If Apple decided to make a DSLR

[smali]

Apple "magic" camera.

Specs are half as good as a canon/nikon, costs twice as much, has a glass finish which makes it an ergonomic nightmare, files only work with Aperture, onboard drive and no CF/SD slot, built in battery also non user replaceable. You can play Angry Birds on it.

 

[VI™]

I think they're too late to the party and most of the bases are covered.

There's the P&S cameras, EVIL cameras (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens), entry level, mid tier, and pro level DSLRs.

And if they were to attempt to compete in the DSLR market they would have to bring out something that had IQ to trump Canon & Nikon's with the ability to focus faster and more accurately while being able to shoot cleanly at at least 6400 ISO an that's a big at least right there with the new D4 and 1Dx being announced.

They would have to have a range of lenses that rivaled current offerings and basically just be to DSLRs like the iPhone was to smart phones. The problem with this is that cameras like the D700, D3, D4, 1Dx, and 5D series all cost North of $2500 when introduced to the market with a good portion of that cost going to the sensor cost. Then you have people that have easily over $5,000 in lenses with some owning single lenses that cost more than $5,000 by itself.

What would Apple bring to the table that would honestly make someone that has $15,000 invested in a camera system sell everything at a loss to switch to a first generation product that hasn't been tested? Apps would do nothing. I'm sure many professionals and serious hobbyist share my feelings that when they go out to shoot something or they're shooting a job, they're there to get an image for their client and that's it.

 

[MisterMe]

....

What would Apple bring to the table that would honestly make someone that has $15,000 invested in a camera system sell everything at a loss to switch to a first generation product that hasn't been tested? Apps would do nothing. I'm sure many professionals and serious hobbyist share my feelings that when they go out to shoot something or they're shooting a job, they're there to get an image for their client and that's it.

This is a tedious thread. The title is simple and straight forward--"If Apple decided to make a DSLR." A DSLR is a specific form factor of camera with specific user expectations. Interchangeable lenses and other accessories are generic to the product category. Some manufacturers have their own lenses which may work better with their cameras. However, third-party lenses still work even if they require an adaptor. Other third-party accessories also work. So all of this non-sense about people losing the $15,000 investment in lenses is just that--nonsense.

If Apple's camera did force the buyer to sacrifice his/her $15,000 investment in lenses and his/her investment in other accessories, then Apple's camera would not be a DSLR. Since this camera exists only in the response to a question about DSLRs, the response does not address the original question.

That said, no two manufacturers produce identical DSLRs. An Apple DSLR would look very much like everyone else's DSLR because the form factor has been developed over decades with each button, switch, and dial placed at a particular location to serve a specific purpose. The big difference in Apple's DSLR would be in the OS and its UI. Of course, the camera would be iOS-based and able to run iOS apps. Its UI would be touch-based rather than the gawd-awful pointer employed by current manufacturers to navigate menus. Video is now commonplace on DSLRs. An Apple DSLR would have video capability. iMovie would be bundled with the camera. Obviously, iPhoto would also be bundled. It would feature seamless communications with your other iOS devices as well as your computer--Mac or Windows. Like other iOS devices, it could store photographs in iCloud. You will use any other iOS device as the remote control for the camera.

What about the act of taking photographs? Facial recognition is a feature of iPhoto. An iOS-based DSLR might employ facial recognition to assist the photographer with focus and exposure. It might also be programmed to recognize the faces of certain individuals or certain objects that interest the photographer. When the camera recognizes a face of interest, it alerts the photographer or, if programmed to do so, takes the photograph automatically.

 

[VI™]

This is a tedious thread. The title is simple and straight forward--"If Apple decided to make a DSLR." A DSLR is a specific form factor of camera with specific user expectations. Interchangeable lenses and other accessories are generic to the product category. Some manufacturers have their own lenses which may work better with their cameras. However, third-party lenses still work even if they require an adaptor. Other third-party accessories also work. So all of this non-sense about people losing the $15,000 investment in lenses is just that--nonsense.

If Apple's camera did force the buyer to sacrifice his/her $15,000 investment in lenses and his/her investment in other accessories, then Apple's camera would not be a DSLR. Since this camera exists only in the response to a question about DSLRs, the response does not address the original question.

How many photographers do you know that have the money for lenses buy 3rd party lenses over 1st party lenses? How many times have people pointed out superior quality in 1st party lenses over 3rd party? Also, they would have to have adapters that wouldn't lose AF capabilities or they would have to make mounts that match up natively to other companies lenses.

I have a 17-40 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 15mm f/2.8 Fish, and 85 f/1.8. With the exception of the cheaper 85, I don't think there's non Canon glass that will AF and has the quality of those lenses. I know I wouldn't pick a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS over my Canon.

What about lens choices like a 300mm f/2.8 IS/VR that doesn't really have a 3rd party option to replace it?

 

[arogge]

The Apple camera would have one button, a collection of automatic scene modes from Ansel Adams and others, and would use GPS with a collection of light and temperature sensors to guide you to the best photographic opportunities. The camera would automatically recognize the scene from its collection of great photographs, and adjust itself to give you the most accurate reproduction of the scene as the great photographers recorded the same.

 

[dvoros]

Fuji Finepix F601

I just tried the link to the Fuji Finepix and I think Steve Jobs would have barfed at the design. What a clumsy looking piece of crap.

I’d like to think that if Apple did produce a camera, it might look something like the old Fuji Finepix F601 model. I always thought the design (apparently credited to Porsche) was really cool and quite unique. The silver metal alloy body of course being reminiscent of the Unibody laptops.
I also have no doubt that the GUI’s would be far more streamlined. Every single camera manufacturer to this day, from Canon to Nikon, Sony to Olympus, are producing pretty awful interfaces to their cameras. It’s improved a tiny bit over the years, but compared to what we see Apple do in iOS, the difference is shocking (and saddening). Just imagine iOS running on your Canon 7D or Leica M9!



No, that’s not a good comparison. A better one would be P&S = iMac, MacMini, MBA. And a DSLR = Mac Pro.
Then a HasselBlad Medium Format studio setup would be a better comparison to an XServe.

 

[steveash]

The Apple camera would have one button, a collection of automatic scene modes from Ansel Adams and others, and would use GPS with a collection of light and temperature sensors to guide you to the best photographic opportunities. The camera would automatically recognize the scene from its collection of great photographs, and adjust itself to give you the most accurate reproduction of the scene as the great photographers recorded the same.

I'd go a step further. I imagine an Apple camera would not capture the scene that you point it at but rather take a picture of what you should have pointed the camera at from its database of templates. Manual control would still be available through the terminal.

 

[Blakeco123]

This is the best apple camera mockup i know of, the iCam. http://www.adr-studio.it/site/?p=349 the projector is ridiculous, but other wise its a good looking solid camera.

 

[snberk103]

OK, I'll bite.

No memory cards. Inside the camera will be a 256GB HDD, though bigger HDDs will be optional, at a cost. To transfer photos you either plug in a TB cable to your computer/iPad/iPhone. Optional will be a WiFi connection as well.

Battery will be non-interchangeable - but it is good for 3x as many shots as the next leading camera/battery system. There is no connection for external AC power, but you can power the camera from your laptop using the TB cable. The TB port is the only connector/port on the camera.

The camera doesn't have a hot-shoe, however it has a built in radio trigger for strobes. It will work out of the box with Pocket Wizard, or you can "teach" it to work with all the major strobe radio triggers. Apple will sell their own radio trigger for 30% more, but it will look really really nice.

Each "Lense" is actually a lense & sensor sealed unit. The sensor will never be exposed to the outside elements, and therefore will never need cleaning. Each sensor will be tuned for the focal length and other optical characteristics of the lense. Apple will find a way to place the sensors on curved plane, to match the plane of sharp focus. No more fuzzy corners.

Sensors will be about 12 MB, technically - but because of the tuning and SW, will produce images comparable to 24MB cameras. Images will either be square format or the 1.6 format (to fit iMac screens)

However, to save space in the lenses, the AF motor will in the camera body. Along with the AF motor, will be all the circuitry and computer chips to process the images. No mechanical shutter. It will all be done through SW.

Apple will devise a really nifty way to attach the lense to the camera. Perhaps a slide and lock that that just feels "right" when you hear it "snick" into place. Because none of the rear elements of the lense, or the sensor in the camera, are exposed to the elements it becomes childishly simple to change lenses. No more juggling as you try to protect either the inside of the camera or the real elements of the lense while maneuvering a 2nd lense into place without exposing this rear element. You simply take one lense off, put it down, pick up the next lense, and connect it.

Third party manufacturers will introduce a cable to connect the lense and camera so you can place the lense anywhere, and view the scene on the camera's LCD back.

Really cool auto-magic-exposure-focus SW, of course. Push the button, and it always takes really good photos. To the point that it uses facial recognition technology to decide which of your two friends is the better friend, and therefore better exposed and in focus.

However, it also has a touch screen LCD panel on the back that allows you to touch where you want the point of focus, and then to slide your finger back and forth to expand/contract the DoF. Same for exposure. Also you can touch a histogram to set white/black points. Same for WB. Etc.

Camera is controllable via iOS devices, naturally.

One button, and one dial (the kind that sticks one edge out, not the flat on its back kind). The dial will be up at the top, and you roll it to select modes if you are not going Auto-Magic. Push down on the dial to "click" on the setting. The single button will be on the back. If you hold the camera to your face, the button become a shutter release. If you hold the camera away from your face the LDC becomes touch sensitive, and the button is the home button. You turn the camera on by holding the button, and clicking or turning the wheel, so no power on/off switch.

Inexplicably, the tripod socket will be weird non-standard size for the 1st year.

Naturally there will be a version that comes with a cell data plan, and that will stream your images and movies as you shoot to the iCloud.

Have I missed anything?

 

[VirtualRain]

This is the beast apple camera mockup i know of, the iCam. http://www.adr-studio.it/site/?p=349 the projector is ridiculous, but other wise its a good looking solid camera.

It never ceases to amaze me how much effort some people invest in these kinds of mockups.

At any rate, after reading about the Sony NEX-7 last night, I'm convinced that if Apple ever decided to develop a camera with interchangeable lenses, it would be like this mockup you've linked to... which resembles the NEX with a touch screen or iPhone integrated.

I'm also convinced that the SLR is a relic of days past. So Apple would never develop one. Although I love my 7D to death, peering through a peep hole to take a photo is ridiculous in this day and age. It's only a matter of time before fast accurate autofocus without a mirror is possible.

 

[avro707]

Have I missed anything?

Not really.

I'm just very dubious about Apple doing anything like a proper DSLR. Could you imagine them giving you the ability to control everything yourself? You'd probably get a lot of scene modes and some automatic modes that don't always get it right.

Nikon and Canon are very powerful in the DSLR market and they have the accessories such as lenses, flashes and other stuff that would take Apple years to develop and produce.

Battery will be non-interchangeable

That's the one thing I hate about iPhone, the lack of a battery you can take out. If the phone goes wild, removing power from it is often the only way you can shut it off and restart it, since the power button will often go unresponsive, preventing the hard-reset combination from working.

And with DSLRs, we often don't have the luxury of being able to recharge it on the fly, so we just pack 4 batteries and when one goes low, change it over within seconds.

Although I love my 7D to death, peering through a peep hole to take a photo is ridiculous in this day and age. It's only a matter of time before fast accurate autofocus without a mirror is possible.

Screens now are generally not high enough resolution - and very hard to see in strong sunlight. The viewfinder is much superior, you can see it in all light conditions. Easy to use and with additional information presented around the edges of the viewfinder, it is very functional.

Maybe the solution is a separate screen that can operate wirelessly to give confirmation on focusing or sharpness of the image? You use it if you wish to.

 

[danahn17]

I'll agree that some DSLRs and cameras have horrendous interfaces. However, I think the root of the problem isn't the camera itself. Now I may be generalizing a bit here but I think the majority of SLR owners today simply have no idea how to use the camera at all.

They have no ideas what aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc are... or if they do, they have just enough understanding to make things even more confusing to them. The OP wrote that people were stumbling over "all the useless information that was cluttering up their viewfinders"... but in my cameras, the info in the viewfinder all provide me with important information. I wouldn't be able to shoot in weddings and such with as much ease otherwise.

When I first was learning photography, I had trouble figuring out aperture and shutter speed... and this was on a manual camera! But as I learned more and more, I spent less time thinking how to do things and more time actually doing it. In my class, all of us had no idea how to use the camera and hesitated a lot when taking photos. But by the end of it, everybody was proficient, regardless of camera and model.

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

I'd disagree with that too... much of what you mentioned there isn't feature bloat. People just need to know what those functions are and read the manual to figure out where they are so that they can access them quickly.

As for Apple, I find it far more likely that they will make a Point and shoot compared with them making a SLR. The DSLR market is already saturated and pros/prosumers may already have lots of money invested in lenses and would be adverse to switch. If Apple simplifies the camera, i'd probably appeal less to that target market too.

And the "normal" people would just want a good camera that can take good pictures... and you don't need an SLR or its features to do that. There's a lot of promise in the mirrorless camera systems (micro 4/3, EVIL, etc) but the boat for that market is rapidly leaving and Apple seems content as is.

 

[MisterMe]

This is the beast apple camera mockup i know of, the iCam. http://www.adr-studio.it/site/?p=349 the projector is ridiculous, but other wise its a good looking solid camera.

So you are impressed by a mock-up of a camera that has no viewfinder or monitor? Interesting.

 

[avro707]

As for Apple, I find it far more likely that they will make a Point and shoot compared with them making a SLR. The DSLR market is already saturated and pros/prosumers may already have lots of money invested in lenses and would be adverse to switch. If Apple simplifies the camera, i'd probably appeal less to that target market too.

And the "normal" people would just want a good camera that can take good pictures... and you don't need an SLR or its features to do that. There's a lot of promise in the mirrorless camera systems (micro 4/3, EVIL, etc) but the boat for that market is rapidly leaving and Apple seems content as is.

That's the market that Apple would best be advised to aim at, the market for non-demanding consumers who just want a simple and easy point and shoot camera to use in normal conditions and don't need to take photos of distant subjects with great detail and sharpness.

I doubt there is feature bloat in DSLRs at the moment. The features in cameras like a D700 are there for practical reasons, rather than just to say "hey, look how many settings we have". Something like a D700 is used not only by the amateurs but also professional photographers who need the pro-camera performance in a slightly smaller package.

I agree with the information in the viewfinders - it's all stuff I use as well, especially if I'm doing manual exposure and doing very low shutter speed panning shots (1/2 second). For those sorts of things, I want to see the exposure meter, and I also want to know how many frames are available in the buffer because I might do a burst of 10 or 20 shots. Or even the focus dot I might find useful.

I love cameras with the 100% viewfinder coverage. The view through those viewfinders is bright and clear. There is still a point to having the viewfinder, it's not a relic - it has practical purposes.

 

[VirtualRain]

Screens now are generally not high enough resolution - and very hard to see in strong sunlight. The viewfinder is much superior, you can see it in all light conditions. Easy to use and with additional information presented around the edges of the viewfinder, it is very functional.

Maybe the solution is a separate screen that can operate wirelessly to give confirmation on focusing or sharpness of the image? You use it if you wish to.

You don't need high res screens to compose a shot... but asides from that, there are high res screens out there, just not being used on camera's... eg. the iPhone retina display. The same goes for displays that work in bright sunlight. Also,a viewfinder is only useful when shooting at eye level. Shooting low to the ground or overhead render's it's useless. A high quality display is the answer here.

 

[snberk103]

OK, I'll bite.

No memory cards. Inside the camera will be a 256GB HDD, though bigger HDDs will be optional, at a cost. To transfer photos you either plug in a TB cable to your computer/iPad/iPhone. Optional will be a WiFi connection as well.

Battery will be non-interchangeable - but it is good for 3x as many shots as the next leading camera/battery system. ...

Have I missed anything?

I had an epiphany last night, and I'm changing my candidate specs.

If Apple made a DSLR, it wouldn't be a DSLR.... well, it would be 'D' at least

It would be slightly bigger than an iPod touch, perhaps as big as the rumoured mini-iPad.

It will have an array of 8MP cameras on the front. In the same way that an array of Radio-Telescopes (Link to photo) increases the resolution far beyond what any one RT can achieve, Apple will do with digital photo sensors. By combining an array of relatively cheap 8MP sensors they will be able to mimic much much much larger sensors.

However, the SW will discard most of the information for each capture because this massive resolution only exists so that the camera can utilize digital zoom, and still produce an image file that is the same quality as an optical zoom on a traditional DSLR. No changing lenses ever, the array of built in lenses and the SW gives you the full range from fish eye to 500mm.

The camera will run on iOS. Apple's first camera SW will be pretty basic, with the auto-mode being dominant and producing great photos. However, 3rd party developers will be encouraged to create their own camera interface apps (sold through the Apps Store, of course!) that will allow users to buy whatever camera interface they want. The back LDC screen will be touch enabled of course. No longer will camera owners be tied to the camera's native SW.

I stand by my earlier assertions about the minimum number of physical controls, no ports other than the TB one, the internal HD and battery. Because the camera interface is through the LDC panel, there is a nearly infinite number of ways to combine which buttons and dials you have, and where they are placed - limited only by app developers and the screen.

Because it runs iOS you will be able to load it with music to listen to as you shoot. You will be able to upload photos to a 3rd party printing company as you shoot, which will print and mail postcards of your vacation for you.... before the tour bus gets back to the hotel.

PS I recognize that this will never happen, I am merely participating in a "what if" scenario proposed by the OP.... for fun....

 

[WRP]

TO THE OP

Wait a minute...

So you are upset that someone doesn't take the time to learn about proper exposure? They don't take the time to learn the basic 3 principals involved in proper exposure?

So how do you make this more intuitive? I can look at a scene and know pretty close of the top of my head what the shutter speed for the action should be, the opening of the aperture based on the DOF I want and the ISO. And also know how changing one effects the others.

You know why I can do that in 2 seconds? Because I learned to use a professional tool. Not everyone is destined to be an engineer. I can't do calculus. Just like not everyone is going to understand the fundamentals of photography. Why dumb something down for these people? It's stupid they got their entry level DSLR and don't take it off automatic anyway.

Maybe instead of going DSLR, you should be asking what camera they should be using. Like an G12 or something that gives them auto modes and some manual ability. Maybe after they learn (if they ever do) they can buy a DSLR. I don't think the cameras need to change to fit people who don't want to take the time to learn personally.

 

[snberk103]

Wait a minute...

So you are upset that someone doesn't take the time to learn about proper exposure? They don't take the time to learn the basic 3 principals involved in proper exposure?
..

It would be helpful to know who you are responding to.... easy enough to edit the post and add the text from the post you are answering....

 

[WRP]

It would be helpful to know who you are responding to.... easy enough to edit the post and add the text from the post you are answering....

I have been off the forum for a while so I missed this thread. I was responding to the OP

 

[snberk103]

TO THE OP

Wait a minute...

So you are upset that someone doesn't take the time to learn about proper exposure? They don't take the time to learn the basic 3 principals involved in proper exposure?

So how do you make this more intuitive? I can look at a scene and know pretty close of the top of my head what the shutter speed for the action should be, the opening of the aperture based on the DOF I want and the ISO. And also know how changing one effects the others.
....

Thanks for clarifying....

Made me go back reread that 1st post again. And I still totally agree with Doylem. I too teach photography, and therefore I get to see many many different camera models. In the good old days of film (and wooly mammoths) I could look at a student's camera and show them what each and every button did. I didn't need to know that particular model or make, there was just a limited number of things that a film camera did, and therefore only limited number of combinations of dials and buttons.

Now, if someone needs help with their camera... beyond a certain basic level I can't help them if they don't have the manual, in most cases. Even with a manual - it can take some time to decipher the sequence of commands to unlock a particular feature because one often has to figure out what each button/dial is called first.

No wonder it's frustrating for someone trying to learn... Besides trying to remember the relationship between f/stops and DoF, they also need to remember that a dial can change the menu options, or the aperture, or the ISO, or the Shutter Speed : depending on whether you are pushing a particular button.

I have two camera that I use for 99% of my photography. I have my "serious" camera. It has a limited number of buttons and dials, allowing me to control the basic functions. Love using it. But it's big, so I have a small "travel" camera ... a high-end consumer Lumix with an integrated zoom lense. It takes nice photos too, but to get beyond the basics involves a trip through menu hell. The location of the menu choices change depending on what mode the camera is in. (....change the word "mode" to "mood" - it would be pretty accurate too.... ) I'm not saying that this is a typical camera interface, but it is far more typical to what I see on my students' cameras.

I am not afraid of technology.... I read the manual before I use most equipment. But .... just because I know my travel camera has a particular feature, doesn't mean I use it - if it involves 3 minutes of trial and error button fumbling to find it.
-----------

I'm going to go with the prediction I made today.... if Apple created a camera (and forget the tech specs).... it would run iOS and allow app developers to sell camera interface apps on the MAS.

 

[Designer Dale]

I have been off the forum for a while so I missed this thread. I was responding to the OP

This is the gist of this thread.

Doylem pondered:

/semi-edited/ 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?

Just to refresh things..

Dale

 

[LostSoul80]

Pros wouldn't rely on it. Maybe some touch based point 'n' shoot for the entry level users would be cool.

But.


There's already the iPhone. It's a p'n's, and they'll invest a lot more on it in my opinion. No need to get into that market.

 

[danahn17]

You don't need high res screens to compose a shot... but asides from that, there are high res screens out there, just not being used on camera's... eg. the iPhone retina display. The same goes for displays that work in bright sunlight. Also,a viewfinder is only useful when shooting at eye level. Shooting low to the ground or overhead render's it's useless. A high quality display is the answer here.

Yes and no. There are situations where a display is useful. I've use the display mode on my D700 many times (but I still use the viewfinder 99% of the time). My biggest gripe is that the digital displays still lag, especially when panning the camera. It does on my D700, on my Galaxy SII camera, and my old 3GS. It's a little bit annoying and I'm sure there are certain applications where that lag will be a hinderance (maybe something like sports photography).

I'm sure with advances in technology, this lag will eventually be minimized but for now, that lag is why I prefer the viewfinder (plus it saves battery).

On a side note, if Apple were to make an "easy" camera with a viewfinder, it'd be cool for them to use Canon's Eye-Controlled Focusing that was available on some of their film SLRs. Pretty much, the camera senses what you are looking at and focuses automatically! No pushing buttons or dials or what not. And supposedly it worked pretty well. I wonder why Canon doesn't use that tech in their newer cameras... i'd bet they'd sell a lot of cameras from the coolness factor alone.

 

[motorazr]

EDIT: who else here remembers this:

Apologies on bumping an older thread, but I have to comment that I even owned one of those for a while! Which is a big deal since most people I know in their early 20s have no idea such a thing ever existed...

EDIT: it was a photo of the QuickTake 200 .

 

[DNA930]

Apple is all about the integrated package. A hardware camera is nothing without the companion software. What direction is Apple headed with Aperture? Where is Apple going with digital imaging with iOS?

Regardless of what Apple will or won't do, I would think might actually have enough cash to buy Nikon or Canon?