[Pavel]

It is very simple. I want a camera which is pocketable, saves RAW, goes to at least 28mm equivalent, has a reasonably good optical viewfinder, is not noisy as hell over ISO 400 and does not cost as much as Leica. It should also allow manual exposure and please no smile recognition. Is that a lot to ask for? They used to make cameras like that, but they were very slow and I would like at least 6 megapixels. There should be a lot of people who would like something like that. Why do the majors ignore this and all we have is noisy Ricoh and Sigma? Pavel

[Keith Alan]

Canon G9, Pavel.

My dream camera is a little different, but I still haven't found it yet.

1) Something that improves on the Sony F717/F828 cameras, but keeping the big Zeiss lens for shockingly clear and sharp photos. Leica or Schneider or Zuiko are also acceptable.
2) The sensor must be bigger--Not APS-C but maybe the size of Olympus's 4/3rds system--a nice compromise.
3) The CCD must be Square so I never have to turn the camera for verticals--just crop them later. (All respect for Mike Johnston but I thought of it on my own.)
4) Hotshoe and a PC jack
5) RAW
6) Zoom ring on the lens--rocker zoom switches suck
7) Metal filter threads on the lens, of a standard size like 58mm
8) Sony-style Info-Lithium batteries that tell you how much time you have left--at least 3 hours worth
9) 2 SD card slots
10) Under 20mm-e on the wide end, and out to around 200mm-e tele
11) F2 to F2.8 apertures depending on zoom, and F22 on the small end
12) Some kind of image stabilization anti-camera-shake system
13) Canon's image processor for the best high-iso results
14) No scenes or other crap like "Smile Shutter" or movies--just Program Auto (w/shift), Aperture and Shutter-priority, and Manual exposure modes
15) An IR/anti-aliasing filter that swings out at the flip of a switch, for various reasons
16) 2 user-programmable buttons that allow you to instantly switch to settings you use a lot. Like when I shoot my bands it's almost always iso400, F2, WB tungsten, 1/30 shutter
17) Histogram that shows clipping on individual color channels
18) A 5-year warranty that covers everything--I want these companies to stand behind their products a LOT more than they do now
19) Electronic Shutter for fastest flash-synch and reliability
20) A longer max shutter speed than the 30 seconds that most non-DSLRs have, with a wireless remote
21) Built-In GPS and LoJack


If they only knew how well such a camera would sell, I bet it could be priced at around $600 and a serious profit would be made through volume, not to mention the favorable publicity.
The "bridge camera" market has been neglected for years, and the manufacturers have forgotten that a lot of us don't want or need DSLRs with their goofy shutters and dirt and mirror-slap.
One great lens, a killer sensor and a decent set of features is all it takes to explode amateur photographer's brains.

[Pavel]

Hey Keith, your list is much more demanding then mine. G9 does not go wide. I agree - Sigma got a nice size sensor, G9 got most of the camera. Ricoh got much of my order except for noise, nikon has nothing I like and nor does Olympus (recently). MOst manufacturers have given up on optical viewfindeer. They could as well blindfold you as you are taking a photo on a bright day. I really do not get it. And RAW? forget it (G9 and a few others a rare exception). Pavel

[matthew]

I was talking about this just the other day at work... Pavel, good idea for starting a thread.

rant: I have to admit that I'm suffering serious G9 fatigue. Yes, it has manual controls. Yes, it has a metal body. But the manual controls are just changing the light that's hitting the same too-many-pixels/too-little-space sensor that's common to all P&S cameras (slightly larger than average, but still too small) and the vaunted build quality will just make for a nicer bookend after the camera's been dropped or used in the rain. The viewfinder - better than most - is still just a pointing device. About the only thing that I really respect on it is the hotshoe, which very few of the people who buy it will use. The Sony A200 and Nikon D40 are within about $20-30 of the G9, and not always higher. If you (the royal "you") want a decent camera with controls, a viewfinder, and good image quality, get one of them. If you want a compact with decent image quality that doesn't have the bulk of an SLR, get a Sony W300.

Pavel, I don't know why there's no camera like the one you want on the market. It would sell. I suspect that there's something of the Electric Car Effect going on here: manufacturers specifically not providing a product people want because it would compete with their existing product.

Keith, by my count (subject to review) my entire arsenal only hits 12-14 of your points, and some are iffy.

I want a camera that records luminance data only. No bayer array, no antialiasing filter, no colour. If I could design my dream camera, it would be a 4/3 mount SLR (simply because that's what I use already) similar to a metal-bodied and weather-sealed E-420, and have a removable hot-mirror. Alternatively an F-717-like camera with a larger 8MP sensor would be great, especially with a non-crippled IR mode, and various colour contrast filters built-in in the same way that the Canon G-series has the built-in ND filters. But I'm not picky. I'd buy it if it was a B&W version of the W300, I'd buy it (and a lens) if it was a Sigma, Canon, Sony, or Nikon DSLR; if it was a Pentax I'd probably buy a few of their lenses to go along with it. All I want is a really good sensor for B&W photography.

[Zig]

It's called Inbuilt Obsolescence, Pavel. It's what camera manufacturers do to ensure we keep buying their products.
Other than that: Canon AE1, Nikon FG or M, F3, F4.
OK, you didn't mention digital...in that case we take a hit in quality.
Seriously though, it seems the manufacturers are in the(increasingly true) belief that camera users know jack about such superfluous ephemera as light, apertures, metering, reflectivity...their increasingly "intelligent" offerings supposedly make up for the fact that we are brain-dead consumers, yet as they think for us, we are unable to have the choice of telling them not to.
Matthew, you're spot on there. It would be the easiest thing in the world to provide a switchable "pass filter" in front of the sensor to allow at least reasonable IR provision, even to provide differing "flavours" of IR sensitivity, emulating the 750nm of Konica IR, Kodak, etc;...yes indeed, "all I want is a good sensor"...and you'd think that they'd actually be sorting out slapping in bigger sensors rather than cramming in more "MP" worth into the APS or misleadingly-named "four-thirds" or whatever.
Today seems to be Rant-Day at Castle Zig I feel.

[Pavel]

There are two pet peaves I have about camera promotion. Advertizing how many megapixels camera has, as if it mattered for most consumers at low enough ISO. Most people do not crop and print only 4"x6". I know that 4 megapixels are plenty for that and perhaps less would be enough, especially for web display or for mate-finished photos. All that real estate could than be given to provide fatter pixels and reduce noise, especially at higher ISO, vithout the need for agressive noise reduction. I am trying to convince my friends to ignore pixel count.

Another frustration is the n times optical zoom. Is 12 times optical zoom useful to most photographers? How many times do consumers need 400mm focal length, when all they shoot is photos of Aunt Mimi and the Eifel tower? What they need is a camera that goes wide, but the effective focal length is often difficult to extract from literature. I learned that about 4.7 mm (?) corresponds to 28 mm equivalents on icecream bar cameras.

Another irritation is the menu clatter with useless features like smile recognition (but no shutter priority, apperture priority or manual exposure). What would one do with a smile recognition feature?

Pavel

P.S. Ah, the pleasure of ranting.....

[matthew]

... into the APS or misleadingly-named "four-thirds" or whatever.

Zig, you've got that backwards. 4/3" is exactly the name of the sensor size Oly and Panasonica use - archaic but accurate. It's the 'APS-C' sensor size that's a fiction, although Nikon's almost close. And unless Canon's 1D series has been hiding a 16:9 aspect ratio all these years, there's no such thing as APS-H, either.

Smile recognition is a decent to passable replacement for a self-timer. Face recognition is much more useful, as it is also used to set exposure and tweak white balance as well as focus. But there's a big difference between what casual users will benefit from and what features photographers need and use. There seems to be more money in the former market.

[ADK_Jim]

Keith, I'm with you on the square format so you don't have to turn the camera. In fact I have written to both Olympus and Canon in years past with exactly that request plus adding variable formats by determining in software which pixels to record. It would be the same basic principle as "digital zoom" where they record only a central portion and interpolate it to the full sensor size except there would be no interpolating involved, only the cropping. You could cycle through full square, horizontal or vertical with the push of a button or turn of a dial. Indicators in the viewfinder would show where the crop would occur. If they made the in camera crop feature customizable you could set your own format, 2:3, 4:5, even circles, ovals, panorama, what ever you wished. Added to some of the other features like RAW, manual control, etc. I would think it could be a hot seller but Olympus hasn't done anything with the since I wrote them 5-6 years ago (they did reply and acknowledge my suggestion) and Canon didn't even respond.

ADK Jim

[Keith Alan]

How many pixels is the G9?
If it had only 6 MP it would probably be a much better camera.
Especially if the glass was physically larger and it went wider.
My camera regularly turned out some incredible stuff despite a small sensor since they only jammed 5MP into the available space, but the Zeiss glass wasn't compact by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not "pocketable" but the compact Sony V1 had the same electronics and wasn't too bad.
Pavel--look up the Sony V3 and see what you think. It's a bit thick but can be had for under $200 these days when they turn up at KEH.com.


Matthew actually foreshadowed what's happening with me right now.
Since my F717 is broken and nobody in the repair world is responding to my emails, I'm going to pull the trigger on a DSLR.
Maybe tomorrow or Monday (I hope!!)--certainly before the week is out.
If most of the people in my camera club can justify owning one for their uninspiring pictures, I feel like I deserve one. A free one at that.

It will have to be the Sony A300.
The extra 4 megapixels of the A350 aren't worth an extra $200 according to my own published theories which have been validated by all reviews I've read, but the pivoting LCD and fast-focusing Live View (vs the A200) are two features that when combined I have been waiting for on a DSLR.
They are deal breakers for me, shooting at night much of the time like I do.

As soon as it's paid off I'll be shopping for a fast prime lens to shoot my bands with, in the 50-80mm range.
Then I'll start torching gas-guzzling SUVs for insurance scams to pay for a Zeiss zoom.

$600 is a really good price for a camera that comes very close to satisfying my unique requirements.
I'll have to give up infrared until I can get the F717 fixed, but that's OK.
The only bad feature is a slow (1/160) flash shutter-synch.
I'll miss being able to synch at 1/1000 (once every other month) but I've always been a part-time Strobist anyway, unlike the freaks who suddenly start shooting everything with flash whether they need it or not.
I'm still a night shooter who just happens to enjoy being proficient at doing everything else, and the A300 is just about perfect for shooting in the dark where you really need Live View and a tilting LCD.
Optical viewfinders are almost useless to me at night.

When the A300 came out at $700 I wasn't too interested.
Then Sony dropped prices by $100 across their DSLR range, and I started reading the reviews.
It took a busted camera to force the issue.
Hell--it'll probably cost a couple hundred bucks to fix my F717, so I might as well go all the way instead.
The only drawback is all the money I've invested in 58mm filters and Memory Sticks--I can't believe I'll have to buy some CF cards!
How do they get away with calling those big things "Compact"???

[Zig]

Yes Matt, I merely meant that "four-thirds" is really a ratio rather than a fraction, innit?
Nail hit on head with the "casual users" point btw.

[matthew]

Yes Matt, I merely meant that "four-thirds" is really a ratio rather than a fraction, innit?

There's actually a very mild controversy about that. 4/3 is the name of the sensor size, just like the G9 has a 2/3 sensor size, and they're both 4:3. It's pronounced "four thirds" like the fraction, not "four to three" like a ratio. All of those archaic video-tube names have the 4:3 ratio, so it's coincidental that the name could have two meanings. (Stairway to Heaven riff starts here.) Early statements from the 4/3 companies said that the format was named after the sensor size, but most reviewers - what do they know? - said that it's because of the ratio, and eventually that became the prevailing wisdom. Now even some Olympus company people say that it refers to the ratio. (Some people still mispronounce Leica, too, so I guess it's not a big deal. )

There are two pet peaves I have about camera promotion. Advertizing how many megapixels camera has, as if it mattered for most consumers at low enough ISO. ... Another frustration is the n times optical zoom. Is 12 times optical zoom useful to most photographers? ... What they need is a camera that goes wide....

I absolutely agree, and have to do my own work with camera-buyers. Megapixels, like a computer's megahertz, are easy to market and irrelevant unless there's a massive disparity. There are currently two Canon Elph cameras that are essentially identical except that one is 8mp and the other is 10, a meaningless 25% increase, while the price difference is a not-meaningless 35% increase. I've yet to sell one of the 10mp cameras, and work hard to keep it that way.

The optical zoom nomenclature is another case of marketing cameras as if the purchasers are stupid. (I'm fighting to not use another computer industry comparison.) It provides no actual information about the cameras' function, but it looks like it's a common metric that can be used to compare wildly different cameras. The Panasonic TZ5 has a 10x zoom, the Canon S5 IS has a 12x zoom. But the Panny is a 28-280mm-e lens, while the Canon is 36-432mm-e. It's not a matter of one being a little more or less something than the other, they simply do not do the same thing. But yet both cameras are in the same 'category'.

Ironically, lenses for SLRs aren't marketed using zoom ratios, where they actually do provide a hint of useful information. Knowing only the zoom ratio, price, and whether it's a branded or third-party lens, it's possible to make some reliable guesses about the likely image quality.

I've found the effects of focal length to be very difficult to describe to people. We know what "telephoto" and "wide" mean, but 'bringing things closer' and 'including more of the scene' are as close as I've come in translating those complex ideas into P&S-speak. But it's very true that wide angle lenses are harder to 'sell', probably because the experience of wanting to see something far away is more common than the photographic reality of not being able to look around to see what else is nearby. "Wide" is easy to show people when comparing two cameras, but there aren't many that do a decent wide angle to begin with, and not many people know to ask for it.

It would be the same basic principle as "digital zoom" where they record only a central portion and interpolate it to the full sensor size except there would be no interpolating involved, only the cropping. You could cycle through full square, horizontal or vertical with the push of a button or turn of a dial. Indicators in the viewfinder would show where the crop would occur.

The camera makers haven't discovered "square" yet, but many P&S cameras do have the ability to crop-in-camera to different aspect ratios. So far it's limited to 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9, and I've only met one camera (Panny's LX2) that actually has a sensor that's not a 4:3 ratio. The Panny FX500 (at least, others may as well) have the ability to show the different crops on the LCD when the photo is being composed, and then let the user choose after the photo is taken. But the intention here is simply to match different output sizes, and not to make better use of the lens's imaging circle, which is what a true square sensor would do.

It will have to be the Sony A300.

Pentax.

[Keith Alan]

It will have to be the Sony A300.

Pentax.

No way.

Sony's implementation of Live View is the way I want to go, forgiving the 0.74x/95% optical viewfinder that results. And it felt good in my hands despite being large and heavy compared to what I'm used to.
It's a decision only partially based on the Sony Style credit card in my girl's wallet that'll be interest-free for as long as it takes me to pay off.

And setting myself up for Zeiss glass in a few years is no laughing matter.

[Pavel]

I am not going to buy a pocketable camera until it has optical viewfinder, 28mm equivalent, RAW, low noise at ISO800 and ability to control shutter speed, apperture and ISO. Also a histogram and/or indicators of blown highlights. Spot metering is nice to have. Modest size & price. Sooner or later somebody will make it. To people which do not have a DSLR, will never buy any accessory, wish to have some control over what they are doing and do not wish to lug a heavy camera, I recommended Olympus DSLR. I hope it is a good advice. It is nice and relatively light compared to D300 or even D70s, but it feels harsh in the hand and it does not have a good grip. However with a compact lens, it is a small and light camera which is not too expensive. I have no first hand experience with it. I hope I gave a good advice. Pavel

[matthew]

Sony's implementation of Live View is the way I want to go, forgiving the 0.74x/95% optical viewfinder that results.

The feel of a camera is very important, and it's hard to argue with no-interest credit, if such a thing really exists. But I'd be not-buying the A350 specifically for the live view feature. I might be able to forgive the small viewfinder with bad coverage - it's pretty typical - but it's also darker than average, and the bulk of the articulated LCD makes the eyepoint too low. In exchange you get an LCD image that has even lower coverage than the optical viewfinder and that doesn't accurately reflect the sharpness or appearance of the final image. (Other cameras are also able to focus without flipping the mirror.) I'd actually prefer the LVless A200 or A700, despite the fact that I really like Live View as a feature.

(Pentax is a cool company. I like the way that they're coming out with lots of new classic lenses for the reduced frame of their SLRs. Why did it take so long for a second company to come up with a (roughly) 70-200mm-e lens? But naturally I'm also a fan of Pavel's suggestion, too.)

[Pavel]

Why are people so fond of Lifeview? This is not a lament, but I really can not see much on the LCD of D 300, yet it has the highest resolution and apparently a very bright display. Yet outdoor, is just see some vague shadows when I move the lens. (Yes, I can see the menus and histogram, but I often can not see flashing burned highlights. I imagine that LV and LCD display in general is useful only indoor, at night or under heavy clouds. Am I off on that? Can you actualy use LCD to compose a photo in sunlight or are you just guessing? I know Keith likes night photos, so for him lifeview is useful. When it gets realy dark, I can not really see all that much in my optical viewfinder either and LCD becomes useful than. Pavel

[Keith Alan]

I would certainly use the optical viewfinder during the day.
At night it's a whole other world, and you need Live View to compose correctly on a tripod as well as the tilting LCD to point the screen up or down if needed.

Since I have plenty of experience using just a small&bad LCD I'm confident that I can transition to adding OVF skills without too much trouble no matter how dark and small the image.
I've been dealing with an obsolete camera for almost four years.

Live View amplifies the probable results.
It's almost vital to my way of shooting.

[matthew]

I use live view almost every time the camera is on a tripod. I don't find LV itself particularly necessary for shooting at night, but being in the middle of the city "night" isn't particularly dark. But it is a great convenience for using a tripod with still subjects.

I have two cameras with live previews, one with a fixed LCD, and the other with the flip-and-twist LCD that used to be common on digicams. Even though they function exactly the same way, LV is much more useful on the camera with the flippy screen. I've turned it to face downwards and composed a scene while the camera was on the end of a monopod held far above my head - I needed an IR remote to take the photos. I've had the LCD face forward so that I can see a rough composition while arranging a product shoot, and likewise use it to let me put the tripod exactly where the product and background requires it, without having to worry about my own convenience. I can have the camera in portrait orientation and still see the LCD from above, or even have the camera back against a wall when I need to. All of this either makes my photos better, and my services more marketable, or makes me more efficient, and flat-rate shoots can be completed more quickly.

But there are some serious limitations to live view. From any modest distance, or in strong light, it's hard to make out any sort of nuance in the composition. I have to guess at the final image based on where the major shapes are. (Just like a digicam.) Even under the best conditions for the LCD, I still find the viewfinder superior for checking detail and composition. If I could only have either my E-3's viewfinder or its Live View implementation (even without LV's auto-focus limitations) there's no way I'd give up the viewfinder.

[Keith Alan]

I have to guess at the final image based on where the major shapes are. (Just like a digicam.)

See--this is how I have always used a camera, so moving up to much bigger LCD, but one that tilts just like my current camera means I'll be comfortable right from the start. This style of shooting hasn't impacted my ability to compose one bit, and in fact the reduced coverage will help me because I usually frame a hair too tightly--now I'll have a little extra space for cropping and/or undersized mats without having to think about it.
I just never liked using any kind of optical viewfinder at night, and never adjust my tripod so the camera is anywhere near eye level.
It's the combination of live view and the tilt that decided me.

[Pippin Says]

I would be happy with something like the Contx G. All I want is a 2.0 lens with excellent IQ, aperture priority and dust reduction. Then they can spend all their time working on your extended lists.

[matthew]

The Panasonic LX3 is looking promising: RAW, 24mm wide lens, f/2-2.8 lens. Hopefully there'll be an optical viewfinder attachment for the hotshoe, which happens to be in-line with the lens. It doesn't have an optical viewfinder, or any telephoto reach, but I have increasing faith in Panasonic's design. From the Micro-G to the FX37, they really do seem to be 'getting it' these days. Maybe we'll get lucky.

[Zig]

I'm impressed with the way Panasonic has transmutated themselves from tacky pariah to class act over the past few years; they are a real success story and have brilliantly redefined themselves with products to match. I reckon there is always room for a fixed wideangle, as often there are really nice lenses and you've got a "fixed prime" in a sense. I remember what a little belter and excellent deal the Yashica T-something (T4 I think it was called) was a few years ago, with a Zeiss Tessar as I recall...any of yous have one of these or know of it? It's one of the film cameras I always I'd bought but never got round to.