[Jason Dunn]

http://www.gearbits.com/archives/2005/11/what_i_want_in.html

"Since I began my search to replace my aging Olympus C-2100 UZ (I still miss my Uzi sometimes), I've yet to find a digital camera that I'd say is close to my ideal. Even if price weren't an issue, every model offered up in the past 2 years is lacking something important to me. So, here's my annotated "short" list of digital camera requirements: [first] excellent picture quality. It seems obvious to me that this should be near the top of anyone's list who really cares about the camera he/she uses. But oddly enough, and contrary to the belief that technology improves with time, cameras being announced recently seem to offer us worse image quality than cameras being made a few years ago. There is much gnashing of teeth over the increasingly noisy 5-9 megapixel sensors being stuck in 'prosumer' and enthusiast non-DSLR cameras. The manufacturers seem to believe that we're willing to put up with incredibly noisy (even at ISO 100) images as long as they're really, really big. Sorry...that doesn't make any sense to me. I'd take a clean 3MP image over a noisy 8MP image any day of the week."

Craig has quite a list of things he wants, and things he doesn't like about modern cameras. The closest thing I could think of for his needs is the Fujitsu FinePix S9000, but it doesn't match up 100% with his needs. How does his list compare with what you want from a digital camera? And can you think of the "perfect" camera for him?

[Jason Dunn]

http://www.gearbits.com/archives/2005/11/what_i_want_in.html

"Since I began my search to replace my aging Olympus C-2100 UZ (I still miss my Uzi sometimes), I've yet to find a digital camera that I'd say is close to my ideal. Even if price weren't an issue, every model offered up in the past 2 years is lacking something important to me. So, here's my annotated "short" list of digital camera requirements: [first] excellent picture quality. It seems obvious to me that this should be near the top of anyone's list who really cares about the camera he/she uses. But oddly enough, and contrary to the belief that technology improves with time, cameras being announced recently seem to offer us worse image quality than cameras being made a few years ago. There is much gnashing of teeth over the increasingly noisy 5-9 megapixel sensors being stuck in 'prosumer' and enthusiast non-DSLR cameras. The manufacturers seem to believe that we're willing to put up with incredibly noisy (even at ISO 100) images as long as they're really, really big. Sorry...that doesn't make any sense to me. I'd take a clean 3MP image over a noisy 8MP image any day of the week."

Craig has quite a list of things he wants, and things he doesn't like about modern cameras. The closest thing I could think of for his needs is the Fujitsu FinePix S9000, but it doesn't match up 100% with his needs. How does his list compare with what you want from a digital camera? And can you think of the "perfect" camera for him?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

2 is ermm, not likely on DSLRs, given how their electronics are designed. Maybe in the future, but not now.

Point 4 is leaving me scratching my head. IS isn't a necessity, but moving the optical elements isn't that big a difference to moving the CCD for me. I also have shakey hands but have no problems getting a sharp photo when needed most of the time.

And point 8.. well, after having NiMH's discharge on me at the wrong times, I'll stick to Li-Ion, thank you very much.

[craigf]

Lee, what is it specifically about DSLRs' electronics that prevents them from taking movies?

Also, regarding the method for image stabilization, it's an issue of light physics. The easiest place to move something opposite to a shake of the camera (i.e., the place where you have to move something the least) is the lens element closest to the image inversion (where the light rays cross and the image becomes upside down due to the lens elements). That means moving something in the middle of the lens. If you move the CCD instead, you have to move it a lot MORE to overcome the same shake movement, since you're now dealing with a larger area of light. In totally fictitious numbers, if you had to tilt an optical element .001 inches in 1/100th of a second to offset handshake, you might have to shift the CCD .005 inches in the same amount of time. This is harder to do accurately *and* reduces the potential magnitude of the corrections.

[Phronetix]

Regarding the shaky hands...

I think the easiest. low-tech way to solve this issue is to just use the viewfinder instead of the lcd to compose the shot. I see poeple who extend their arsm out to take photos and you can see the tremor. This is not a feature new to the human body. Aside from a tripod, nothing stabilizes better then holding the camera properly to one's eye, with the hand tucked into the body. You will shake much less if you use the muscles that control posture, and not the ones whose chief function is fine movement.

A decent monopod, and tripod, are invaluable.

Learning to use your camera also improves image quality. I think that when it comes to cameras, we often expect too much from technology and not look at the photographer.

Just my $0.02.
Phro

[marlof]

Originally Posted by craigf

Lee, what is it specifically about DSLRs' electronics that prevents them from taking movies?

I don't know, but I did find it interesting that the Sony R1 (big APS sensor, no mirror, live preview) doesn't offer movie mode as well. But since they did deal with the other rarity (live preview with a bigger sensor), who knows what's next on the roadmap.