Your Favorite Old Camera, REISSUED

DPReview had a nifty idea a few weeks ago, and I thought I'd steal it. They asked: if you could personally pick one old camera from the past and have it reissued in updated form, what would it be?

This must fit the way I think, because I've had such choices in mind at various times. At least since the dawn of digital.

To begin with, I really loved my first good digital camera, a Sony F-707, and I was sorry when the F-828 turned out to be the last of that line. That was a long time ago now (it was discontinued in 2005).

1x1
The reason it was the last of the line was, I suspect, that holding the camera for verticals was awkward. I always thought that could be fixed by having it shoot square. It's an oddity of digital history that nobody (almost nobody? I can't think of an exception) ever designed a purposefully square digital camera. You would have thought people would have an inbuilt expectation of a square option, due to the square-shooting TLRs and SLRs in medium format that had been made for so many decades. The F-707/F-717 and presumably the F-828 (I never actually saw or held one of those) were tailor-made for a square sensor. It would mean you'd never have to change the orientation of the camera.

Too late to update those, though, because there's not enough room on the back for today's large viewing screens. And it's too much camera for a mere 2/3" (6.6 x 8.8mm) chip. Well, there are other reasons too. But I really liked all those old cameras with articulating bodies—it was such a comfortable way to hold a camera, such a comfortable way to shoot, and it lowered the camera from eye position in many circumstances, which I always appreciated.

We forget how innovative camera design was in the early years of digital! It was a storm of creativity. I was so disappointed when it settled down into pretty much just SLRs and point-and-shoots, same as we'd had with film cameras in the '80s and '90s.

Broken-record...
The more recent (July 2015) old camera I'd like to see updated and reissued would be the Panasonic GX8. I've said this before obviously. For some odd reason, the sensors I've always liked the "look" of the best were mostly Micro 4/3 sensors. They just gave this beautiful characteristic look that seemed right in balance too me...just enough resolution and sharpness but not too much, the same sort of look as good lenses with lots of lens contrast, enough DR but not stepping into the HDR look...I can't really articulate it well, but those files gave me a sense of balance and harmoniousness. The camera was almost right, but needed a few tweaks here and there, most notably the infamous "shutter shock." I tested for that. Tried to pretend I couldn't see any evidence of it, but ultimately had to admit it was real. Panasonic stated that the issue would be completely fixed in the GX9—and it was—but the GX9 turned out to be a completely different camera. Well, I've rehearsed all this before; no use going over it again like a broken record. I bought one GX8, agonized over it, ended up selling it, missed it, bought it again—and then sold it again. Just couldn't quite make friends. But almost. After it was discontinued, with the highest of high hopes, I waited a year and a half, with bated breath, for a GX8 Mark II to appear, but...alas.

I know enough at this late date to never expect my own exact preferences to be accommodated in an update. I would have much preferred a flip-up style viewing screen, for instance, and a larger hand grip. You'll almost never get exactly what you want. Just a GX8 with the magic "refresh" wand passed over it—the shutter issue fixed—incremental improvements—the smoothing of the rough edges that happens with Mark II once-overs—that would have been enough for me.

I still look at them longingly from time to time. I loved that viewfinder.

Anyway that would be my pick. What about you—anything you would love to see reappear?

Mike

P.S. Get this...after I posted that road-paving mini-documentary the other day, today they're repaving the road in front of my current house. I had no idea—the township never told us it was going to happen. I'm not inspired to get out there with a camera and do the same thing again. But I'm sure I'll enjoy gliding over the fresh, smooth asphalt.

UPDATE: I did have to go out and shoot some snaps. Should have used the Fuji, but I have the Sigma B&W rig where I can grab it on the way out of the house, ready to go. The $1m paver was mostly black metal and the blazing sun was right overhead, so I guess now we'll explore how the FP(m) files handle high contrast. I took two pictures I like yesterday, too.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Andrew L: " know what you mean about the GX8. I didn't own that camera, but I owned several other Panasonics and a couple of Olympuses. The image quality is perfectly good for many uses, but the cameras themselves, just lack 'soul'—they're not quite there, they always have one or two Achilles'-heel features, along with a lot of good features. I still want the theoretical 'perfect' Micro 4/3 camera.

"For me, cameras from the past (that I've actually owned) would probably be the Panasonic GX85 and the Olympus E-M5 Mark II. The former was just good in every way, not great in a couple (EVF, plastic build), but would be great with a more premium build and an upgrade to newer tech. The E-M5 II was fantastic metal build quality, full of features, but with more limited (these days) 16-MP resolution, and the E-M5 III and OM-5 which followed it have bad, platicky builds, and I can barely hold onto them. They're slick, and not premium feeling. I basically want the heyday of small stills-focused Micro 4/3 cameras back, but with better internals and a bit up-marketed."

Oren Grad: "Fujifilm Instax SQ10 and SQ20 record square-format, 1920 x 1920 pixel captures. The captures are primarily intended to be printed on Instax square film using the print engine built into the camera, but the files can be saved, transferred from the camera, and manipulated/printed elsewhere. I've done it with my SQ10. The SQ10 and SQ20 would be poor choices as general-purpose cameras, though. They use a tiny sensor normally found in low-end cell phones, and the files are quite crude—heavily noise-reduced and sharpened to produce presentable results when printed on Instax film. Camera controls are limited and handling is about what you would expect from an enormous bar of soap."

hugh crawford: "I know that there is never going to be a native square format digital camera unless you are a government agency, but I would settle for a digital camera that was optimized for vertical. I have never ever wished that I had a little bit more on the left or the right side of an image, but I very often wish that I hadn’t cropped so tightly at the top or the bottom. Also, in terms of perspective control I’ve made use of equivalent of rise and fall a lot, but left and right shifts hardly ever. I am really looking forward to that new Pentex half frame camera, not that I’m planning on buying it. I’ve got some pretty nice half frame cameras to not use already, but I’m really looking forward to people freaking that it is vertical format."

Mike replies: You know what Lee Friedlander said about his switch from Leica M's to the Hasselblad Superwide, when asked about the difference between them—I never recall exact words (more's the pity), but it was something along the lines of "there's more included at the top." (If anyone actually knows the real quote, please let us know.)

Jeff: "'It seemed to be the same rectangle with more sky on top…I always wanted more sky out of a horizontal picture. All of a sudden, the whole tree is in the picture' (Friedlander)."

Mike adds: Thanks Jeff, good find! That's the quote.

Kosch: "The Olympus E-1 (original 4/3) was the easiest camera I have ever hand held. The button layout was perfect. It had a nice, chunky grip. The lens placement where it met the body fit my hand and palm as though it molded for comfort. I could dial in a shot without looking and those first few lenses were delightfully contrasty. I don’t know why Olympus changed the body so radically in the next few iterations, but nothing has ever been so comfortable as holding and shooting with that camera. I bought one on eBay a few years back and put my trusty 12–60mm lens on it. Truly, the camera felt like an old friend. Unfortunately, technology has increased so far that I could not get a nice print off of anything I shot with it. My iPhone was creating prettier pictures and so I abandoned the experiment. Anyways, that camera body with today's technology would be an immediate buy from me."

Mike replies: I agree with you on that. That camera really impressed me in terms of form and design. Five megapixels, wasn't it? I always wondered why they didn't stick with that design. Too expensive to produce, maybe? Those early 4/3 lenses were really beautifully made, too.

Dan Boney: "My favorite digital camera of all time was the original Olympus E-1; perfect shape, size, and overall shooting satisfaction. Sadly, subsequent models just never captured the same overall feel. And a bit ironically, the 4/3 story from the start was that digital sensors didn't need to mimic film formats of the past in the all-new digital era and the new Olympus lenses were specifically designed to be optimized for digital capture. As history has shown, people tend to hang on to established beliefs, and the 35mm film format is simply too ingrained in many photographers' minds. It also came down to established lens compatibility, which was further reiterated when Nikon recently announced the milestone of 120 million Nikkor lenses produced. Certainly most have been in the legacy F-Mount over the past 60 years...."

Mike replies: I wrote about the persistence of 24x36mm a while back. (I just re-read that...it's not bad, except for the eyeroll-worthy note at the the end. I have no energy.) I was a big fan of the 4/3 idea when it appeared to be becoming the standard. It's a better balance for digital than 24x36mm. But legacy lenses and familiar focal lengths, as well as pressure from camera phones, seem now to have relegated it to second-class-citizen status.

Dave Levingston: "I still own (and regularly use) two GX8s. I bought the second body when I read the specs for the GX9. I still consider them the best cameras I’ve owned in 60 years of photographing. I’ve never seen the shutter problem."

almostinfamous: "The one I want to see reissued really is the Nikon Coolpix 900-series. IMO, Those swivel body designs with updated electronics, USB charging and modern optics would be a real hit with 'content creators' and photographers alike."

jh: "I have it! I used a Nikon FM for 15+ years. Now I have a Nikon Zfc."

Comments

[hugh crawford]

Yeah, square please. Minolta Autocord Emulation specifically.
The Minolta Autocord would do 95% of what my Hasselblad would do.
I have 48 inch square prints from it. Oddly enough, there were some situations where I wouldn’t use it because I knew that if I got a camera stolen or broken, the Hasselblad would be easier to deal with than the Minolta. I have one around here someplace hotroded with the microprism focusing screen out of a Rollieflex. My Hasselblad had the same modification so that was nice.

The Sony DSC-R1 came the closest to that.

[Sid]

As the owner of two Panasonic Lumix GX8 cameras, both bought new, I'd eagerly buy an updated GX8 II camera. I also have a G9, but have never found it to be as compelling as the GX8.

[hugh crawford]

Oh, speaking of square, the only natively square format digital camera I can ever remember was the E-4 that Mega-Vision made. Kind of spendy though. I think it was in the nice used Mercedes price range.
https://archive.mega-vision.com/e4.html?_gl=1*19gperg*_ga*MTU4OTAyMzcxNC4xNzE2NDk0ODg3*_ga_QDR387CBEG*MTcxNjQ5NDg4Ny4xLjEuMTcxNjQ5NTExOS4wLjAuMA..

Mega-Vision by the way was selling a digital camera back in 1986 that used vacuum tube technology. Very cool people.

[Albert Smith]

I saw that DPReview piece and had a hard time understanding the question. If something is your favorite camera, what does updated mean? Also, everything that I prized in a favorite camera from my past would be an SLR or rangefinder, but today I am 100% on board with mirrorless digital cameras, so my favorites have been rendered moot. I can't imagine any updates or improvements would make me enjoy going back to film SLRs or Leica M bodies... I still own them all and never use them.

If we're dreaming though, I'd love for the Fujifilm folks to take all the specs and features of the X-T5, and then reinsert the 16mp X-Trans II sensor from the X-T1 in it. I'd buy that in a second... oh wait, its Fujifilm so it will never be in stock.😉

[Dan Khong]

Your favourite Micro 4/3 sensor just came back to life in another soon to be launched Leica D-Lux 8.

It might not beat the Fuji X100** in demand but it is entry into the pride of Leica ownership.

[Tom Burke]

I don’t think I’ve got one, because the cameras I used to use 25 or 30 or 35 years ago all have been re-issued & updated. Several times over, in fact.

As you know, I’m a Canon user (sometimes I feel like I’m the only one here!). In 1988 I bought an EOS 650, my first real SLR, and I loved it - everything about it felt right. In fact I’ve never strayed far from those mid-range Canon models. They’re the right size and weight, for me, and I’ve never felt limited by them - the faults with my output are down to me and not the camera. In the DSLR era I think the XXD range were very close in feel to the old 650, and of course they were received spec bumps every couple of years or so. The 6D/6DII bodies were similar, and I had one of those and enjoyed it. But I’d always wanted a camera from the 5D range and eventually got one, and of course it was all wrong - too big, too heavy, and too complex. Back I went to the then-current XXD body and immediately it felt right.

I think the R6 might be the today’s EOS 650 equivalent. I don’t have one of those, I have an R7, but that’s close enough. How do I know? - I still have an EOS 600 (620 in N. America) and in quite a lot of ways they feel similar. So there really isn’t an old camera that I yearn for - Canon’s mid-range cameras feel familiar yet possess up-to-the minute capabilities.

[Andrew Johnston]

Good choice Mike. My GX8 has survived 5 years of G9 ownership and transition to the G9ii as my second camera. The update needs to apply the G9ii AF and processing changes and get rid of that stupid fixed-position exposure compensation control in favour of a free-rotating dual. Then it would be perfect, better than the G9ii.

[darlene]

My choice of reinvented camera has been done already: the Hasselblad 500 series, particularly the 907x model, available with either a 50mp or 100mp sensor. However, there's a slight twist—the sensor size is 33x44 instead of the usual square format. But there's a workaround: you can adjust the format to square in the menu options.

When importing images into Lightroom, they maintain their original 33x44 aspect ratio, allowing for perspective adjustments during post-processing if you've cropped too tightly. Despite this departure from the perfect square, the elegance of Hasselblad's design remains unmistakable.

In addition to being a newly designed digital camera with exceptional lens offerings, the digital back is compatible with classic 500 series bodies like the 501CM and 503CX, which I still use, as well as technical cameras such as my ALPA and Sinar setups. It's a testament to timeless design, even if it's not precisely square.

[William Lewis]

I always used my E-PL1 in 1:1 mode. It made a nice faux Rolleicord that way, especially since the Oly B&W jpg mode was quite good.

If I could get a native 1:1 mode in my Leica M 240? Since I find myself cropping to squares more often lately again? THAT would be heavenly.

But realistically I'm better off just getting a Nikon Z-5 set in 1:1 ratio with a M->Z adapter to hang my Amedeo adapter on and then my 1937 uncoated Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 collapsible originally made for the Contax II. That I would enjoy more than anything any company could build in any attempt at duplicating my ideas of nostalgia.

[Oren Grad]

Fujifilm Instax SQ10 and SQ20 record square-format, 1920 x 1920 pixel captures. The captures are primarily intended to be printed on Instax square film using the print engine built into the camera, but the files can be saved, transferred from the camera, and manipulated/printed elsewhere. I've done it with my SQ10.

The SQ10 and SQ20 would be poor choices as general-purpose cameras, though. They use a tiny sensor normally found in low-end cell phones, and the files are quite crude - heavily noise-reduced and sharpened to produce presentable results when printed on Instax film. Camera controls are limited and handling is about what you would expect from an enormous bar of soap.

[Len Metcalf]

Square…. I’d love a revival Olympus EM-5, small, metal cased workhorse with an oversized square sensor. Fully weatherproofed.

Actually any micro four thirds with a square sensor would be loved.

No more deleted and wasted pixels. And just squeeze in the sharpest parts of lenses and push the focal length just a tad.

Take me back to the days when micro four thirds was a small system.

The other camera I do miss is my Ebony 45SU. The camera I regret selling. What a work of art that was, and to use it. Magical.

[Paul A Judice]

I loved everything about the Leica CL. it was very small, very light and it was a real Leica. I wouldn't change a thing, but fifty years later you can't find one with a bright rangefinder or working meter. Rumor has it that it was discontinued because it competed with the much more costly M series cameras, so I can't see why they would bring it back.

[DavidB]

For years I was interested in a modern version of the Nikon D700. Recently, I had an opportunity to use that camera again (I was doing a multi-camera shoot) and realized why I like my more modern Nikon DSLR. No need to modernize the D700 but if you want a modern version consider the Nikon D850.

[Kye Wood]

Try the Lumix G85.

Best shockless and hushed shutter I've ever experienced.

Has that sensor you like and is 100% Goldilocks certified. Even waterproof with a wonderful waterproof kit lens.

Light but solid. Great battery life and for me, perfect ergonomics.

Reissue this one. With a boron nanotube reinforced composite body. Boron? Look up the Australian company PPK. Boron nanotubes are like pixie dust. Makes everything from glass to plastic virtually indestructible with no added weight.

A bargain at $150K per kilo. But a few grams goes a long way. Will be used in Australian Army body armour order just made by Australian Government.

[Joseph Kashi]

Olympus Pen-F, but weather-resistant. In the best of all possible worlds, handheld multishot mode using IBIS would be nice, but not a deal-breaker.

[kirk]

I'd love for Leica to re-launch their digital CL camera. The only thing I would change would be to add image stabilization. But even without that I would buy one more.... It's a wonderful and tiny package.

[Keith]

I've told the local camera store that I'll happily buy the last Canon 6D mk ii off the shelf when it's discontinued. That will probably do for the rest of my life.

But the camera I'm having the most fun with is a Fuji GW690. Film. 6x9 format. I'd love to see that same lens design crafted into a rugged metal frame, with modern components, but without the stupid counter on the bottom that makes the ping.

[Rod S.]

No 1x1 camera? Almost. The exceptions were few but one that keeps being mentioned is the Dicomed Bigshot digital back from 1996. It contained a single-shot 16Mp sensor from Loral Fairchild that measured 6 x 6 cm.

https://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9604cs.html

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61105838

Camera manufacturers, at least most, are wholly dependent on whatever sensors are made by Sony. If Sony doesn't see a market, it won't get made.

[Bill Bresler]

Your mention of no "purposefully square digital camera" got me to thinking. I've had a couple of digital cameras that had a 1:1 setting. The problem was that I shoot raw, and when opened in ACR the 1:1 ratio was gone.
So, I tried setting 1:1 on my new Sony a7cII. Shot a few frames, transferred the card to my laptop and opened one in ACR. SQUARE!
With a 33mp sensor I can print those files at 15.5X15.5 inches. It's not MF but at least I see the square image without worrying about wasted pixels I must crop. Sweet.

[Rod S.]

The 1 x 1 square format camera that you might be thinking of is the 16 Mp Hasselblad CFV-16 digital back for Hasselblad V system cameras.

[Rod S.]

... and another 1 x 1 square format setup would be the 16Mp Phase One H20 digital back from 2003 for Hasselblad V cameras.

[Mark]

This may not qualify but first I’ll digress. I’ve always been an early adopter. Life is short and no one is promised tomorrow so I don’t wait. I’ve owned every Canon 1 Series camera and Nikon D Series. Of all, I truly loved the Nikon D3 and miss it.

[Mark Sampson]

The film Leica CL was notoriously unreliable, and didn't sell well in the mid-70s when it was new. This caused Leitz to reissue the discontinued M4, as the M4-2 in 1978. Since the CL had been a collaboration with Minolta, that company "reissued" an improved version in the early 80s, the Minolta CLE.
So reissues are possible, and have been done successfully.
I just can't think of any digital camera I've used in the past that I'd want back.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

Hmmm, a few thoughts on this.

Was going to say the Nikon FM3a, but I think that’s been done in the Zf.

How about Pentax 6x7, assuming the current lenses are suitable for it?
It would have to be mirrorless. Otherwise the blur from shutter slap would kill the idea.

It would be good if Nikon kept the Nikon 1 idea going. I like the mini-DSLR form factor of the V2. And the AW1 (their ‘tough’ version) appeals to me too. I think Nikon would have to do a few fixed lens versions of it to help with waterproofing. E.g. an AW1 10-100mm, an AW1 6-13mm, and a fast AW1 14mm (40mm equivalent).

[mani]

Where a forum or blog is mostly frequented by an older age-group, I often find people bemoaning the impossibility of finding a 'working' film camera these days. This is great for those of us buying and using perfectly good old cameras.

I just bought an absolutely perfectly functioning Leica CL from a wonderful store in Delft in the Netherlands. The viewfinder is clear and accurately aligned - just as clear and bright as my Leica M10 (though not as big, of course) - and the meter is working perfectly.
Everything is neat, in perfect working order, and taking pictures as well as it did 50 years ago - so I was surprised to read in the comments that this 'can't be found' nowadays.

As for a re-issue: I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the XPan yet. A more robust Makina 67 would also be on the shopping list.

[Dogman]

That idea to put the Fuji 16mp sensor in a current camera is brilliant. Fuji and, I presume, Sony really got it right on that sensor. I would suggest Fuji use the X-Pro as the platform. The X-Pro2 is a great compromise and one of my most used cameras but it lacks the magic of the X-Pro1 images.
Update the X-Pro1 but keep away from the travesty they made of the X-Pro3. No more funky hide-and-seek, flip down screens and, for goodness sake, give us back the great OVF with capability of viewing with wide angle lenses. I can use the 16mm easily on my X-Pro1 and I can manage the 14mm as well using the full screen.

[Luke]

Another vote for the Sony R1, with the latest sensor and IBIS. I'd pay a lot for that.

[Jens Evensen]

This may be a little outside the topic; it is in fact a camera categori I have been waiting for since about 2005 when I started shooting digital.

It is the full frame digital version of the latest film slrs like Minolta Dynax 5, Canon EOS 300 and my favorit the Nikon F75. We kind of got them in the aps-c verion like Sony a6000 and Fuji xt30 series but I always wanted the lightweight cheepo full frame plastic fantastic.

Sony where onto something with the first version of A7 but they transformed into some kind of video supercameras which probably was a good thing but for me, they missed the point - no digital F75.
There are still a lot of nice used AF lenses out there and they deserve a small, elegant, modern and cheep DSLR. And I have the 5D classic, magic sensor and all...

[Rick in CO]

My vote would be for a digital Mamiya 7II (III?)!

[Omer]

My favorite camera is the original Canon F-1, a mechanical hockey puck. How it would be converted to digital is beyond me but it doesn't matter; it would now be too big, dense and heavy. Slung over my right shoulder it was and would be at exactly the same position as that of many children's heads being propelled by exhilarated bodies directly at an unforgiving block of cold, dense iron that thankfully I was always somehow aware of. Yep, lifting the camera was and is a reflex whenever children are afoot.

An upgrade to the Nikon Coolpix A would be worth some simoleons.

[Claude Evans]

Hasselblad X-Pan. I had the complete set of the second generation: three lenses, etc. i would just love it in digital.
I recently sold my Leica CL with three lenses. Still mourning, but downsizing.

[Patrick Perez]

Kodak also made 1:1 16Mpix backs for several manufacturers' cameras. I don't recall the sensor dimensions, but for awhile they might have dominated the MF camera back market.

As for 4/3 cameras, IIRC, the standard actually dictates the diagonal of the image circle, not the diagonal of the capture. It is aspect ratio independent, though I don't think native 1:1 ever was made. I do remember that Panasonic had some sensors that were native to different aspect ratios (i.e., the same pixel count irrespective of aspect ratio), but the details are lost on me.

Patrick

[Andrew Eckert]

The only square-native digital camera I can think of is the Kodak DCS Pro back from 2002. It has a square 36mm x 36mm 16 MP sensor and came in versions for Hasselblad H, Mamiya 645, and Contax 645.

I've never used a GX8, but the first mirrorless camera I owned was a GF1; it was 'just right' as a carry-everywhere camera. I'd love if Panasonic reissued that camera with a modern 16, 20, or 25 MP sensor, IBIS, and maybe a little weather sealing. I guess a smaller m4/3 mount version of the new L-mount S9 is the best I can hope for. That would be pretty close to the mark.

[Bahi]

I would love a new, slightly improved GX8. Much improved IBIS is a part of newer Panasonic bodies – that would be welcome. Image quality is a touch better in newer Micro Four Thirds sensors, too. And an even better viewfinder, maybe?

There was such a negative reaction to the GX8's size but really, that's laughable now – the current G9 Mark II, with its MFT sensor, is the same size (has same body, even) as the current full-frame S5. I still use my GX8 as my main camera. I shoot fully manual and can use it entirely without the rear LCD, using the menu system only to reformat SD cards. There's a button for everything.

I don't know what camera I could replace it with when the time comes.

[Rob Spring]

I've owned the GX8 for over 6 years and it does have a few issues, but the shutter shock is a non issue if you shoot stills and use the electronic shutter. That this issue continues to be the number one nit on this great camera is beyond me.

[Daniel]

Nikon F3 HP. With the interchangeable finders. Update for top AutoFocus & newer glass. Was great for Pro Sports to wildlife and the finders available gave a lot of choice to fit the venue.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Well, there's some call for square pictures, but not mostly for magazine or book covers, portraits, or news photos. I don't think it's common in any of the commercial uses, and the amateurs do tend to follow the pros (often without much thought or understanding, yes).

I remember thinking of 6x6 (in a Yashica of some sort in high school, then a Yashicamat 124g in college) as being a waste of some of the film in each shot (which, being primarily a 35mm photographer, is not something I was accustomed to tolerating). Of course a TLR doesn't rotate 90 degrees very well! That was always a reason I didn't completely warm to Hasselblads, too. I probably should have bought a Mamiya RB67 back then, though the price seemed daunting at the time. Thing is, I wouldn't have needed as many lenses on that as I took for granted I needed in 35mm; fewer things that the medium format was the tool for, I'd need maybe 3, or even 2 (portrait lens, and moderate wideangle)

[Richard Tugwell]

Olympus OM-1. And I wouldn't even need it updated. And in fact I've already got one, and use it......

[Bob Johnston]

A bit late to the party here, but the Minolta 7D (Maxxum 7D in the US). You had one of those didn't you Mike?

[I did, and loved it. I would have used it much longer but unfortunately its electronics went wonky on me. Actually I think it's still in the camera closet.

All things considered, my favorite digital camera. DR was not good enough because of the era, ISO 1600 was as high as I'd go, but the color was really nicely judged and the contrast was low. Very nice looking files. And the IBIS was probably the best I've ever used. Curiously, I only ever used a zoom on it--the Tamron-built Minolta...ah...let's see...I forget the range if I'm honest. 28 to 75 maybe? --Mike]

[Hugh]

Pentax 67, mirrorless, 24MP, existing lenses. Real medium format. 50mp would be ok.

[robert e]

I think the Olympus XA could really benefit from a digital update. It was the only decent camera that I could shove into a pants pocket, thanks to its rounded sliding shell design. I even managed to fish it out and operate it with one hand a couple of times. A squarish 4/3 or 1 inch sensor would be a perfect match and help keep it compact. If the lens needs to telescope a bit to accommodate digital sensors, I could live with that. Autofocus would be an improvement. I don't need an LCD but I'd hope for a more legible viewfinder. Minimal shooting controls only, please, and aperture priority is fine with me. Menus? Settings? Review screen? Put all that on the smartphone where they belong--I want a camera, not a do-it-all gizmo that needs a UI to operate.

That said, I'd be just as happy with a digital CL. My cherished Summicron-C needs a home.

[Timothy Auger]

I also have and still use the GX8. It really is a very pleasing camera. As for shutter shock, I’ve never noticed it, but anyway just use the electronic shutter. It is problematic only in very predictable circumstances, when you use the mechanical shutter with care over shutter speed. It really is a non-issue.

[David L.]

Oddly, perhaps, but there remains applications for the square format. The music industry has rediscovered vinyl albums. And CDs are still somewhat in demand. I have several of my photos in vinyl and CD cover artwork. When I shoot performances with my full frame mirrorless I think of framing for a potential square image.

[psu]

Konica Hexar merged with the exposure contols from the Hexar RF... and just less fiddly overall.

Yes there have been digital cameras that have this shape and spirit (Fuji X100). But it would be neat to have the "real" thing, complete with center only single frame autofocus and all that.

[Tom Fangel]

A view camera - maybe half size 4 by 5 inch.