Desired Improvements in the Next Generation of Camera Bodies

[Raid]

This 5D is designed the same as cameras 50 years ago. It's made in Japan, where there is a massive 80's era Michael Jackson facility in Tokyo Disney (that almost made me vomit). There is a real disconnect between Japan and reality outside of Japan.

If Samsung, Lamborghini and Versace were running Canon, we might see some real improvements in our lifetimes. meanwhile, the Japanese salary-man works long hours designing something made with an absolute lack of forward thinking, creativity, or concern for the end user.

I have never seen trolling on this site before, due mostly to the character of those who inhabit this forum, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Would you like to expand on your post?

[Busted Knuckles]

I like the carbon fiber idea - not that I know anyting about carbon fiber - but if lightens the load...

[Dave Throgmartin]

Better DR at low ISO is the elephant in the room. Other manufacturers are making big strides with their sensor technology while Canon appears to be making more incremental improvements. I may go elsewhere in the future if I feel other manufacturers are making a better product for my needs.

Dave

[UmiKaibutsu]

@busted knuckles: The front forks of the road bike I bought in Japan are carbon fiber. It is strong, improves vibration absorption and is extremely light. There is absolutely no reason why the camera chassis and other components could not be made from carbon fiber. There are carbon fiber tripods and many fake carbon fiber tripods. The real ones are light as a feather and very expensive.

@raid: I honestly don't know what trolling is. Trolling for a response? I just write (sometimes a lot) and whatever I write is what it is. I don't know these terms nor inhabit forums. I just visit occasionally, most recently because I have questions about some camera things and picture things.

[ahab1372]

I like the carbon fiber idea - not that I know anyting about carbon fiber - but if lightens the load...

Would be interesting to see how much weight reduction could be achieved by using lighter materials for the body frame, which accounts only for a portion of the overall weight of the body. The weight of electronics and mechanical assemblies would be still the same, and I suppose, is even higher than the weight of the frame itself.

[Kayaker72]

Would be interesting to see how much weight reduction could be achieved by using lighter materials for the body frame, which accounts only for a portion of the overall weight of the body. The weight of electronics and mechanical assemblies would be still the same, and I suppose, is even higher than the weight of the frame itself.

+1. Certainly there is weight associated with the metal bodies, but there is a lot more. I also wanted to mention, many people prefer the heavier bodies to help balance the heavier lenses often used with the camera bodies. So, while I am not opposed to the idea of decreasing the overall weight of my camera system, there are many factors. But, as question, why whould carbon fiber be much better than the plastics currently used in rebels/XXD bodies and several lenses? Everything I own made of carbon fiber lacks fine detail and is connected with adhesives. I am not a materials engineer, so I don't know if that is a function common of carbon fiber, but that wouldn't be too compatible with high end camera system.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks.

[UmiKaibutsu]

I really think the joystick could be improved. I saw a new xbox controller and it has some good features, but has a concave center that is not desirable for 1 finger usage, not that I play xbox, pshhh.

Something like this https://www.google.com/search?q=japa...w=1156&bih=866

[9VIII]

I voted for high ISO performance and resolution. You always crop birds, and there's never enough light with a small telephoto lens. Otherwise I'm taking pictures indoors on a tripod under controlled lighting, where resolution (detail) is of utmost importance (at least to me it is).

[Kayaker72]

I read an interesting comment that the quantum efficiency of the current generation of sensors is already ~50%. If noise and quantum efficiency are linear, then doubling quantum efficieny would give you 100%, and we'd get 1 stop better noise reduction. The author of the post I read (jrista) was making the point that even 1/3 improvement in high ISO noise at this point would be very impressive. Low ISO noise is a different beast, mostly cause by read noise and Canon's Analog Digital converters. That could be improved.

Hopefuly I am representing the post correctly.