There have been a couple threads lately mentioning technologies ranging from Foveon to RAW mode. My day job is that of a technologist, working with Marketers, to define new high tech products. [Not really related to photography, though they ALL seem to want a camera built into a cell phone. I can't figure out exactly why...] I've found that engineers generally have a twisted view of what is important, and Marketers either want something impossible, or they want the same old thing improved. What would us Users really want in a new digital (or, for Fuctious, film) camera? At the head of the list always seems to be "more pixels." Is this really the driving requirement? Here's my list, for grins: a) I'd like more dynamic range. [I think fujitsu is working on this.] The RAW mode Donald demonstrated earlier seems to indicate that we usually already throw away useful information. I'd like an encoding that captures detail in the brightest highlights and deepest shadows, and lets us adjust the final image on the screen. b) I'd like image stabilization that really worked; maybe quickly taking several frames (within a few 10's milliseconds), and combining them to sharpen the constant background, and then sharpen anything that moved in the foreground. c) Similar to b, I'd like to put the camera in "video" mode, and be able to capture high quality stills. d) Also similar to b, I'd like the camera to automatically capture a few frames after, and BEFORE, I press the shutter all the way. e) I'd like the camera to capture (a series of images) focused from the closest distance to infinity, and combine them to get "super dof." f) I'd like the sensor to get smaller. [Gasp!] Maybe around 1/3 that of the 35mm frame, with about 8M pixels. Imagine a much smaller camera with an f/1.2 zoom from 15mm to 700mm... g) I'd like redundant memory cards, so that if one breaks I don't lose the day's shooting. h) I'd like the viewfinder wireless from the camera. Camera on tripod. Me at comfortable working distance. Wouldn't need "much" of a joy stick to steer... i) I'd like it not to be obsolete as technology improves. My last camera asted 23 years, and is still useful. Most digitals seem ready for the trashbin after three years. I don't want improvements to slow down, but I would like some upgradability. [Or, make them so cheap throwing them away does not matter.] So, here's my list. Any thoughts?

The obsolete thing issue really bothers me, but such is technology.... that's the nice thing about traditional SLR cameras. I really don't like all the funky do-dads that most cameras seem to have, and prefer to use manuel functions and overides over all the auto this and auto that. I'm even get aggravated with auto-focus functions and on the digital always turn it off, and even sometimes on the Nikon as well. Not saying there's anything bad with any of it, but that's just me. I learned on a bare-bones, basic manuel everything camera, and find that the auto stuff just gets in the damn way of my creativity. Your list is interesting though.... but if I had one wish it would be for DSLR's to be cheaper.... a lot cheaper. As you send spending thousands to have it become obsolete so quickly truly sucks..

Interesting list Misha!
"for DSLR's to be cheaper...." I'll second that also!
"Imagine a much smaller camera with an f/1.2 zoom from 15mm to 700mm..." ~ do we really want our camera's to get much smaller though? I went on a hands-on "potential buy" shopping expedition the other day to try out some of the latest 5 megapixel compact digitals on the market, and the latest Sony was way too small to feel right for my liking...maybe my hands are too big or something...the Nikon was bigger and felt more natural with a good handgrip too, and the Canon was heavier again and felt even more stable, I guess I just want my next digital camera to feel like a SLR (because at the moment I cannot afford a digital SLR, hence my first statement chuckle). If you're going to be taking photos a lot (which I presume we all like doing) then the primary tool we use has to feel right in our hands. (Unless, of course, we were going to utilise your excellent remote viewfinder & tripod combination idea most of the time, which would be wonderful for nature/wildlife photography) These are just the first thoughts that come to my mind, anyway...
:-)>

Very good point, PC. And very relevant. [In the cell phone business we've been caught up in the idea that small is good; at the expense of RF coverage, audio quality, ease of use, reliability, battery life, cost... If they did not have to get continually smaller, other capabilities could be improved.] j) I'd like the camera body to be somewhat smaller compared to my Canon 1n. k) By making the "film plane" smaller and closer to the lens, an f/1.2 700mm (equivalent) zoom would be MUCH smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

I would like a DSLR which feels about the same as my Nikon F-601 or my Nikkormat EL. Nice, sturdy and stable. Improvements in the CCD so there is less noise is probably on everyone's list even if they don't know it :)

Lower the price!

Hmmmm ... what I'd like to see 1) 16-bit/channel RAW mode with high-speed lossless compression. 2) Increased array sensitivity range (ISO range up to 12500) with an across the range reduction in noise. 3) Sports viewfinder (>100% coverage). I think the Sigma SD9 has one (although I've seen at least one review say it has a 98% Horiz/97% Vert coverage). 4) Full frame CCD/CMOS/Foveon sensor. 5) Good weight. Minimum 600g, I seem to prefer cameras in the 700-1200g body weight range. EOS 1DS felt kind of heavy to me at almost 1600g. EOS 10D and Nikon D100 feel just about perfect. Small and light might be great for taking snapshots on vacation, but I want a camera that has a good, solid feel to it and fits well in my hands. I can't get a solid shooting base unless I can get the camera to sit right in the palms of my hands. The weight is what helps me to stabilize my shots when I go handheld. I'm use to shooting with cameras like the EOS 630 and EOS 3. A 100g camera is not going to cut it. 6) Better weather proofing. Yea, you can take the EOS 1D and 1DS out in a rainstorm or sandstorm and they are sealed like tanks. But they also cost like they're tanks. Want to see better weather body sealing in high-end prosumer cameras. 7) Built-in infrared mode. 8) True TTL flash modes. There's probably others that I can't think of right now. :) -=>Donald

I want a real Big Zoooooooooooom Lens! sigh

Tedzo - See, ya need to get a nice Canon EOS 10D and then put a Canon 100-400mm IS (Image Stabilization) pro lens on it. With the 10D, that lens becomes a 160-640mm f/4.5-5.6 ... talk about Zooooooom. :) -=>Donald

Tedz just compensating ;)

Oh oh ... this could get ugly fast. :)

No...it ain't ugly...in fact, I have been told it is real Pretty sigh...thanx for Your concern Donald...You are a real Gentleman...probably with soft hands too...and, You may be able to help Me....what on Earth is a "Raw Image"...yeah yeah...I know I used to be a Chef...could I possibly look at Your Raw Image ....purrrrrrrlease :)

Hmmm..... 'Chelle sits back...bemused look on face.....rolls eyes, waiting to here the response Should I make popcorn?

hmm what did I start :p...

Popcorn???? All I want to do is look at Donald's Raw Image. Have You seen it Michelle? Why do We need Popcorn to look at it??? Sometimes I am sure that You Camera type People, just make it hard for Me, because You know I fell out of My Pram...and onto My Head...when I wuz a wee High Commander :( Now...enough of this nonsense about Popcorn...next it will be Ice Cream...and We all get a Liiiiiiiiccccccccccck...but, in the mean time I wanna see Donalds Raw Image ....or Cooked...if He is that Hot sigh....and...I ain't gonna get nasty with this 3D Guy...until I know how big His Zoooooooooom Lens is sigh

I'd like to help Ted, but I can't not after what the judge said last time. I mean, how was I supposed to know I needed a concealed weapons permit? But ignorance of the law and all that, One-Adam 12. Then there was that whole Swedish Bikini Team incident. It wasn't my fault and I think that once everyone calmed down - and the hair grew back - the ladies realized that too. And what about this whole popcorn conspiracy thing? I mean, why that name? Does it really pop and does it come from corn? That's what they'd like us to think, but I'm sure there's more to it than that. A deep, dark, dirty secret that They don't want us to uncover. And while I'm thinking about it, what's disgruntled? And are workers ever just gruntled? You know, Leon is happy and loves his job. You never hear anyone say, "Wow...look at Leon go, he is just so gruntled." Hmmm...

I like it when You talk so Manly....and the way You gruntle has Me a swoon....Your Weapon is Concealed?...tsk tsk...perhaps You are the One that needs the Zoooooooooooooooooooom Lens...Show it off Man...You are among Men..who like ...Men...Manly Men. Perhaps this "Popcorn" is some New Code that the Mooderator has come up with....in competition to the occasional disco that I bestow upon My Foxy Babes sigh...but...I am no nearer in discovering what is a Raw Image?

Hmmm ... it is a puzzler. A veritable conundrum. A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, hidden by a really nice sandwich. Really lean corned beef with nice yellow mustard and just the hint of a brown mustard ... nice and thinly sliced. Mmmmmmm.... Perhaps it's an anagram? Raw Image.... hmmmm... "I War Game". Yes...that must be the secret to it. -=>Donald

Thanks for all of the suggestions. One would think camera manufacturers would hang out at a site like this to learn what their customers want? It is perhaps not surprising that good solid performance at a reasonable cost seems to be the most important things to folks who actually USE cameras creatively. The "obsolete" issue would improve if costs came down, and perhaps, with interchangability of lenses. 'course, if an attached super zoom was really inexpensive interchangability would not really be as important. It is particularly interesting to me that no one mentioned they are really standing in line to get a cellular phone built into their camera. ["customers want?" "good solid performance" "USE ...creatively" "attached super zoom " "interchangability " OK, now Donald and Tedz can get back to their discussion.]

I just don't get the whole cell phone picture thing. I mean, first of all, the cameras in these things are crap, the resolution is crap, seeing them on the tiny phone LCD is crap. I saw a bunch of guys shooting pictures at the HIN using these things. What's the freaking point? rant off -=>Donald

What's the freaking point? Because they can, can, can....... That the only stupid reason I could come up with..... shrug I don't know makes no freaking sense to me either. or because people get so wrapped up in the lastest and greatest technological crap they don't give a shit if the quality sucks or how stupid it is.....they just want to be the kid on the block with the most/newest toys. growl

Toys??? That Michelle is Toy Mad! Jeeeeeeeeeeez! She must have given Santa some Headaches...speaking of Headaches...I am getting One now :( throb

Oh Tedz....Stop it!! Now bend over and let me borrow your batteries.....mine are running low....

Ooooooooooh!!! You are sooooooo rude....You will have to have Your entire Head washed out with Soap!!!BLUSH

"What's the freaking point?" A) FCC decided to raise money by auctioning spectrum. B) "dot.com'ers" went WAY into debt buying it. C) Excess capacity; 10 cents per minute, free hours, etc. for voice. Not making any money. D) Photo's take lots of capacity. E) Phone manufacturers listen more to network operators than to customers. And since phone manufacturers aren't making any money either, they are ready to try anything.