[Kolor-Pikker]

My perfect camera would have been the Leica S body and lenses, with the more advanced technology and feature set of the 645Z, and native comparability/tethering with Capture One. 5-axis IBIS would be nice too.

Mirrorless

Mirrorless would be nice, but I'm not ready to dump OVFs just yet, although if we're talking about a theoretical future-cam, then an EVF would be nice if the performance is good enough.

Full size 645 medium format Foveon X3 sensor, 50MP. (no aa filter)

No Foveon please - maybe a similar technology to it, but only so long as it maintains the performance of Sony's sensors in terms of low noise and high sensitivity. I would sooner see BSI integrated, or other technolgies that have no negative impacts.

Hybrid optical viewfinder in the syle of Fuji X100

As long as the lenses can be made to stay small enough, but I'm not sure that rangefinders have much use in the future either way. They only make sense now because EVFs aren't 100% there yet, but this is a theoretical system, why limit yourself to antiquated concepts?

8 axis In body stabilization like the K3 or OM-D

I think you mean 5-axis stabilization, but yes, going forward I think every camera company should implement this technology in their cameras. If Sony pulled it off on a full-frame 42MP sensor inside the cramped body of the A7, anyone should be able to given the room for it.

20EV dynamic range.

What would you use it all for though? The 645Z as it is has such enormous DR that I struggle to find a case where I needed to use bracketing as it is. Unless it also comes with a miracle 20-bit ADC, having too much DR may actually hurt image quality due to tone compression, as you need at least 1 bit per stop of DR for optimal results.

Burst rate up to 30fps

That'd be around 2GB of data per second with 50mp files, you'd need a super computer on a chip to process that data, and then an SSD to write data fast enough. We have drives that can almost write 2GBps today (likely not sustainable though) and they cost $2000~4500, are also massive.

---

Last edited by Kolor-Pikker; 08-05-2015 at 06:18 AM.

[plooksta]

Since we're in dreamland. . . mine would be a digital K1000. Full frame, fully manual, complete with match-needle metering and exactly the same control layout. It's entirely possible with existing technology, but it'll never happen. It's too much of a niche market.

Now, this is an interesting one. I think someone came up with a digital film product years ago. Which was basically a little sensor / memory package that slotted into the film bay of your SLR. I don't think it got far off the ground, but last year I think Nikon came up with a patent for digital backs for film SLRs.

That I would get excited about as would tons of other people i think. It makes sense and is in no way beyond the possible. Whether or not they do it, is another matter, but hang on to those old MX, LX, K1000, FM2, FM3A, OM-4 etc bodies, cos they'll have a new lease of life if this ever happens and a big bump in value. I guess the makers fear wrecking their DSLR sales if they do this but one day I think it will likely happen.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 06:21 AM ----------

[/LIST]AMEN to pretty much all of those take-it-out-of-my-camera.

QUESTION: How many Pentaxians have ever used in-camera editing? Would anyone who has or does please respond (come on - - CONFESS)

I forgot to mention bracketing in this 'bracket'. No film effect bracketing, no flash exposure bracketing, no art mode bracketing, heck, no bracketing at all. I never use it and if I need it I just do it manually cos it's way easier than finding the setting in the menus and then remembering to switch it off and find it again in the menus.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 06:22 AM ----------

The Fujifilm X-T1 is already pretty close to my dream camera. So... Why haven't I got one? It's a pretty expensive camera, and I'd have to buy a whole set of pretty expensive lenses, and then spend time familiarizing myself with it. Meanwhile, the cameras I've already got are already doing OK.

I guess I'm not much of a dreamer. But wait!

Many of my thoughts about future cameras revolve around the Pentax Q system and all the ginchy things that could be done with it, if Ricoh have any imagination. I'd love to see a premium "Super Q" made in a form-factor similar to the Olympus OM-D. I'd love to see a "Q Air" that's merely a camera module controlled wirelessly from my phone -- or maybe a "Q Module" that connects to the end of the phone like a DxO ONE. Or maybe even a "Q 3D" with two side-by-side Q mounts for taking stereo photos.

It's all possible, Ricoh. Breath some new life into this cute little system!

If you want something farther out in terms of digital camera technology. . . A reasonably priced, reasonable performing, large-format sensor would be a real game-changer. A 4X5 inch slab of silicon just isn't going to work. I'm thinking of something more like a 4X5 plate of ground glass with an array of mini-cameras behind it, each focused on a section of the glass, and firmware to automagically stitch the images together.

I guess the day will come, not too far off, that a new kind of sensor, of the size of the Q's, will be outperforming the FF CMOS of today. So you may just find that becomes viable.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 06:24 AM ----------

There's no camera that's perfect...but I think the Nikon df is the closest thing to it!
It not only looks gorgeous, its images are fantastic and its low light performance is amazing.
It's only fault: its not a Pentax

I was disappointed with the Df, The idea is great on paper but in implementation it looks like a frankenstein cross of the FM2 and the D4. It needed to keep the exact proportions of the FM2 imo, and ditch the autofocus completely. Then it would be a real gem.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 06:26 AM ----------

No Foveon please - maybe a similar technology to it, but only so long as it maintains the performance of Sony's sensors in terms of low noise and high sensitivity. I would sooner see BSI integrated, or other technolgies that have no negative impacts.

I should haver included a caveat - a future generation of Foveon with data transfer and low light issues resolved. I honestly still have accidents when I see Merrill images.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 06:28 AM ----------

That'd be around 2GB of data per second with 50mp files, you'd need a super computer on a chip to process that data, and then an SSD to write data fast enough. We have drives that can almost write 2GBps today (likely not sustainable though) and they cost $2000~4500, are also massive.

Dream computers is another thread...

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 06:37 AM ----------

The Fujifilm X-T1 is already pretty close to my dream camera. So... Why haven't I got one? It's a pretty expensive camera, and I'd have to buy a whole set of pretty expensive lenses, and then spend time familiarizing myself with it. Meanwhile, the cameras I've already got are already doing OK.

I guess I'm not much of a dreamer. But wait!

Many of my thoughts about future cameras revolve around the Pentax Q system and all the ginchy things that could be done with it, if Ricoh have any imagination. I'd love to see a premium "Super Q" made in a form-factor similar to the Olympus OM-D. I'd love to see a "Q Air" that's merely a camera module controlled wirelessly from my phone -- or maybe a "Q Module" that connects to the end of the phone like a DxO ONE. Or maybe even a "Q 3D" with two side-by-side Q mounts for taking stereo photos.

It's all possible, Ricoh. Breath some new life into this cute little system!

If you want something farther out in terms of digital camera technology. . . A reasonably priced, reasonable performing, large-format sensor would be a real game-changer. A 4X5 inch slab of silicon just isn't going to work. I'm thinking of something more like a 4X5 plate of ground glass with an array of mini-cameras behind it, each focused on a section of the glass, and firmware to automagically stitch the images together.

The XT1 would be very high on my list too but for lack of IBIS and the price tag.

[ramseybuckeye]

[/LIST]AMEN to pretty much all of those take-it-out-of-my-camera.

QUESTION: How many Pentaxians have ever used in-camera editing? Would anyone who has or does please respond (come on - - CONFESS)

My son had to buy his girlfriend a Nikon for Christmas because of the advertised in camera editing. That was the only thing she cared about. I would bet she had never used it or has tried once and gave up.

[jimr-pdx]

Mine's a box - just a rectangular box. On one skinny end a stabilized square sensor, whether 30x30mm or 56x56 (6x6) size would depend on my budget. Buttons on the sides, screen on top with a flip shade, and a flash mount. And a Pentax K or 645/67 mount on the front

OK you can contour it slightly, but then put a button at each fingertip so we can play it like an optical flute!

[alan_smithee_photos]

I suppose I am not alone in lying awake on moonlit nights, sweating feverishly and tossing and turning amid fantasies of my dream beast. Anyway, let's not go there. Let's talk about your dream camera. What would it be?

Mine would be this:

• Form factor of the Mamiya 6 (with collapsible lens mount), but with optional mount modules (instead of adapters) to take Pentax MF or Mamiya MF leaf shutter lenses or others.

I was just going to say a Mamiya 7 (or 6) with the full complement of lenses (also throw in a refrigerated cargo container full of film, and free developing and scanning for life from Richard Photo Lab. As long as we're dreaming.)

[plooksta]

I was just going to say a Mamiya 7 (or 6) with the full complement of lenses (also throw in a refrigerated cargo container full of film, and free developing and scanning for life from Richard Photo Lab. As long as we're dreaming.)

The 6 is just gorgeous. It's a shame they didn't put the collapsing mount on the 7.

[alan_smithee_photos]

Since we're in dreamland. . . mine would be a digital K1000. Full frame, fully manual, complete with match-needle metering and exactly the same control layout. It's entirely possible with existing technology, but it'll never happen. It's too much of a niche market.

That would be eff'ing awesome.

[Kolor-Pikker]

Dream computers is another thread...

I don't think you understand... today's cameras are miniature computers, and in order to support a fast shooting rate, the CPU inside the camera needs to be fast enough to process the data coming off the sensor, and then store it somewhere.

If you want a 50mp camera shooting at 30fps, that's 2,000MB of data per second it needs to process, the 645Z in comparison pushes a paltry 154MB/s. As it stands, digital media has much slower write speeds than read speeds, and even the fastest drives in existance have 1900MB/s writes, never mind flash cards.

That said, you wouldn't need a high shooting rate on a medium format or high-megapixel camera anyway, on a good day I can shoot around 100 images on my 645Z and consider that a lot. Systems like these are designed for slow and methodical shooting, and I wouldn't mind a frame rate of around 5~6fps max.
The autofocus probably wouldn't be good enough to justify a fast shooting rate in the first place.

[mholford]

[/LIST]AMEN to pretty much all of those take-it-out-of-my-camera.

QUESTION: How many Pentaxians have ever used in-camera editing? Would anyone who has or does please respond (come on - - CONFESS)

What is that? (never shot anything but raw....)

[iCrop]

I suppose I am not alone in lying awake on moonlit nights, ...

A Pentax 67IID, that would use all the lenses and accessories of the 67II. I can dream too.

[tvdtvdtvd]

How about...... an eagle eye! A genuine eagle eye, (or the biomechanical equivalent), housed in a compact body, (M-series body
would suffice, perhaps even a little smaller, but not Q small). High speed wireless data transfer. Full manual control. Choice of
colors nice but optional.

[WPRESTO]

How about...... an eagle eye! A genuine eagle eye, (or the biomechanical equivalent), housed in a compact body, (M-series body
would suffice, perhaps even a little smaller, but not Q small). High speed wireless data transfer. Full manual control. Choice of
colors nice but optional.

To give you some idea of the sensor count and individual receptor density of an eagle's eye, the human retina has over 60,000,000 cones (60 mp) with a maximum density (in the fovea) if 125,000/square mm. At that density a full-frame sensor would have about 108,000,000 pixels (108 mp) But the central part of an eagle's eye has a significantly higher density of receptors. Fine for detail, but what about low-light noise, and no lens would be worthy of such a pixel count.

FOLLOWUP: Just checked and the maximum receptor density of an eagle retina is about 1,000,000/square mm. To have the equivalent pixel density, a FF sensor would need about 864 mp.

[tvdtvdtvd]

FOLLOWUP: Just checked and the maximum receptor density of an eagle retina is about 1,000,000/square mm. To have the equivalent pixel density, a FF sensor would need about 864 mp.

No problem; we'll have terabyte capacity flash storage in half a decade or so. I think we'll have a longer wait for the biomechanical
optic system......

[RonHendriks1966]

Currently I would love to have a Pentax Smartphone with at least 6 inch screen and the camera should have a better image quality then the current Q has.

[plooksta]

I don't think you understand... today's cameras are miniature computers, and in order to support a fast shooting rate, the CPU inside the camera needs to be fast enough to process the data coming off the sensor, and then store it somewhere.

If you want a 50mp camera shooting at 30fps, that's 2,000MB of data per second it needs to process, the 645Z in comparison pushes a paltry 154MB/s. As it stands, digital media has much slower write speeds than read speeds, and even the fastest drives in existance have 1900MB/s writes, never mind flash cards.

That said, you wouldn't need a high shooting rate on a medium format or high-megapixel camera anyway, on a good day I can shoot around 100 images on my 645Z and consider that a lot. Systems like these are designed for slow and methodical shooting, and I wouldn't mind a frame rate of around 5~6fps max.
The autofocus probably wouldn't be good enough to justify a fast shooting rate in the first place.

I never said it had to be realistic. The chances of this happening are close to zero in the next 10 years, but with Moore's law and all. Hey, who would have dreamed of the Hasselblad H5D 25 years ago?

I put in all the features I want in my dream camera not what's realistic. That's the point.