If Apple decided to make a DSLR

[MattSepeta]

We will see McDonalds making DSLRs before Apple.

Point-n-Shoots on the other hand....

Reasoning: Think about why someone opts for a dslr over a point-n-shoot- customizable. You need more light, throw on one of any number of manufacturers hotshoe flashes. Need a fast lern? Throw on an affordable prime. Need more battery? Use a grip.

This is antithetic to Apple's MO. Which is why I can see apple developing a great p-n-s that "just works".

 

[mackmgg]

This is antithetic to Apple's MO. Which is why I can see apple developing a great p-n-s that "just works".

And they have, it's called the iPhone

 

[Xeperu]

If Apple would make a DSLR it would:

• Look SUPER slick.
• Be very, VERY light
• Have an insanely good sensor, but something last gen, but still insanely good.
• Have a super revolutionary lens change system in order to:
• Change one of the two lenses available (Prime, ULTRA ZOOM (something silly like 30x zoom).
• have many fancy filters.
• Have 1 button: TAKE PICTURE.

 

[bruinsrme]

Called point and shoot.

 

[wrinkster22]

In the past couple of years I’ve run a lot of landscape photography workshops (I’ve stopped... for now), which means I’ve watched photographers - male, female, old, young, rich and not so rich - trying to get to grips with their insanely complicated cameras. Some knew what they were doing; others were baffled by technology. They’d push buttons, turn dials and scroll through menus, without having a clue what they were doing... or why. They had trouble doing the most basic things, such as changing apertures and shutter speeds. They’d try - in vain - to get rid of all the useless information that was cluttering up their viewfinders. Worst of all, they were so preoccupied with their cameras that they simply didn’t notice the light on the landscape.

It wasn’t their fault. IMO, if a piece of kit is too complicated to use with ease, it’s generally the manufacturer at fault, not the end-user. And the camera manuals, written in techno-babble, only make matters worse. My response was to get them to put their camera on a tripod, switch to manual metering, set ISO 100 and f11, and leave the shutter speed as the only variable. For most people it seemed to work: the camera didn’t dominate their thinking, it stopped getting in the way. With fewer choices to make, they were able to concentrate instead on what’s ‘out there’. One guy said it was “like someone switching a light on”, and went home happy.

On the day that Steve Jobs has died, I wonder what kind of camera Steve and Apple could have designed, to make the business of taking photographs more instinctive, intuitive, immersive... so the camera became a window to the world, not a door that needed to be unlocked. Even with all the new cameras - and formats - appearing, I’m sure that Apple could do for serious photography (ie not just camera-phones) what the company did for computers, music players and tablets: a total re-imagining.

We’re accustomed to DSLRs that look like their predecessors: my Nikon D200 is really just my ancient film camera (Nikon FE) with more whistles and bells. But there’s no real need for DSLRs to look the way they do (it’s only old farts like me who spent more time with film than digital).

Steve said Apple weren’t going into the phone business... then the iPhone appeared. He said there was no future in tablets... then the iPad came out. With Apple now so dominant in their chosen markets, it would be fascinating if they could partner a top-quality lens maker and come up with a revolutionary camera body that would facilitate good photography, rather than getting in the way. Maybe have all the whistles and bells, but have a simple way for users to personalise the interface to reflect the way they actually take pictures...

Any thoughts?

Does anyone recall when the late Steve Jobs came back to apple and apple had like 100 products including cameras... and steve jobs reduced it to 10 and everyone loved apple again? Quite frankly apple probably should not and won't clutter there product line up with tv's and cameras.

 

[tinman0]

Convergence.

Surprised no one has mentioned the word yet. Some years ago it was obvious to see a convergence of devices - the pda, the mobile and the compact camera.

Firstly, the pda is more or less dead, as the smartphone does all the old Palms and iPaqs ever did. That's your first convergence.

The second, and more difficult is compact cameras into smart phones. The current crop of compact cameras will waste a smartphone when taking a quality picture - and it's not exactly difficult to see why when compacts have much bigger and higher quality lenses. Plus, compacts are deeper, so can have a bigger sensor etc.

However, in time, the compact camera will largely be consumed.

That's where Apple are at at the moment - playing the convergence game. Hence, they'll never make a compact camera (again), let alone a DSLR.

----------

In the past couple of years I’ve run a lot of landscape photography workshops (I’ve stopped... for now), which means I’ve watched photographers - male, female, old, young, rich and not so rich - trying to get to grips with their insanely complicated cameras. Some knew what they were doing; others were baffled by technology. They’d push buttons, turn dials and scroll through menus, without having a clue what they were doing... or why. They had trouble doing the most basic things, such as changing apertures and shutter speeds. They’d try - in vain - to get rid of all the useless information that was cluttering up their viewfinders. Worst of all, they were so preoccupied with their cameras that they simply didn’t notice the light on the landscape.

I like your question, but some people are just stupid. It's a fact of life.

And why would they be anymore accustomed to changing light with an easy camera as opposed to a DSLR? (This is from the person who last night leapt out of a car to get the sun setting in the distance). How difficult is it to put a DSLR on a tripod and select P mode?

 

[fitshaced]

Convergence.

Surprised no one has mentioned the word yet. Some years ago it was obvious to see a convergence of devices - the pda, the mobile and the compact camera.

Firstly, the pda is more or less dead, as the smartphone does all the old Palms and iPaqs ever did. That's your first convergence.

The second, and more difficult is compact cameras into smart phones. The current crop of compact cameras will waste a smartphone when taking a quality picture - and it's not exactly difficult to see why when compacts have much bigger and higher quality lenses. Plus, compacts are deeper, so can have a bigger sensor etc.

However, in time, the compact camera will largely be consumed.

That's where Apple are at at the moment - playing the convergence game. Hence, they'll never make a compact camera (again), let alone a DSLR.

----------



I like your question, but some people are just stupid. It's a fact of life.

And why would they be anymore accustomed to changing light with an easy camera as opposed to a DSLR? (This is from the person who last night leapt out of a car to get the sun setting in the distance). How difficult is it to put a DSLR on a tripod and select P mode?

I dont think stupidity is what holds people back. They just get intimidated by the terms such as ISO, aperture, histogram etc and just avoid it.

I think photography should be taught in schools to very young children. If taught right, it would be something they'd have for life. The size or complexity of the camera wouldnt be an issue then as the basics have been true since the pin hole camera. Children get taught about light but not from a perspective of capturing it.

So, I believe that the future is more in teaching than in making the technology less complex. The buttons should remain on a DSLR as they offer total control. A device doing all of it for you means its the device taking the picture, not you. And where's the fun in that? Dont we take pictures so that we can look at them and say 'I took that!'?

 

[Doylem]

but some people are just stupid. It's a fact of life.

Yes, but photographers who are baffled by their very complicated cameras don't have to be stupid. They may even think they're stupid, but, IMO, it's the manufacturer's responsibility to build cameras that contain their own internal logic, and are more intuitive in operation. The manual to my Nikon D200 is lengthy and impenetrable, and DSLRs have got even more complicated and 'over-featured' in the five years since it came on sale.

Apple may - or may not - be looking at photographic innovations, beyond the provision of camera functions in phones and ipods, but, IMO, the photographic world is ready for a visionary - a Steve Jobs or a James Dyson - who isn't hidebound by photographic conventions, and who can see a better, simpler way for people to relate to a sophisticated image-capturing device. And then - as with the iPod and iPad - we'll look back and wonder why nobody had thought of it before.

 

[MisterMe]

... the photographic world is ready for a visionary - a Steve Jobs or a James Dyson - who isn't hidebound by photographic conventions, and who can see a better, simpler way for people to relate to a sophisticated image-capturing device. And then - as with the iPod and iPad - we'll look back and wonder why nobody had thought of it before.

I have said this in previous posts. It bears repeating. The DSLR is a specific form factor of camera. It is the digital counterpart to the SLR film camera. For many of its users, the SLR replaced larger more cumbersome cameras. For other professional photographers, the SLR with its tiny format 35 mm film is an abomination.

What you appear to be talking about is not a DSLR. You appear to be talking about a camera to replace the DSLR in much the same way that the SLR replaced larger format film cameras. You can expect many devotees of the DSLR to curse the camera of your dreams in much the same way that devotees of larger format film curse 35 mm SLRs.

Having said all that, you appear to be one of those people who will not accept "Yes!" for an answer. Steve Jobs has already given you the image capturing device that is not beholden to photographic conventions. I have told you and others have repeated--it is the iPhone.

 

[Designer Dale]

People seem to be to narrow minded with this. The idea was to speculate as to how Apple would revision the dslr in the same way they revisioned the phone. Apple took the existing form factor of the phone - either a flip phone or candy bar with buttons and limited online features and tossed the thing into a blender. The iPhone is what came out. Something no one had seen before and didn't know they needed. So if Apple did take on the dslr, what would they come up with?

Think Different

Dale

 

[fitshaced]

People seem to be to narrow minded with this. The idea was to speculate as to how Apple would revision the dslr in the same way they revisioned the phone. Apple took the existing form factor of the phone - either a flip phone or candy bar with buttons and limited online features and tossed the thing into a blender. The iPhone is what came out. Something no one had seen before and didn't know they needed. So if Apple did take on the dslr, what would they come up with?

Think Different

Dale

I dont think people have been narrow minded on this thread, just differently opinioned. Many things need to be considered I guess. Designing a new DSLR is one thing, mass producing it along with top quality glass is another. They do plenty of things right but a new industry is risky for anyone. Even the leading innovators. People can rave about the iphone camera but it doesnt get a foot in the door when it comes to DSLR cameras. They're two different things with different uses.

 

[Ruahrc]

Well let's be fair here though. The iPhone did nothing for photography in terms of innovation. They were simply the first ones to produce a successful smartphone, a success of implementation more than of innovation. They already had the ipod touch, and it was finally the first phone that handled being a browser and a phone and a music player and a decent camera in one device. The big innovations of the iphone are on the software side of things.

IMHO if Apple made a DSLR, they would try to incorporate multitouch on it, but the problem is that touchscreen technology has no place on a (serious) DSLR. Maybe it's just me but people keep saying the DSLRs are user-interface abominations but I really don't see it that way. The buttons are there for a reason- you need to be able to configure the camera controls whilst never taking your eye off the viewfinder. You need to be able to operate the controls while wearing gloves. You need to be able to use the camera in wet conditions. Physical detents (as found on rotating dials) help users quickly and accurately dial in a specific amount of a certain control (e.g. 3 clicks for 1 stop exposure compensation, etc). Touch screens fail in each of these critical categories. If you don't know what the buttons on your camera do, it's time to start learning, or time to start trading your gear in for something more befitting your skill level and dedication (and while there may be some valid points about the technical writing in some camera manuals, that is a different issue not related to UI design).

On a DSLR, each button is there in its own place, so that it is within easy reach of your fingers without forcing you to compromise your holding position (to keep the camera steady) just to manipulate a control. Touch screens cannot do this, unless you want to cover the whole surface of the camera with touch sensors (but see the above paragraph for inherent limitations). About the only useful place for touch screens on a DSLR is to make it easier to review images on the LCD< but even then you're supposed to spend your time looking through the viewfinder and taking pictures, not reviewing them on the LCD (that's what downloading them onto a computer is for).

I can agree that usability on entry-level DSLRs is hampered, but this is mainly because the lack of sufficient hardware buttons means you are forced into the menus to make routine changes to the photographic setup. The better DSLR you own, the more buttons it has, so really you never need to go into the DSLR menu to change something, because every critical function has a dedicated hardware button for it. AF mode, exposure compensation, exposure bracketing, DoF preview, etc. all have their own button for instant and tactile access.

I should qualify this by saying that touchscreens don't belong on serious, high end DSLRs. Could you make a DSLR with a giant touch screen on the back and a single button (shutter) on the grip? Sure, and a lot of consumers would probably even like it, but from an objective standpoint it would be an interface nightmare, flying directly in contrast with a lot of the UI requirements of a serious photographic tool.

Narrow-mindedness goes both ways. Forcing touchscreens and apps into everything is not the best solution for every problem. A DSLR is a good example of an area in which it just doesn't make much sense IMHO.

 

[miles01110]

If Apple decided to make a DSLR

...there would be no manual mode.

 

[Doylem]

Having said all that, you appear to be one of those people who will not accept "Yes!" for an answer. Steve Jobs has already given you the image capturing device that is not beholden to photographic conventions. I have told you and others have repeated--it is the iPhone.

Even if I were to get an iPhone, it wouldn't be for the camera. Maybe just the occasional snap. I need total control over the adjustments, which is what I get from my Nikon DSLR. It's a wonderful camera, which gives great results (as long as I play my part and point it at something interesting!), but it's not particularly intuitive in use. I taught myself a way of using it, based on the clicks of two dials (aperture/shutter speed), which means I can be in full control of adjustments while being fully concentrated on my subject (mostly landscapes). But when I see people struggling with their complex DSLRs, I understand why they're having trouble.

This thread was merely to think aloud about the future. I just look at the DSLR, with its array of buttons, embedded menus and 'macho' stylings, and feel that some company with vision (and plenty of money for R&D...) could create something that would be a delight to use... and wouldn't require to be shipped with a 100-page user's manual written in 'photo-gibberish'. There aren't too many companies like that on the planet... but Apple is one of them...

I can agree that usability on entry-level DSLRs is hampered, but this is mainly because the lack of sufficient hardware buttons means you are forced into the menus to make routine changes to the photographic setup. The better DSLR you own, the more buttons it has, so really you never need to go into the DSLR menu to change something, because every critical function has a dedicated hardware button for it. AF mode, exposure compensation, exposure bracketing, DoF preview, etc. all have their own button for instant and tactile access.

I would love to be able to 'set up' a camera to match my own, rather idiosyncratic, way of working... like adjusting the driver's seat in a car to match your own height and build. The adjustments I habitually use could be controlled, for example, by small movements made by my right thumb. Another photographer could set the camera up in a totally different way, to reflect his/her vision, habits, way of working.

 

[MisterMe]

Even if I were to get an iPhone, it wouldn't be for the camera. ...

Which proves my point.

 

[Doylem]

Which proves my point.

Does it?? Oof... I didn't even realise...

 

[snberk103]

My opinion is that Apple already makes a camera, and it runs iOS.... However, in the spirit of "What If?"

Apple is about removing non-critical features, leaving the remaining features with enough capabilities for the user to be creative, imo. And they are good at connectivity and convergence.

So.... start with an iPod Touch as a base form factor. Apple won't make a camera with interchangeable lenses. Too many ways to mess things up and too many issues to support. However, the integrated lenses will have an optical zoom of about 24mm to 600mm (35mm camera equivalent)* and will be only average fast - say.... f/3.5. There will be iMage iStablization for low light shots.

Apple will do something revolutionary, for instance (hypothetically) it will use a cluster of 3 cheap-to-buy (for them) lense/sensor combos - essentially the same units used in iPhones et al and then tied together with software to achieve something phenomenal - for instance (hypothetically) taking 3 low resolution sensors to achieve 28 megapixel files. Which by default will be saved as JPGs to save space.

The controls will consist of one rocker switch on top. Maybe it also slides so that you can lock the camera off, or lock the camera on and freeze the settings. Depress the rocker switch to snap the photo.

When you are taking photos, you aim the camera by looking at the screen, there is no dedicated viewfinder. The screen will be glossy, of course. The far right side of the screen, under your thumb, will be controls - and the GUI will be a touch enabled click-wheel.... you just move your thumb in circles to choose from Av, Tv, P, M. For the (P)rogram button you will have the choice of landscape/sports/portrait. The software will be smart enough for figure out when you want Macro, Night, etc. Even if you don't want that setting. The rocker switch will control the zoom/wide angle lense.

Apple won't actually use or show you Aperture values or Shutter speeds in Av and Tv, they'll use software to show you the picture, with the DoF and/or motion blur on the back screen. You adjust the photo, in real time before you take the photo, with the screen. Click the top-mounted rocker switch to take the photo. By default the camera will actually record a half or quarter second video clip. Which you can keep as-is, or you scroll through the clip and the pick the precise moment you want to record.

Once you have taken the photo it will automatically be GPS tagged, and the photo will start to upload to iPhoto on your host computer. There will be minimal storage on the the camera.....

However... The camera will keep the previews for all the photos you have taken in the past month, plus whatever you put into the camera's photo album. The previews will be compressed small, and perfectly viewable for the size of the screen plus 2x zoom. But.... you will be able to edit, email, upload to photo-sharing sites etc etc the photos using the same iOS photo apps now in use. But the apps are actually working on the full sized photos that are sitting on the host computer. The camera previews are showing the changes, but it's the photos that have been auto uploaded to the host computer that are being changed - using iCloud. And if the photo is being emailed, etc it will be sent from the host computer/iCloud.

You will be able to print and mail postcards/greeting cards from your camera. Maybe even calendars and books. Apple will buy the US postal service .... and make a profit running it to simply deliver the cards and calendars that people will start mailing to each other. (OK - that may be far-fetched )

The camera will also run all of the iOS apps, but won't have telephone capabilities.

Sorry for the typos.... and the rambling-ness...

 

[carlgo]

If Apple for some reason decided to make a big complex camera it would be like the Sony Nex7, not the already obsolete DSLR.

But Apple would only make a small, attractive P&S with a super-zoom and in-camera automatic lens correction, good largish sensor, few buttons and dials and a very limited menu. It would download directly into Aperture or iPhoto or the cloud or whatever wirelessly.

There would be an optional printer that prints 3 x 5s, glossy little wonders with Apple iInk that would come in one damned good looking little bottle.

It would be very automatic, giving photos focused on eyes, big depth of field, lots of sharpening and saturation. Stabilized. Maybe polarized. Maybe a hint of HDR to pop it up.
**************
On second thought, Apple wouldn't want a printer. All would be in the cloud and if you want to see the photos you will damn well download it onto an iDevice. Also, I notice that all Apple photos feature people with perfect white teeth so the camera would automatically focus on teeth, not eyes. Smile or the automatic shutter will ignore you.

All photos would look like photos installed on screens at Apple Stores: happy, shiny young people playing, vacationing and partying wholesomely. Even a photo of a pile of garbage would look like a scenic.

It would also have a phone in it. Makes more sense this way.

 

[tinman0]

Yes, but photographers who are baffled by their very complicated cameras don't have to be stupid. They may even think they're stupid, but, IMO, it's the manufacturer's responsibility to build cameras that contain their own internal logic, and are more intuitive in operation. The manual to my Nikon D200 is lengthy and impenetrable, and DSLRs have got even more complicated and 'over-featured' in the five years since it came on sale.

Apple may - or may not - be looking at photographic innovations, beyond the provision of camera functions in phones and ipods, but, IMO, the photographic world is ready for a visionary - a Steve Jobs or a James Dyson - who isn't hidebound by photographic conventions, and who can see a better, simpler way for people to relate to a sophisticated image-capturing device. And then - as with the iPod and iPad - we'll look back and wonder why nobody had thought of it before.

If a "photographer" (as opposed to someone who bought a camera) is baffled by an SLR then they are not a photographer.

As for stupidity, never under-estimate the ability of people to be as daft as a brush. It is as astounding as it is depressing.

I think there are plenty of companies in the photographic field who have tried to be brave and reinterpret how a camera works - yet we still have SLRs.

You only need to look at the direction of some companies at the moment with rangefinders and the style they are using - eg the Fuji X100 which harks back in design to rangefinders of old.

So far from the industry looking forward, I'd suggest it's actually looking at it's roots. For instance, the Sony NEX range isn't about moving things forward, it's about repacking a concept of range finders with removable lenses for the 2010s.

 

[snberk103]

If a "photographer" (as opposed to someone who bought a camera) is baffled by an SLR then they are not a photographer.
....

Respectfully, I disagree. I've been a professional, and I've been teaching for 20 years. In the days of film SLRs I could figure out how to use any camera that a student brought into class. Also the TLRs, range-finders, medium-formats. Despite the fact that each camera maker approached camera design differently, sometimes startlingly differently, there was not a single camera (as far as this memory concerned at least) that I stumped me.

Fast-forward to DSLRs. Without the manual, I don't even bother to try and figure it out. I can show them the basics, usually. But after that there are now so many different ways to do something you can't "just figure it out". Even with the manual, it can easily take 5, 10, 15 minutes of fiddling and re-reading to get even a semi-basic function to work.

I blame feature bloat. Because there are some many different things that a camera can there tends to be multiples of menus. There are menus for basic configuration, the display, the custom features, the WB, the ISO, the file type, etc etc. And when you want to change something you need to remember which menu it's in. Is changing the file type from RAW to JPG in the basic configuration, the file capture menu, or the custom feature set. And does the file type change when you change from Av to Tv? What does Vivid Colour do? etc etc

My camera has the basic functions on the back. WB, ISO, a few display choices etc. And it has list of 99 functions I can customize with the top LCD panel. I actually like this setup. I have a printed list in the camera bag. If I need to do something, I can just refer to the list and twirl a dial. I don't need to remember where something is... it's in an easily readable list.

Just one person's opinion..

 

[tinman0]

Trouble is that "Apple's DSLR" already exists on existing DSLRs - which is the green square mode - camera does everything for you. You cannot get more Apple than that. Sure you can package that button better, but when it's been done on SLRs it hasn't been successful - eg T80 with just a Program mode for instance.

Now, if you have someone struggling with the basic concept of twirling the dial to the green mode and firing away, then that's their problem.

Photography is about image composition. But to get that image, there has to be some degree of technical skill behind the viewfinder. If there is no technical skill, then the results will be hit and miss. (eg setting up for motorsports).

And the technical skill required to wield an SLR isn't that much either. If it takes more than 45 minutes to explain light, aperture, shutter speed and iso, in some depth, then the audience is somewhat lacking.

 

[nateo200]

DSLR's have a steep learning curve...its not something that should be simplified either...I mean sure my Canon has auto mode but after learning the basics of full manual everything I won't be touching that for anything serious...There is too much to predict for a camera to choose the right settings...I don't even like the iPhones camera anymore because its all auto and sometimes I'd rather have a darker photo but less grainy by using a lower ISO and I can't control that on my iPhone...As for DSLR video...there is a reason the cameras are "cheap" compared to something like a CineAlta or RED camera...its all manual, not good audio, steep learning curve, and not purpose built but if done right can look amazing..

Apple would make the DSLR "all to them selfs" meaning no after market lens, rigs, accessories...well at least not to the degree Canon has all these manufactories slaving over their gourgous cameras...the whole point of a DSLR almost contradicts Apples simplicity...Apple gives up allot of raw power compared to other guys to make it "just work". I don't know if you noticed but Apple almost never has the latest greatest it just looks that way. No MMS on the first iPhone...Core 2 Duo on MacBook Pro line for way too long, no video on iPhone 3G..

As for the learning curve everyone including my self is talking about...its steep but that's if you practice using a DSLR in the wrong way. Buy the camera, read up allot about appeture, focus, ISO, zoom, exposure, shutter speed, etc. and then just go out and take pictures of everything and see what comes out good and what comes out bad and think about why that happened, do something different and do that in every environment and you'll be good to go..And with live view you don't even have to take the picture before you'll see what it looks like as far as the basics go!

 

[rcappo]

It would have an auto mode that 'just worked'.

It would be interesting. Obviously, it would send pictures to iCloud and they would be on my computer and organized instantly.

It would be smaller than my Cannon 5Dm2, although it would cost about the same.

It would be like Sony with the Image Stabilization in the body of the camera.

Lens would be fast. And it would zoom from 16mm-200mm.

They could probably get a Foveon sensor type of technology in a bigger chip, higher MP, and in the size of a thin Canon G12. The sensor would be backlit.

It would have a giant touch screen on the back to see what you are photographing.


It sounds like they have done a lot of this in the iPhone 4s.

 

[elppa]

So far from the industry looking forward, I'd suggest it's actually looking at it's roots. For instance, the Sony NEX range isn't about moving things forward, it's about repacking a concept of range finders with removable lenses for the 2010s.

I'd say that is quite controversial. And harsh on the NEX range to say it isn't moving things forward.

Sony have brought some quite innovate ideas to market - like focus peaking.

This certainly would be at odds with your "isn't about moving things forward" assertion:

Sony acquired Minolta's DSLR business and is strongly invested in both full frame and APS-C DSLRs, but with its new A65 and A77 has shown that it is willing to innovate and challenge the market leaders in all segments. The NEX camera line competes with Sony's own DSLRs but the company doesn't appear to be afraid of tacking all segments. The philosophy seems to be, if someone is going to eat our lunch, it may as well be ourselves.

...and...

For the past two years the Leica M9 has been a benchmark for high quality images. Its 18 Megapixel full frame CCD sensor is very highly regarded...

There is no question (to my eyes at least) that the Sony sensor out-resolves the Leica using the same lens. The 50mm Summilux f/1.4 ASPH is one of the finest lenses of its focal length. What we are seeing is that this lens can out-resolve the M9's 18MP sensor, because the 24MP Sony sensor clearly shows better resolution of fine detail

Credit: The Luminous Landscape.

 

[100Teraflops]

Great Thread

And if Apple designed and manufactured a "DSLR" it would cost a ton of money and as others have pointed out: limit the user to 'Apple' equipment only. Not implying that Nikon and Canon charge a nominal fee for their cameras. I truly believe that Apple would produce everything pertaining to their camera whether it be positive or negative for the consumer. Recently, I completed a Pulse survey administrated by Apple, or so they call it and I mentioned the possible of Apple producing a 'competitive' camera. I can't believe I missed this thread!

It's nice to dream isn't it? However, looks like Apple will try their hand in the T.V. business. Maybe a camera designed for the enthusiasts isn't unfathomable after all?