Photography Innovation Wishlist

dnme

I was thinking about all the expensive DSLR's from Nikon, Canon etc. They all come with a fixed screen on the back. I remember my old Powershot S2-IS had an articulated screen which allowed me to position and focus the camera at any angle. I always loved that and missed it terribly when I had the 50D.

So thinking about it, what about the following.....A remote screen/viewfinder worn over the eye?

It might have simple remote controls also such as shutter release/AF. You might wear it like an eye patch, it provides you with all the functionality of your viewfinder/screen but it's seperate from the camera, worn over the eys(s), therefore you can operate the camera in any direction.

1. It would not suffer from bright daylight as LCD's do
2. It would allow you to operate the camera at any angle
3. It would allow you far more discreet street photography
4. It would allow easier more accurate composition
5. Potential for power saving if it was powered seperately from camera, either way it would use less power than the cameras LCD.
6. Might provide significant opportunities for wildlife photography if camera is placed strategically on a subject and operator is hidden.

Right! come on, let the onslaught begin

oshead

#1 on my list would be to have more dynamic range from the digital sensors.

Captain Flaps

While I do like the concept, I don't think we're anywhere near there yet (and may never be); the most accurate way to focus is using the viewfinder, which is a mechanical optical link to what's being framed through the lens. A remote viewer will be a digital reproduction of this picture (the same way live view is) and as such won't be as responsive or easy to accurately focus.

alexlyons

sounds very cool. I haven't thought about it much but I sense there will be serious problems or things people wont like. But I cant think of them now and people will probably beet me to it! But i'll throw them up if I think of any issues that aren't mentioned!

One thing I always ask with new innovations I create is "Why hasn't it been done before?" If the only answer is money or new technology then your on a potential winner!

One thing I've just thought of is I much prefer looking through a real viewfinder with a mirror rather that a screened viewfinder or similar. Was one of my favourite things about my first slr camera, which was a D50, and I had an Fuji S5500 with a screen before.

The camera would have to transmit the image wirelessly, hence eating into battery time.

thats all from me for the minute! nice idea though

Simplicius

A digital camera dispruptor that looks like an innocent flash. This when triggered will cause every digital camera in a 50 metre radius to flip out and reboot.... ( without causing damage, just frustration) .....

Oh the joy .. when shooting some event and still be able to click away while frustrated others stare at their screens in dismay

Osama Been (and always will be) Analog! :D:D

hmboards

I second the broader dynamic range. And lower noise. Don't care about megapixels.

I started with a Fuji bridge too - 6900Z. It was an absolute God send to move to an optical viewfinder on my first DLSR! I could never go back.

Slidinginfinity

I was thinking about this the other day and I one thing I really want is End-User Hot-Swappable Sensors.

DaireQuinlan

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

I was thinking about this the other day and I one thing I really want is End-User Hot-Swappable Sensors.

Sounds like the interchangeable backs on my Bronica to me

Borderfox

18-200 f1.8

Slidinginfinity

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Sounds like the interchangeable backs on my Bronica to me

Exactly!:D

Now gimme your camera!:eek::D

PCPhoto

- touch screen post processing.

- voice captioning

- integrated email/ftp sending

Thecageyone

Sensors that crush dust on impact!

MUCH cheaper fast lenses.

LCDs that can actually be seen clearly in sunlight! [Viewing settings is no problem, but reviewing images, on my Sony at least, can be cumbersome]

charybdis

I think camera manufacturers need to rethink their industrial design somewhat. A lot of the design decisions that make up their cameras are based on outmoded needs or redundant concepts. And I say this not in the hope that we'll get a load of retarded art-student "concept cameras", but that we'll see manufacturers designing cameras to the few specific needs of the photographer rather than trying to flesh out a spec. sheet.

I'd also like to see more emphasis placed on manufacturing sensors that cover at least the full-frame 35mm format size.

I think RED is on track to provide most things I'd want in a DSLR-or-larger sized body and Leica seem to have created a digital camera that is sufficiently minimal where it needs to be in the M9, but neither are at price points that are realistic for personal use.

Here's what I wrote the last time someone made a thread like this.

PCPhoto wrote: »

- touch screen post processing.

- voice captioning

- integrated email/ftp sending

So, basically you want a camera and an iPad.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

Here's what I wrote the last time someone made a thread like this.



So, basically you want a camera and an iPad.

Curiously enough, the iPhone is now the most widely used 'camera' on flickr now. And if that's what the vast majority of people want then that's what's coming down the pipe in the years to come, you can depend on it. It's kinda depressing that the bar has slipped so low.

humberklog

I'd like a digital camera that only lets you take one pic every 3 minutes, has no screen on the back so you can't see what you've just taken until you get home and plug the camera into something, a camera that has a kinda shape sensor that only allows you to take one photo every 24 hours of the same thing.
That's the digital camera for me, I must send off that notion to Canon. I'd say they'd snap it up.

Heebie

I hope you patented this idea before posting it anywhere. This one sounds like a runner.

dnme wrote: »

I was thinking about all the expensive DSLR's from Nikon, Canon etc. They all come with a fixed screen on the back. I remember my old Powershot S2-IS had an articulated screen which allowed me to position and focus the camera at any angle. I always loved that and missed it terribly when I had the 50D.

So thinking about it, what about the following.....A remote screen/viewfinder worn over the eye?

It might have simple remote controls also such as shutter release/AF. You might wear it like an eye patch, it provides you with all the functionality of your viewfinder/screen but it's seperate from the camera, worn over the eys(s), therefore you can operate the camera in any direction.

1. It would not suffer from bright daylight as LCD's do
2. It would allow you to operate the camera at any angle
3. It would allow you far more discreet street photography
4. It would allow easier more accurate composition
5. Potential for power saving if it was powered seperately from camera, either way it would use less power than the cameras LCD.
6. Might provide significant opportunities for wildlife photography if camera is placed strategically on a subject and operator is hidden.

Right! come on, let the onslaught begin

charybdis

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Curiously enough, the iPhone is now the most widely used 'camera' on flickr now. And if that's what the vast majority of people want then that's what's coming down the pipe in the years to come, you can depend on it. It's kinda depressing that the bar has slipped so low.

I don't think the prevalence of the iPhone on Flickr indicates a decline in the use of "real" cameras, it indicates a huge increase in people making and sharing photographs with their phones. It would be interesting to see the statistics about whether the people who upload iPhone pictures also upload pictures from a "real" camera; I suspect very many, if not most of them, do.

I also don't think the popularity of the iPhone as a camera means it will eat into a significant part of the photography market. Perhaps the brainless, zero-control, point-and-shoot cameras that are barely more than a cameraphone-minus-the-phone will suffer, but I think it will, if anything, drive interest in photography and demand in proper cameras.

Related: from The Online Photographer today.

Heebie

I also started with a Fuji bridge camera for digital. The S7000. I got some fantastic photos with it.. and still could if I ever took out that particular camera bag.

What I could really use is a bag like Hermione Granger has in the last Harry Potter book.. where you can stuff lots of stuff in there.. but it doesn't get bigger or heavier. Carrying around my main camera bag can be painful! (although it's great exercise.)

hmboards wrote: »

I second the broader dynamic range. And lower noise. Don't care about megapixels.

I started with a Fuji bridge too - 6900Z. It was an absolute God send to move to an optical viewfinder on my first DLSR! I could never go back.

PCPhoto

charybdis wrote: »

Here's what I wrote the last time someone made a thread like this.



So, basically you want a camera and an iPad.

a mini ipad built into a dslr ....is that too much to ask ?..... and voice captioning.....oh and please santa also a built in image tracker/auto bill sender when images are being used.

bbbbb

on the technical side I would like:

sensor:
- the usual, higher resolution, ISO & dynamic range.

lens:
- perhaps something more radical here. Lens are made up of pieces of glass that move, the individual elements are static. If their focal length, chromatic properties etc. could change then the physical limitations around zoom length & apperture could change?

sprinkles

To be honest OP your idea, while we probably won't see it today or tomorrow, is a very good one. The amount of times I have wished the LCD screen at least tilted or rotated to offer me live view from an angle that isn't directly behind the viewfinder, it's a bit frustrating to have a concept like live view but limit it in such a drastic way. I think that it's something we will see resolved to some degree.

As for other innovations - if you were to believe the head of Nokia our fate is already decided :eek:

charybdis

PCPhoto wrote: »

a mini ipad built into a dslr ....is that too much to ask ?..... and voice captioning.....oh and please santa also a built in image tracker/auto bill sender when images are being used.

Just a camera, an iPad, and the iPad camera connection kit.

You will inevitably be able to edit RAW files using the touchscreen interface, embed voice notes, and email/SFTP the results to clients moments after you took the photo.

sprinkles wrote: »

As for other innovations - if you were to believe the head of Nokia our fate is already decided :eek:

I'm sure he's a good source of objective and unbiased analysis on the subject.

PCPhoto

yeah ...but I want to do it all on camera .... if I wanted to do it on a computer I'd link it up to my laptop....lol.

ThOnda

humberklog wrote: »

I'd like a digital camera that only lets you take one pic every 3 minutes, has no screen on the back so you can't see what you've just taken until you get home and plug the camera into something, a camera that has a kinda shape sensor that only allows you to take one photo every 24 hours of the same thing.
That's the digital camera for me, I must send off that notion to Canon. I'd say they'd snap it up.

That is called PENTAX - those cameras have built-in timer

Diabhal_Glas

humberklog wrote: »

I'd like a digital camera that only lets you take one pic every 3 minutes, has no screen on the back so you can't see what you've just taken until you get home and plug the camera into something, a camera that has a kinda shape sensor that only allows you to take one photo every 24 hours of the same thing.
That's the digital camera for me, I must send off that notion to Canon. I'd say they'd snap it up.

I think you just need a time machine or an electromagnetic pulse weapon to fry everything digital.

humberklog

Diabhal_Glas wrote: »

I think you just need a time machine or an electromagnetic pulse weapon to fry everything digital.

I've absolutely no problem with digital imaging...but I do with the habits it gives people with its instantaneous nature.

Covey

A camera that took dual digital and film images with one shutter press.

charybdis

Actually, I think there would be a market for a minimalist and (relatively) inexpensive digital camera. Keep only really essential features: manual aperture, shutter speed, and ISO control in whole stop increments; only shoot RAW; switchable between centre weighted average and spot metering. I can't really think of any other settings you'd need to make accessible on the camera; white balance is adjustable in RAW, as is minor exposure adjustments. I'm not ever sure you'd need autofocus lenses, perhaps just a focus confirm patch. If it were an SLR, it could have a huge, bright viewfinder with a very precise focusing screen without the need for an autofocus assembly and half-silvered mirror so the light transmission through the optical assembly would be high and you wouldn't require a focusing screen that compromises for less light.

If you made it without an LCD and the ability to delete and edit down your photographs people would be unable to review images on it and would have to think about their methods without resorting to trial and error and would be reluctant to take an excessive amount of shots of the same thing as they'd have to deal with a glut of photographs when they arrive back at a computer.

It'd be great if it had a full-frame 35mm sensor and a mount with very small registration distance to enable the use of other adaptable mounts that could have lensmount-specific interfaces: such as a mechanism to work with various brands' automatic diaphragm, or mounts that can interface with various brands' autofocus systems. If you really wanted to push the boat out you could put a monochrome sensor it it and be done with bayer and anti-aliasing filters (or just use a Foveon sensor). The sensor wouldn't need to be particularly high-resolution and hopefully this would permit physically larger pixels meaning increased dynamic range and high-ISO performance.

It could be a rangefinder, and SLR (although this poses some problems with the registration distance), or and EVIL contraption.

I'm not saying it's for everyone or that all digital cameras should be like this, but I think a camera like this would have its place; even as a compliment to your other digital cameras.

Of course nobody would actually make this camera as they couldn't lock you in to a system and there isn't a built-in-obsolescence-style need to upgrade every few years.

Slidinginfinity

charybdis wrote: »

If it were an SLR, it could have a huge, bright viewfinder with a very precise focusing screen without the need for an autofocus assembly and half-silvered mirror so the light transmission through the optical assembly would be high and you wouldn't require a focusing screen that compromises for less light.

If it was done on a Rangefinder format you could have a nice pocketable camera ,as well.

fade2che

1. Dynamic Range
2. Weight reduction in body and lenses
3. Redundancy in media (dual cards or networking built into more devices)
4. Networking built in, with design a thought put into operation on camera
5. User interface design (The difference between the 5d and the mark II again please)

It terms of mass market point and shoot, I think a lot could be done in the area of user interface design and network integration. I'm interested to see what apple has on the horizon or even if they will enter the market. Recent patents have hinted at such a device but the patent could just be for use in the next iphone camera.

Excuse the canon specific remarks.

sNarah

I would like a camera that is synced to your brain

True! So that the camera takes the image you have in mind.

Wouldnt that be something?

gloobag

How about a dampened shutter (as in sound)? I sometimes find the sound of mine to be quite loud and intrusive in certain situations. Tone the volume down a bit please

I also wish that the 5D mkIII isn't biased towards the videographers rather than the photographers. Improved AF is a given, but please Canon, don't let that be it for us photogs!

Covey

sNarah wrote: »

I would like a camera that is synced to your brain

True! So that the camera takes the image you have in mind.

Wouldnt that be something?

Reckon I'd get some very strange images though

magicbastarder

charybdis wrote: »

Actually, I think there would be a market for a minimalist and (relatively) inexpensive digital camera. Keep only really essential features: manual aperture, shutter speed, and ISO control in whole stop increments; only shoot RAW; switchable between centre weighted average and spot metering.

easy one - being able to retrofit film SLRs with digital backs. i heard a conspiracy theory once that someone did develop a solution, and sony bought the company and buried it - they had nothing to gain from such a development.

tullie

gloobag wrote: »

How about a dampened shutter (as in sound)? I sometimes find the sound of mine to be quite loud and intrusive in certain situations. Tone the volume down a bit please

I agree, it'd be very useful

The OPs idea wouldn't work I don't think. It'd essentially be an LCD screen an inch away from your eye? It'd ruin your vision and make your eyes feel like they were on fire.


I reckon those cameras that have the LCD screens that can flip and twirl, etc. just need to be made wth a wire running into the camera. ie; isntead of just twisting/twirling/etc. the LCD, you can disconnect it from the camera and use it hand-held (though it is still wired to the camera to avoid huge increases in cost, etc.



The other idea that I want is binocular vision. Viewfinders and binoculars are a similar concept, by not make a camera where the mirrors that bounce the image around and onto the viewfinder, split the image in two across two viewfinders like goggles/binoculars that are slightly raised from the camera. No more nose-against-the-LCD or forced squinting.

I believe Olympus make Binoculars... Why haven't they tried this yet?!