File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Why is it that no one takes the idea of a "system camera" seriously anymore? Digital is pratically made for it- interchangeable sensor backs, anyone?- but modern professional SLRs and SLRs don't even have interchangeable prisms.

What gives? It's the perfect way to design a camera but no one does it anymore.

Pic related.
>> VF-19
In a few words, cost and profitablity. You're going to sell more $500 SLRs/DSLRs, than $2-3000 SLRs/DSLR.

Honestly, I've never had the need to change the prism. I've wanted to change the viewfinder screen, but that's about it.
>> Anonymous
>>212378
We're talking about the top of the line $8,000 cameras here, though.

Plus, accessory sales would be useful.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hey dipshit, there's more than just the sensor to a dSLR. The form-factor and build is such that you can't just swap backs. Have you seen the inside of a dSLR, taken apart? It's a nightmare. Medium format, sure, but those things are big as bears because they're so very modular.

dSLR = iMac
Medium format = BYO

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:19 07:46:28Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width368Image Height296
>> Anonymous
>>212383
Hey, dipshit, have you ever thought things could be built differently?

Especially something like Four-Thirds, a 100% digital system with no film base.

And Leica made a digital back for their R8 and R9 cameras. It's entirely possible to do.
>> Anonymous
>>212383
I'd differ a bit on that.

imac = point and shoot
pc = slr
byo = medium format

You can buy/replace a bought PC's components to make it better to a point (analogous to buying lenses), while you can't do shit for an imac other than buy it with different specs.
>> Anonymous
>>212385
If they do, great. Until then, why waste time talking about it? Bitching on a forum isn't going to make it happen.

Also, the DMR was clearly a huge success, and Leica isn't in a huge financial downturn.

Wait...
>> Anonymous
>>212385
Uh, not completely. The size of 35mm/APS-C style sensors and the -reflex- part that makes an SLR an SLR kinda close you in on the type of structure that a camera should have. Optics are the main problem.
>> Anonymous
>>212389
Elaborating a bit on that, a top-down view framing screen for 35mm kinda sucks for most applications since, because the focusing screen is generally so small, you -have- to pull the entire body up to your face. Sure, you could add a magnifying system on it, at the expense of a lot of light. If you're already bringing it to your face, it's more useful if the camera lets you see in the direction youre facing, instead of having to hunch in on a tiny screen.
>> Anonymous
>>212390
Well, what about an action finder? A finder optimized for manual focus, high magnification but low eyepoint?

>>212389
The DMR- while not a commercial success, 90% of people who wanted to use Leica R lenses on digital just stuck them on Canon EOS bodies- proved that it was possible to do.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>212388
The DMR was fail because it cost as much as a brand-new 1D or D2, and then you still had to buy a MANUAL FOCUS camera that cost twice the much to stick it on.

>>212388
So, nothing that does not currently exist should be talked about? Are you a solipsist?
>> Anonymous
>>212453
Not to the extent that the Man Who Rules the Universe was, but in a way, sure. I'd rather shoot with what's available than talk about pie-in-the-sky crazy camera systems. Note: this is only because I've talked the whole modular camera system thing to death, and three of my friends are actually trying to make a modular F-mount digital camera with swappable mirror box / rangefinder / waistlevel finder, etc etc... basically all the stuff you're talking about. Two of them are engineers, and they've really talked it to death. It's feasible, and could be profitable, but it's certainly not profitable on the scale that a company like Olympus or Pentax or [insert Canikon competitor here] could afford to wager.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>212504
I'm just saying I think it's narrow-minded to talk down something that not only can be done, but before the digital revolution WAS done, and with great regularity. I expect digital photo gear to be at least as versatile as film gear was, and actually more so, since you aren't as limited by optics and mechanics anymore.

Sony's new swively shoe-mount flash is a good example of what I expect camera mfg's to do now.
>> Anonymous
F4.
>> Anonymous
Hiii guys, Why do DIESEL cars don't work with gas? Seriously, they could mount a Gas engine too.
>> Anonymous
>>212390
Actually, I use my top down groundglass on my film camera a lot. It's way easier to judge the picture, since you can judge it as if you were looking at slide film, it looks much more 2D.

I'd like there to be a dSLR with at least interchangeable prisms.
>> Anonymous
>>212955
Is this film camera you speak of a 35mm slr? Because that's the type I'm talking about, not medium format.
>> Anonymous
>>212956
Yes, it is. I use it combined with a clear focus screen.
>> Anonymous
>>212959
This is interesting to me. Does it have any sort of magnifying glass on top? Also, how close do you need to have it to focus well? I feel my neck would hurt if I were to use it too much.
>> Anonymous
>>212960
There's a flip out magnifying glass, but I only use it when I'm really uncertain about my focus. I keep it at the height of my chest, but I never constantly look at it. I look around with my eyes, and I know the FoV of my lens, so I can start framing shots with my eyes. Then I point my camera, quickly look down and frame it perfectly, take the shot, repeat.
The only thing that's hard is flipping your camera and still framing the picture.
>> Anonymous
>>212973
Very well, anon. Your info is much appreciated.
>> Anonymous
>>212955
what camera is it?
>> Anonymous
>>213025
Miranda G, dirt-cheap camera, so I can handle it roughly without worrying, since replacements are cheap. I use SMC Takumars, Carl Zeiss, and A. Schacht lenses using M42 and Exakta adapters. The Miranda optics are pretty well-made as well, no multi-coating though.