Originally posted by monochrome A film camera.
Nah. That'd be crazy.
Madness indeed! Haven't you read the pamphlets? Every single image ever taken on the medium of film is completely crap! In fact, we're holding regular bonfire nights in major towns, where those unfortunate to have images taken on film may burn the offending prints, negatives and slides.
We assure you that your identity will be kept in the strictest confidence, to save you the embarassment of your friends and relatives discovering you have images made on...film.
Seriously, though, bring back the K1000, LX and MZ-S! Even if Cosina does it. It would be a niche market all right, away from the Canon "uber-pro" film models and high-end rangefinders.
Originally posted by benjikan A Changeable Sensor DSLR with "removable cube design"...
Similar to pro backs but a cube that can be removed containing the sensor.
Third party manufacturers could get in to the game with different formula's.
Could be fun.
I've been pondering this, too.
Granted, Leica's R8 had the option of the a digiback, but that didn't go well for 'em.
As I think you imply, it would be both easier and cheaper for just the sensor to be swapped out. A digital SLR with an interchangeable sensor, not a 35mm SLR with the option of a digital back.
Keep the buffer memory, image processor, LCD, etc on the camera body.
For those of you pondering the merits of this, consider that the main disadvantage, keep in mind that the two most important things in taking photographs are the lens and whatever's capturing the final image - film or a CCD or CMOS sensor. Unfortunately, with the sensor built into the body, if you don't like how it looks and it's not the lenses fault, the only thing you can do is buy a new body. Chances are it'll be the same across the entire range of camera maker's range, though.
One big advantage of film over digital, is if you find you don't like, say, the grain of one film at a certain ISO, you can change it after 36 shots.
Of course, if you can delay obsolence of a piece of equipment by upgrading a small part of it, that means the camera company is losing money (and, as RIAA is teaching us, that's practically outright
theft. Well, it should be, legally.)
Look at the PC industry - that's why more and more computer companies, the big ones, are getting bespoke components and OSes made, so incompatibity with another brand ensures that a user must seek parts or upgrades through the same company.
Also, would companies capable of producing sensors be willing to pay a licence to Pentax to produce sensors, or would they rather get a fat contract with guaranteed sales to make the built in sensors for another company? A licence would be a way to ensure Pentax doesn't lose money on their own sensors when those from other companies are available.
A standard for interchangeable sensors seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Confused
If you ask me, I think you need to calm down for a while probably in a darkened room
Darkened room is right, because it'd be the only place you could see the live view LCD...
Anyway, apart from the interchangeable sensor, full-frame, and better AF (though, frankly, I can't remember the last time I used an AF lens) possibly with an IR AF-assist beam, there's not a whole lot I'd like. Full-metal body shell as well as chassis? Yeah.
Unfortunately, when I think of "niche" I tend to think of Leica RF-style "niche." Expensive for no particular reason (unless the reason is "hand manufactured in the Bavarian alps by a race of ancient, camera-building elves who will spend a decade perfecting the blend of ancient metals, mined from rich, forgotten veins of ore deep within the earth to form the baseplate, and glass that is forged from the crystalline tears of the gods who weep when they see the mortals with lesser cameras") with performance, marketing and, importantly, sales based more on myth than performance.
Though how about that film camera idea, eh?