for a morning newspaper, which meant working a night shift, and focusing in the dark. All three of my main cameras can focus accurately in light so low that I could not do so manually with anything near the accuracy. This gallery was shot in 1979 with a Leica M5, f/1.0 50mm Noctilux and f/1.4 35mm Summilux on Kodak SO2475 Recording at ISO3200. I would have killed for my X-Pro1!

Bike Week - Daytona Beach - 1979

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe with a ff sensor ... ;)

Again a potential deal breaker. If there has ever been a "right-sized" camera, it is the XP1. When I compared weights of the XP1 and M9, most of the difference was in the size and weight of the lenses due to the full-frame M9 sensor.

Leica
90mm 500g
50mm 335g
28mm 270g

Fuji
60mm (90mm equivalent) 215g
35mm (50mm equivalent) 187g
18mm (28mm equivalent) 116g

When I bought my D700, DPReview posted a pixels per cm² on the specifications of every camera. At that point it was an article of faith that the less dense the pixels on the sensor, the better it would be in terms of high-ISO/low-light. A few years ago, it was deleted across the whole web-site.

By the time the D3 generation was shipping, it was clear that Nikon and all the others had finally mastered designing and manufacturing digital cameras. That generation had a feeling of maturity that earlier cameras lacked. Once the basics were aced, they could concentrate on details like sensors—and so they did. As things like Exmor back-lit CMOS produced small cameras with unheard of performance, all this changed.

Certainly for the moment, full-frame is justified with the 36MP D800, but for a 16MP camera like the XP1, nothing significant would be gained—other than weight. See the M9—18MP full-frame and terrible low-light performance, still requiring longer and heavier lenses. The XP1 clearly equals—and perhaps betters—the performance of the D700 in low light. Sensors grow ever better.

I see a number of cameras have revived the 2/3" sensor now, and are producing some good low-light performance. The $1k bridge cameras of the early 2000s had them, but were only OK at ISO200 and ISO400 was strictly for emergencies. This with only 5-8MP. The friend who bought the X-S1 is shooting at ISO3200 and the results look normal.

For extremely high pixel counts, or when there is an actual need for shallow depth of field, the full-frame is the answer. For movie-making, it achieves a "film-look" even though the result is just a 2MP image. Comparing the downside of a full-frame XP1 to the current camera, I see no rational justification for a larger sensor—no advantage and considerable disadvantages, not the least of which would be cost.
 
Back
Top