Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Theodoros on November 18, 2015, 06:46:57 am
-
Lets have some fun shall we? It would be nice to hear your experience with cameras that suggested for the game to change and why...
Here is my top 3:
1. The Voightlander Prominent rangefinder... (bellows focusing & leaf shutter with flash sync at all speeds in a Leica M?)
2. The Fuji GX-680... (MF format with full view camera abilities, Reflex, huge image area with 120 film, MFDB ready with whatever other camera mount).
3. The Sinar M.... (the definition of modularity - my opinion is that this system didn't change the game only because MFDBs where lacking high LV quality at the days.)
Lets hear and discuss your top 3 most favor implementations.... and the reasoning behind the favor.
-
The Nikon D1 comes to mind since it has pretty much defined what a DSLR is with hardly any evolution since then.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...Nikon D1 ....pretty much defined ....hardly any evolution since....
Cheers,
Bernard
That's all true... but among the top three?
-
1) The view camera with with movements for rise, fall, shift, and tilt
2) The rangefinder
3) the SLR.
Designs are ideas, not specific products.
-
I guess you forgot the pin hole camera, or the camera obscura... :o Still the O/P is specifically asking for certain "revolutionary cameras" (that suggested more than the common designs) ;) Please keep on subject, ....the aim (behind my O/P) is to question the reasons why brilliant ideas didn't (or did) advance and to help/educate new comers to photography on past knowledge... :)
-
I can only offer my opinion based on my experience, mostly SLR/DSLR. I think one of the most revolutionary designs was the one introduced by the Canon T90, which paved the way for the highly successful EOS system. The industrial and ergonomic friendly design, plus the control wheel, have remained basically unchanged since 1986.
The basic SLR design is so good, that even modern MILC are mimicking it (i.e. Olympus, Fuji, Sony), to allure old timers.
-
I'll throw one more into the mix, and feel free to point me to an earlier camera that fulfilled the same roll, but I would say the Brownie had to be one of the most revolutionary cameras. This is the camera that was designed for the masses and made photography accessible, at least by my understanding, to said masses.
-
The Polaroid instant film and camera concept.
-
I'll throw one more into the mix, and feel free to point me to an earlier camera that fulfilled the same roll, but I would say the Brownie had to be one of the most revolutionary cameras. This is the camera that was designed for the masses and made photography accessible, at least by my understanding, to said masses.
That's interesting... Good suggestion I think... Can you please suggest on the "why" (other than the price) question? The focusing solution (considering the times) perhaps? Have you used one? (I haven't, I've only seen an early one out of a collector friend who also has never used it...)
-
The Brownie was the 1900 camera that made it possible for the average hobbyist to try photography, and made Kodak into a great company. The original Brownies were small cardboard box cameras with integrated lens, roll film pre-loaded. You took your shots, and mailed it back to Kodak for development and printing. The only controls you had were a crank to advance the film. In a way, this was the precursor of the cardboard disposable camera still seen until recently. The later folding models added variable-timing shutters ("sunny", "cloudy", "dark") and a diaphragm ("landscape" "portrait").
http://www.geh.org/fm/Brownie/htmlsrc/index.html (full list, from Eastman House museum)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_%28camera%29 (third photo down, the "Hawkeye", was my first camera, a hand-me-down from my mom, made of Bakelite, very sturdy, perfect for a 7 year old).
-
That's interesting... Good suggestion I think... Can you please suggest on the "why" (other than the price) question? The focusing solution (considering the times) perhaps? Have you used one? (I haven't, I've only seen an early one out of a collector friend who also has never used it...)
I've never touched one and know it by reputation only. For me the camera was revolutionary because of the packaging and accessibility. Beyond the technical things that NancyP pointed out (thank you, by the way), it was a camera that lead a social revolution that lead to photography being what it is today. By moving the camera out of highly trained photographers hands and moving it to everyone you gained a whole new meaning to photography as we know it. And opening it up to so many more people also allowed the industry to become as large as it is. I'm sure, had the Brownie not existed, this same revolution would still have happened, but it is the camera that sparked it.
Just think, the Brownie is what lead to SnapChat...
-
Well, an obvious one is the incorporation of cameras in mobile phones. The Brownie of the modern times:)
-
if design is as in technology and not look & feel then
RF -> dSLR -> dSLM
-
http://www.olympus.co.jp/jp/fun/wallpaper/camera/dl.cfm?id=287&type_id=1&la=en (http://www.olympus.co.jp/jp/fun/wallpaper/camera/dl.cfm?id=287&type_id=1&la=en)
This would've been such an awesome design. The final OM-1 is still a beautiful camera, mine has been working flawlessly since 1979 without a single issue, but a fully modular 35mm system would've been really nice to have.
-
The Nikon D1 comes to mind since it has pretty much defined what a DSLR is with hardly any evolution since then.
as if Kodak dSLRs did not exist (even built on bodies from other manufacturers)
-
as if Kodak dSLRs did not exist (even built on bodies from other manufacturers)
Built on film bodies from other manufactures. And much more expensive. The D1 was built to be a digital SLR camera at a price point that changed the industry. If not the most influential in design, the most influential DSLR in price.
-
What about the Nikon F? Fabulous construction, lenses so good that people thought the photos were medium format.
-
Built on film bodies from other manufactures. And much more expensive. The D1 was built to be a digital SLR camera at a price point that changed the industry. If not the most influential in design, the most influential DSLR in price.
it does not matter - what exactly technologically new D1 had what Kodak was not selling already retail ?
-
The Nikon D1 handles like a camera, the Kodak handles like a digital imager.
that's ergonomics , granted looks nicer
-
Actually, the "Hawkeye" Brownie camera led to my love of photography at age 7, and to the magic of the darkroom at age 10 at summer camp. I still think that there is something uniquely thrilling about seeing a print image come up in the developer tray, under that red light. That's the strongest memory I have of that summer at camp.
-
1) Canon EOS3 with eye controlled autofocus
2) Hassleblad ELM - first motorized medium format
3) Canon 1Ds - first truly hi-res 35mm based, full-frame camera
-
1. Digital mirrorless. Not for the Sony A7 series or other high-end cameras, but for the fact that it allowed everything from camera smartphones, to videoconferencing, to GoPros, to combining video and still in the same machine.
2. Whichever was the first camera to introduce AF.
3. The SLR - the first through-the-lens preview system that wasn't a ground glass on a view camera. Image preview that was both fast (unlike ground glass) and accurate (unlike everything else).
-
Canon D30 - the first DSLR lauded in Lula as equalling film quality
Before that, the Canon EOS Rebel line, starting with film, and continuing today, as the most successful line of cheap cameras ever. Real photography for the masses, on the cheap.
Canon EOS 1V - the best camera I have ever used, this is a thing of beauty and functionality, with a luscious tactile feel.
Hey, I have used Canon EOS for 20 years for a reason!
-
I can see why one would suggest the Brownie, ...but the Eos 30D? What is revolutionary about it? It was an important camera alright for the reasons you mention (its time resisting for IQ sensor) but that doesn't make a camera "revolutionary" for its use... It only makes it "important"... doesn't it?
By applying the same reasoning as you do, one could call (even more) revolutionary the Nikon D90 for being the first camera that offers video... But again, this only makes it important... not revolutionary.
-
iPhone
-
iPhone
Personally, other than the cameras I suggested and the Brownie and Polaroid that others suggested, I would also consider the maker of the first folding camera (don't know who is first... is it Zeiss with the the Ikonta?), the maker of the first folding view camera with movements (is it Linhof?) and some more including makers of "panoramics" like Seitz, Fuji & Holga... (don't know who made first what... but know the cameras and have used Seitz extensively).
Other than the above, I would consider the maker of the first phone with ability to capture pictures, but to my knowledge, iphone is far from being it... But again, picture making by using a cell phone, doesn't really revolutionize picture taking... does it? IMO it only replaces a small tiny sensor camera integrating it with the cell phone... not much innovation into it, ...is there? I think that people that would suggest the Nikon F3-AF (first AF camera ever) or the Nikonos series that one could use both underwater and as a rangefinder, makes more sense...
-
Looking at the future,
I think the Light L16 Camera, the Ricoh Theta S and similar cameras that produce a computed image from several simultaneous gathered images will be revolutionary.
-
Pentax Spotmatic. First SLR with TTL metering.
Also, my first real camera. :)
-
OK... Up to now the suggestions include Voightlander Prominent, Fuji GX-680, Sinar M system, the Polaroid instant film, the Kodak Brownie, the first folding camera (does anybody know if it is the Zeiss Ikonta?), the first hand held camera with movements (is it the Linhof?), the Nikon F (because of its completely modular design with finders, screens etc), the Nikon F3 AF (the camera that introduced AF), the original Nikonos & the Pentax Spotmatic (for introducing TTL metering)....
I think we should drop Nikon D1, EOS 30D, the digital Kodaks and the various phones, since there is no revolution introduced for picture talking other than being digital, ergonomics & image quality (which are are all different to revolution in picture taking) and we should also reject the Hasselblad ELM (because the motor is ergonomics, it doesn't affect one's photography)... but I also think we should include the first modular MF ever (was that the Hasselblad 1000?), or consider Hasselblad 500c since it added leaf shutter & polaroid back on top...
If there are no objections, that leaves us with what is on the first paragraph & the Hasselblad 500c added... I think that there are more that can be added, please contribute your knowledge on revolutionary cameras!
-
But again, picture making by using a cell phone, doesn't really revolutionize picture taking
in my opinion it is the most revolutionary modern camera
-
in my opinion it is the most revolutionary modern camera
Agreed. The "share" button adds brand new functionality to photography.
-
Funny how we all seem to have different definitions of what a revolutionary camera is. ;)
To me, it is:
- A camera whose design marked a turning point and was followed/copied by many others later,
- A camera that enabled to take pictures that could not be taken before it appeared, or at least not at a reasonnable price,
That's why I picked the D1, but the Nikon F is also another great candidate.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To me, it is:
- A camera whose design marked a turning point and was followed/copied by many others later,
- A camera that enabled to take pictures that could not be taken before it appeared, or at least not at a reasonnable price,
That's why I picked the D1, but the Nikon F is also another great candidate.
Cheers,
Bernard
Agree on both factors but for the phrase "and was followed/copied by many others later". There are cases where the camera was revolutionary and did marked a "turning point" but wasn't followed/copied... Take the Voightlander Prominent for instance, the camera was as compact as the Leica M, it was as well (or even better) build, it shared the same focusing system, but additionally offered leaf shutter which enabled flash sync at all speeds and focusing was done via an on camera body focusing wheel that controlled a mechanism which moves the lens instead of having a focusing ring.
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/prominent#MRrpZySQiEHJGFIU.97
As one knows, a lens that doesn't have focusing mechanism, (and thus no moving elements) maximizes its optical performance considerably, but both the functions (as well as most of the rest of the solutions that where implemented on this camera system as accessories to be added on), where unique to it....
On the OTH, the D1 is in reality an F5 but with digital sensor (and no interchangeable finder), it doesn't add for picture taking to the F5....
-
The Leica I or A in some foreign markets ;)
The refined and improved version of Barnack’s UR camera went into production under the name of Leica and was presented to the public in March 1925, at the Leipzig Spring Fair. It was fitted with a non-interchangeable, Leitz Anastigmat 50 mm f/3.5 lens designed by Max Berek in a collapsible mount.
Like the discussion on the D1 it was not the first to use 35mm movie film but was the one that "took off".
Was the M3 revolutionary ? IMHO no it was a continuation of the refinement of the original. But perhaps the OP title design rather than technology would reverse that order?
-
The Leica I or A in some foreign markets ;)
The refined and improved version of Barnack’s UR camera went into production under the name of Leica and was presented to the public in March 1925, at the Leipzig Spring Fair. It was fitted with a non-interchangeable, Leitz Anastigmat 50 mm f/3.5 lens designed by Max Berek in a collapsible mount.
Like the discussion on the D1 it was not the first to use 35mm movie film but was the one that "took off".
I was waiting for one to suggest the Leica M (or perhaps it should be the Barnack UR), as I think it should definitely be among the proposed...
Was the M3 revolutionary ? IMHO no it was a continuation of the refinement of the original. But perhaps the OP title design rather than technology would reverse that order?
"Revolutionary" (in this discussion) is used as to suggest a pioneering product that can improve one's ability into different tasks of picture taking... From this POV, the product doesn't have to introduce new technology but rather to have the design as to apply existing knowledge of technology. Take the view camera for example, it doesn't invent Scheimpflug's theory... it rather applies the theory by the design of the product... still I think that the first camera (ever in production) with full lens movements with respect to light sensitive area plane should also be included among the proposed.
-
Kodak Instamatic, esp, the 'pocket Instamatic'.
-
"Revolutionary" (in this discussion) is used as to suggest a pioneering product that can improve one's ability into different tasks of picture taking...
That's interesting as a defnition as the D1 then, or any other early digital contender, doesn't really fit, it replaced the recording medium but didn't "improve one's ability into different tasks of picture taking" unless you contend the ability to shoot almost unlimited frames did that but forget the 250 exposure backs from Nikon and others or the ability to "see" the result instantly already done by Polaroid but most, including me and you above, seem to agree it was revolutionary. Was that because of what followed, the near death of film certainly at a consumer level?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1550622.stm
I hope not a blocked link out of the UK. First camera phone 110,000-pixel (0.11M in modern speak) . Note the comments below the article.
-
That's interesting as a defnition as the D1 then, or any other early digital contender, doesn't really fit, it replaced the recording medium but didn't "improve one's ability into different tasks of picture taking" unless you contend the ability to shoot almost unlimited frames did that but forget the 250 exposure backs from Nikon and others or the ability to "see" the result instantly already done by Polaroid but most, including me and you above, seem to agree it was revolutionary. Was that because of what followed, the near death of film certainly at a consumer level?
But... I didn't agree that D1 should be included, actually in my reply to Bernard above, I mention that "it is only an F5 with a digital sensor"... In fact I believe that the material used for light sensitive area is irrelevant to the camera's own abilities of providing tools for one's photography... That said, I think that cameras with no control over lighting (like the Kodak instamatic or the instant Polaroid, or various phones) should NOT be included, they are important to the growth of the photo industry alright, but didn't offer anything as to improve one's picture taking...
Especially for the polaroid instant developing film, I think that it is the film that is important, not the camera... As such, I would consider cameras that use the instant film on a creative manner (like it used on an MF interchangeable back camera), but would not consider cameras that are aimed to capture "snaps" with respect to others that aim to creative photography.
-
1) The original Leica -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera#History
2) The Kine Exacta - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kine_Exakta
3) Canon D30 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30
Explanations
- The original Leica established the 135 format
- The Kine Exacta was the first SLR
- The Canon D30 was the first DSLR at an affordable price and also the first DSLR with a CMOS sensor
Cameras that should have been mentioned:
The Hasselblad 500 series
The Casio camera that once upon the time defined the digital camera platform with an LCD display on the back.
Best reagrds
Erik
-
Many insist on suggesting the 30D or the D1 for being revolutionary on picture taking, but none bothers to explain in what why ones photography was revolved because of them... Price or IQ are not revolving picture taking... only implementing extra abilities on the design does...
-
Hi,
D30 was really the first affordable DSLR and it offered image quality similar to slide film, AFAIK. So it was a first. Actually the D30 was the camera that motivated Thomas Knoll to develop Camera Raw, as far as I know.
Going from film to digital is a revolution, is it not? It was released 17-th May 2000.
https://luminous-landscape.com/d30-vs-film/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_D30
Best regards
Erik
Many insist on suggesting the 30D or the D1 for being revolutionary on picture taking, but none bothers to explain in what why ones photography was revolved because of them... Price or IQ are not revolving picture taking... only implementing extra abilities on the design does...
-
Hi,
D30 was really the first affordable DSLR and it offered image quality similar to slide film, AFAIK. So it was a first. Actually the D30 was the camera that motivated Thomas Knoll to develop Camera Raw, as far as I know.
Going from film to digital is a revolution, is it not? It was released 17-th May 2000.
https://luminous-landscape.com/d30-vs-film/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_D30
Best regards
Erik
Going from film to digital is a revolution of technology, not a function (by itself) that affects the process of capturing images... Neither the process of picture taking is affected by the price of a product.
-
I am amazed that nobody has suggested the Minolta 7000.
-
Here's a design no-one has mentioned, possibly because of its age - Pinhole!
-
A lens without a focus mechanism is smaller than one with a focus mechanism, but that does not impact the optical performance. Most rangefinder lenses and many fixed-focal length SLR lenses consist of a barrel with the optics in place, the whole mechanism screws into a focus mount.
The 1936 Coated Zeiss 5cm F1.5 Sonnar performs as well in it's new Leica Thread Mount as it did in the original Contax mount.
Oh yes it does... if focusing is done by moving an internal group of elements, it does affect lens performance. The lenses that you mention which have the focusing mechanism as an exterior barrel to the design are in reality using the "barrel" instead of a bellows as to move the whole lens with respect to the image area. Yes, the legendary 1.5 Nokton has been used on many different cameras (leica m included) at the days.
I have two Voigtlander Prominents, with the 50/1.5 Nokton, 100/4 and 35/2.5. Nice optics, on par with Zeiss. The camera body is poorly thought out, the rangefinder mechanism is horrible. I've repaired one of them. The Voigtlander Vitessa has the worst rangefinder mechanism that I've seen.
The rangefinder focusing of the Prominent is not the most easy to use around but it is as accurate as with the competition, it was highly improved with the Prominent II and III that also replaced the "wheel" with a film wind lever... but it is still a function of the camera and I love the 35/50/100 revolving turnit and the build quality of the Prominent! Still there is no other 35mm camera with bellows focusing and flash sync at 1/500sec coming from... 1951! (PS. the prominent with 35/50 noct & 100 is still my first choice whenever I want to shoot with 35mm film.... :) )
-
I am amazed that nobody has suggested the Minolta 7000.
Why should one? The 7000 is second (four years later) to Nikon F3AF for bringing AF into the market...
EDIT: Actually, Minolta its third, Canon was second to Nikon by offering two lenses with AF ability that would work on all FD mount bodies...
-
Here's a design no-one has mentioned, possibly because of its age - Pinhole!
Absolutely! The very first camera.
Good one, NancyP
-
Absolutely! The very first camera.
Good one, NancyP
I did mention the pinhole camera... ;D Look back on No4, my quote to Ellis... ;) The thing is that the pinhole camera (and the camera obscura) can't really be included because they are not production camera designs (they are rather principals)... but it is nice to be discussed if one wishes... :)
-
If you are talking about lenses that focus by moving only the front element not being as good as lenses that focus by moving the entire group, then I can agree. That would be a lens such as on the Polaroid SX70, the Prominent Skoparon 35/3.5, and Voigtlander Prominent 100/4.5 Dynaron. Glad I looked, found an entire set of Walz filters made for the Prominent lenses that I forgot about. The rear group of the Voigtlander wide-angle and telephoto lenses remains stationary and only the front group moves as you focus using the Knob. It is a compromise, the focal length changes as you focus.
Actually I seriously wonder if you really have ever used a Prominent Brian... There is no element moving on the Skoparon nor on the Dynaron or any Prominent lens... There isn't even a focusing ring on the lenses... the Prominent focuses by expanding or retracting a (small) bellows which has the lens mount "bayonet" at the end of it! ;D
-
You really don't understand this at all. The 35mm and 100mm lenses bayonet to the camera body, the internal mount pushes on a collar that is around the rear element. The rear element is fixed in place, the front group moves with the collar.
Before I posted, I picked up my 100/4.5 Dynaron and tested it. Look at yours. There is a collar around the rear element. Push that collar, the rear element stays in place- the front element moves. This is how the rangefinder mechanism translates movement for the normal 50mm lens to accommodate other focal lengths. Regarding the Rangefinder, I repaired mine. Have you ever taken yours apart?
Hard to believe I did this one 8 years ago. And finding an original Prominent Body Cap- that was hard. I have a set on contrast filters for the Nokton, will use it on the M Monochrom via an adapter. I use it on a Nikon S2.
The RF did not work because one of the screws had sheered off. Much better now. Adjusting the RF on Voigtlander cameras defies description.
Aaaaah.... I must admit you got me here! I thought all this time that the Dynaron works like the Skoparon (no they don't work the same...) and just checked!
Now the Dynaron is like you say... The Skoparon has DUAL rings on the back... one moves the whole lens until the focus is near (there is no movement of front element until that point - the whole lens is pushed into the barrel) and then the second ring activates only the front element for the nearest last meter or so... I thought the Dynaron was the same as the Skoparon all this time! Thanks for sharing that, (please check with the Skoparon - your turn ;) ). There are two "pushers" on it, only the later one pushes the front element out for the nearest part of focusing... Thanks for sharing, I honestly never bothered to check that the Dynaron was different!
-
I did check the Skoparon- and indeed the rear element is not fixed, and does move relative to the camera and relative to the front element. It is essentially a "Zoom"!
I like the Prominent- it's an interesting design with a lot of trade-offs to keep a leaflet shutter. It uses Two sets of shutter blades to prevent light leaks. The camera on the right was $50 with the Nokton, needed the shutter to be flood-cleaned. It took a while to get both sets of shutter blades operating.
-
The Brownie
The AE-1
The iPhone
8)
-
I think none suggested up to know the camera that could be one of the favorites for the titles of the "absolute king" of innovation... the Seitz Roundshot 220VR... A camera that I have used extensively and have easy access on whenever I needed (the now old owner would never separate it, but is glad to lend it to me whenever I need it...)
https://luminous-landscape.com/roundshot/
EDIT: I will be glad to explain how it works and what it does for those that would be interesting... it's really an amazing product even with today's standard...
-
What's the going price these days for Seitz 220VR?
-
What's the going price these days for Seitz 220VR?
Don't know... I've seen some on e-bay a couple of years earlier around 2.5K euros and I know that my old friend that lends it to me has payed some 35K on 1996 when he bought it new in Switzerland... but I think that prices are now going up than what they where a couple of years ago as its not widely available and it can provide a very serious income for pros if used in demanding situations...
"Mine" :) is in Nikon mount with no shift on it, but I don't mind that as I mainly use a Nikkor 35mm f2.8 PC or the 85mm f2.8 micro PC with it...
-
Don't know... I've seen some on e-bay a couple of years earlier around 2.5K euros and I know that my old friend that lends it to me has payed some 35K on 1996 when he bought it new in Switzerland... but I think that prices are now going up than what they where a couple of years ago as its not widely available and it can provide a very serious income for pros if used in demanding situations...
"Mine" :) is in Nikon mount with no shift on it, but I don't mind that as I mainly use a Nikkor 35mm f2.8 PC or the 85mm f2.8 micro PC with it...
Thanks, Theodoros
They were indeed amazing machines, especially for that time. I used both versions, Super 35 and Super 220VR. Also with Nikon lenses. Made a few really long frames with a 400mm lens (used the entire length of film for one very long frame).
-
Thanks, Theodoros
They were indeed amazing machines, especially for that time. I used both versions, Super 35 and Super 220VR. Also with Nikon lenses. Made a few really long frames with a 400mm lens (used the entire length of film for one very long frame).
The version of the 220vr I have access on, is a dual head one with both the 35 & the MF film heads included, but the 35mm is never used. I've used the older Nikkor 300mm AF-D f4 with it to keep the height short as the horizontal AOV is independent of focal length but in most cases, I find the 85PC to be perfect for it with some shift, the problem with the 85 PC is that the tilt functions always at 90 degs difference than the shift and thus in most cases one has to use one or the other than both... The huge advantage of the PC lenses is of course their wider image circle which is very helpful (especially if shifted) since the lens is mounted at 90degs angle and shoots with its diagonal as height....
At the begging, I used the Nikkor 9000 ED scanner to scan film lengths up to 18cm but later, I found that the best way is to digitize the film by using my Sinarback 54H at 16x mode, do as many multishot captures required for whatever length of film, use a Kaizer lightbox and then stitch the digital files (a real torture for the computer)... The results with this method is jaw dropping... one can shoot 80cm of 220 film with the 85mm lens and end up with a 1500mp file after stitching the multishot captures... But then the detail on the billboard size print is just fantastic.... nothing a man can ever imagine... and it pays accordingly.... :)
-
1. dry plate
2. leica 35mm
3. digital
-
LINHOF MASTER TECHNIKA
MINOX M.D.C
NIKON COOLPIX SQ
-
LINHOF MASTER TECHNIKA
MINOX M.D.C
NIKON COOLPIX SQ
I agree the Linhof should be considered, but why should the Minox or the Coolpix?
-
OK... Up to now the suggestions include Voightlander Prominent, Fuji GX-680, Sinar M system, the Polaroid instant film, the Kodak Brownie, the first folding camera (does anybody know if it is the Zeiss Ikonta?), the first hand held camera with movements (is it the Linhof?), the Nikon F (because of its completely modular design with finders, screens etc), the Nikon F3 AF (the camera that introduced AF), the original Nikonos & the Pentax Spotmatic (for introducing TTL metering)....
I think we should drop Nikon D1, EOS 30D, the digital Kodaks and the various phones, since there is no revolution introduced for picture talking other than being digital, ergonomics & image quality (which are are all different to revolution in picture taking) and we should also reject the Hasselblad ELM (because the motor is ergonomics, it doesn't affect one's photography)... but I also think we should include the first modular MF ever (was that the Hasselblad 1000?), or consider Hasselblad 500c since it added leaf shutter & polaroid back on top...
If there are no objections, that leaves us with what is on the first paragraph & the Hasselblad 500c added... I think that there are more that can be added, please contribute your knowledge on revolutionary cameras!
So you do not consider the move from silver halide gelatin to silicon wafers to be a revolution???
-
Many insist on suggesting the 30D or the D1 for being revolutionary on picture taking, but none bothers to explain in what why ones photography was revolved because of them... Price or IQ are not revolving picture taking... only implementing extra abilities on the design does...
Well, you can read Michael's review of the Canon 30D, and how he considers it to be a revolutionary product. It was basically the first digital camera that equalled or surpassed 35mm film results. I would consider it to be revolutionary... you know, bringing high image quality to the hungry masses and all that...
Sometimes, the simple ideas are the best ones: all Canon did was put a digital sensor on the Canon EOS 10 camera:)
-
Going from film to digital is a revolution of technology, not a function (by itself) that affects the process of capturing images... Neither the process of picture taking is affected by the price of a product.
Are you serious? Going to digital was what fostered the implementation of EVFs, live view, video shooting on a stills camera, do I need to go on?
-
Are you serious? Going to digital was what fostered the implementation of EVFs, live view, video shooting on a stills camera, do I need to go on?
How about the ability to take more pictures than allowed by a roll of film (without stopping and changing the roll) and the ability to change ISO from shot to shot. Do those things count? They're big things for me :D
-
Are you serious? Going to digital was what fostered the implementation of EVFs, live view, video shooting on a stills camera, do I need to go on?
You seem not to understand the difference between revolution of techology and revolution on a process (capturing is a process, not technology and a camera is used for capturing despite its technology) ...never mind, ...peace! Still the O/P asks for camera design, irrelevant of technology! 8)
-
You seem not to understand the difference between revolution of techology and revolution on a process (capturing is a process, not technology and a camera is used for capturing despite its technology) ...never mind, ...peace! Still the O/P asks for camera design, irrelevant of technology! 8)
I do understand. I just think that one does not exist without the other. Wouldn't you say that digital photography has revolutionized the way you capture the image? Just look at the smartphone boom for photography... technology developments allow engineers to design cameras (and lenses) in a different way.
And it had a great impact in camera design too, just look at how small cameras today pack a lot of image quality potential. Plus all the new designs like the Light 16, DXO One, etc.
-
I agree the Linhof should be considered, but why should the Minox or the Coolpix?
Because the OP speak about Camera Design.
-
Because the OP speak about Camera Design.
Revolutionary.... camera design! it means having revolutionary solutions applied that affect the picture taking process... I guess being small affects portability but doesn't affect the process.
-
Revolutionary.... camera design! it means having revolutionary solutions applied that affect the picture taking process... I guess being small affects portability but doesn't affect the process.
Not really. The box brownie for instance was 'a camera design', and it caused a revolution by bringing photography to the people. So it was a revolutionary camera design.
The AE-1, which introduced microelectronics to cameras, was conventional in physical design and the photographic process when using it was conventional, but it spawned the idea of camera 'performance', which now has its own section in DPR reviews, where cameras became faster, changed their own settings, display information in the viewfinder or on screens, and ultimately offer a range of automation types.
The iPhone, with its touchscreen that made the smartphone truly a trend device, from day 1 provided instant camera access with a double-click of its home button, then added the front-facing camera that made selfies easier than ever, made the online sharing of photographs so quick and easy compared to using a dedicated camera.
-
Pentax Spotmatic. First SLR with TTL metering.
Also, my first real camera. :)
Aaaah... the Spotmatic is out of consideration! First with TTL metering was the Topcon RE super!!! ...I guess Nikon F is also out as the same Topcon is also the first 35mm modular with interchangeable finders!
-
My bad! The Nikon F is back... The Topcon pioneered the TTL metering, but the Nikon F everything else! How about the Rollei SL 2000? should this be considered? ...I don't know any other film cassette camera with dual finders (both prism & WLF) and interchangeable film backs, I think it should be considered.
-
Photoshop ..... The backside for most modern digital cameras.
Sinar Cameras
The DSLR
-
Rollei 35
Polaroid SX-70
Agfamatic 4000
-
Aaaah... the Spotmatic is out of consideration! First with TTL metering was the Topcon RE super!!!
The Topcon RE Super is news to me, never heard of it. But according to Wikipedia the RE Super was introduced in 63. The Spotmatic, introduced in 64 had demonstrably orders of magnitude more effect on the photo market than the Topcon, which seems to be relegated to the dustbin of history. My recommendation for the Pentax stands. :)
-
Hi,
Yes, it is an interesting suggestion. It was really the first integrated AF SLR system camera. It was also quite a feat, as Minolta introduced it as a complete system, with a lot of new lenses. At the same times it was not compatible with the original Minolta system.
I was one of the early buyers of that system and I am still living with it. But, I feel it was a significant evolution and not a revolution.
For me, the evolution steps were:
- 135 format, defining modern photography
- SLR, giving "what you see is what you get" view
- Conversion to digital
Regarding myself, my conversion to digital began with a digital Ixus at 2 MP I bought from a friend. Next it was a 5 MP camera with long zoom capability from Sony called the Dimage 7. Once I had the Dimage 7 I was mainly on digital. For me, the Dimage 7 even killed medium format film, as it was actually good enough.
But, at that time digital meant small sensors as sensor surface was very expensive. The Canon 30D was first affordable APS-C and first camera with CMOS having low noise image capability.
Next major step of evolution may have been the Canon 5D, offering full frame at a reasonable price.
The 5D2 (and Sony Alpha 900) increased resolution to > 20 MP, while Nikon pricing gave rise to this video: https://youtu.be/tnwf2RShNV0
The Nikon D800 finally offered high resolution at reasonable price.
On the MFD side, live view and moder technology arrived with the Sony CMOS sensors represented by Pentax 645Z, Phase One IQ-250 et al.
Best regards
Erik
I am amazed that nobody has suggested the Minolta 7000.
-
Fun game! I'll play, though it would be much easier to pick four...
In chronological order, I'd pick an early Leica (but which one?) because it brought quality photography down to a portable platform and revolutionised what had been a specialist hobby - even though the revolution may not have been immediate, 35mm became so common that many people today refer to digital sensors of that format as "full frame" (sic).
Next is the Olympus E330 because it changed the now-ancient film-based approach to making digital cameras, as it was the first to offer practical live view in an affordable system camera. Today's so-called "mirrorless" all stem from that and they are going to take over the (enthusiast/professional) world. A revolution we are witnessing now. Interestingly, the E330 and cousin Panasonic/Leica L1 didn't actually have the classic SLR shape either, though they still were SLRs. That is also a feature of "mirrorless" - not needing a hump allows for creative design.
Last has to be the iPhone because it has utterly changed the world of photography like no camera has ever done before and it defines "revolutionary" more than I can imagine any other camera ever will!
I'd love to put in a fourth, probably the Pentax Spotmatic because it revolutionised the concept of SLR and made it accessible and popular (SLR cameras were a revolution in their own right.) But I'm only allowed three.
-
Respectable group of shooters has found Casio Exilim TRYX EX-TR100 revolutionary:
Casio Exilim TRYX EX-TR100 (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2774239331/make-up-bracketing-and-selfie-boutiques-help-shoot-casio-to-record-levels-of-profit)
-
Respectable group of shooters has found Casio Exilim TRYX EX-TR100 revolutionary:
Casio Exilim TRYX EX-TR100 (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2774239331/make-up-bracketing-and-selfie-boutiques-help-shoot-casio-to-record-levels-of-profit)
That's really interesting, actually. Maybe it shows there is a future for compact cameras if you are innovative.
And I see that Deep agrees with my suggestion of the iPhone: surely the biggest revolution since the Brownie.
-
Are we limiting ourselves to still cameras?
If not, I offer the Mitchell BNC, the Arri IIC and the Eclair NPR.
-
To me, "revolutionary" cameras are those that introduced something, some concept that triggered huge growth of cameras of the same type. So here we go:
1. Fox Talbot's mousetrap camera (before that, there were mostly experiments with light-sensitive materials, not cameras as such).
2. Original Oskar Barnack's 35-mm camera (the mother of all portable film cameras; 135 format film cameras outnumbered everything else and proved to be winning concept, outnumbering everything else by far).
3. Digital camera in a cell phone (the very first was probably in a Samsung phone around 2000; it is this mating, not small digital camera by itself, that triggered the most explosive growth of the number of taken images, all those billions a day we keep hearing about).
-
I'll throw one more into the mix, and feel free to point me to an earlier camera that fulfilled the same roll, but I would say the Brownie had to be one of the most revolutionary cameras. This is the camera that was designed for the masses and made photography accessible, at least by my understanding, to said masses.
I absolutely agree. The Brownie, along with its competitor the Agfa Box, is the camera that took a procedure that was almost regarded as science and allowed it to be performed by untrained everyday people. It took photography from a specialized niche product to become a huge market that allowed a technical evolution that led to the amazing devices we enjoy today.
I myself got started in photography at the age of 4 when I confiscated the family's Agfa Box, triggering a lifelong passion.
Very hard to think of possible runner ups in this category. If there are any they will be very distant.
-
Are we limiting ourselves to still cameras?
We have to (limit ourselves to still cameras)... Otherwise the discussion will never end! ;D