To do that I offer my suggestions for a great medium format future:
Standardise on 60MP / 80MP.
The MF companies will eventually lose if the focus is entirely on sensor and megapixels. Sensors are controlled by the people with the biggest R&D depts. This will never be the MF guys. Keep R&D costs down by standardising.
Make the sensor BIGGER. 6x7 would be ideal.
The 40MP sensor size is just too close to 35mm and the 60MP / 80MP not big enough! Pull away from 35mm in physical size NOT megapixels. I would actually be comfortable if 35mm had more megapixels, as long as the sensor in my MF camera was much bigger. So much of the MF look depends on physical size, so much.
Are there any medium format platform manufacturers that fab their own sensors? I thought they all bought from Dalsa/Kodak. I'm not sure what is meant here by "standardising", or how it would cut costs. As for a 6x7 sensor, again that depends on the sensor maker. I am only guessing, but MF still cameras might not be a large chunk of the sensor makers' customer demographics. So they're probably going to just create whatever products their main line customers (military? scientific?) need.
As for "the look", perhaps it is possible to get similar DOF and bokeh characteristics via lens design (bigger aperture, curved/more blades, defocus control, etc)?
Allow the photographer to choose a format.
From this big sensor allow the photographer to choose a format and adjust the viewfinder automatically. Allow me to choose 6x6, 3x4, 4x5, 6x7 on the camera and when I look through the viewfinder it is automatically masked off. MF companies should take much more marketing advantage from this. I dislike the 35mm format and it is a reason I use MF. So make it even more of an advantage to me by allowing me to use all the formats I love.
Not sure what is meant here? Assuming a 6x7 sensor, aren't 3x4 and 4x5 formats larger, and hence can't be masked off? Perhaps this refers to aspect ratio. I can imagine a user claiming that having the masks somehow helps with "artistic vision". But if the whole frame is captured anyway, why not just crop in post? Or use a cardboard viewfinder? Or is the idea here some kind of sci-fi malleable sensor that magically changes physical shape and connections to become a different aspect ratio?
Waist level viewfinder.
Bring back the god damn waist level viewfinder (removing this was a crazy idea, a classic example of making a medium format camera behave like a 35mm one). Stop doing this! Maybe even enhance it with auto exposure & focus. The waist level finder allows for a different perspective; the photographer / subject dynamic changes considerably and it allows for a more compact setup for hand held use. A photographer with a MF camera held to their eye is considerably more threatening than one looking down at a waist level finder. Plus the company makes money on the sales of waist level finders!
Waist level viewfinders are great. But only because it's like a mini ground glass, IF you use a hand-held loupe with a surrounding shade (similar to Klinko's setup). A fixed pop-up magnifier does not let you check focus in the corners. But with magnified live-view/focus peaking, what's the point other than ergonomic fetish? I don't buy "less threatening when used hand-held." The photographer's interaction skill trumps camera size as far as subject anxiety goes.
Its all about the lens.
Make us drool about lenses again. Its not just about sharpness. In fact in my portrait work, I take sharpness out! Concentrate on how the lens draws. Leica has been doing this for years and look at how their lenses sell. I would be happy to own 2 x 110mm lenses. One called the 110mm P (for portrait) and another 110mm L (for landscape). Glass is just so important to the overall photographic look of an image. It is no coincidence that the Hassy 110mm f/2 FE still commands such high prices. Maybe license some designs. Imagine the Zeiss 38mm Biogon or Mamiya 7 43mm lens design on a Phase DF. I'd buy them in a heart beat.
I like lenses too! What would also be nice is some kind of standardized system for defining how a lens "draws". DOF is obviously insufficient. Perhaps a series of 2d distribution functions for characterizing the "bokeh" of a single point source as it falls aways from the focal plane. Maybe something like that already exists, I'm no optical designer. But the more we can objectively characterize behavior, the more we can disassociate actual quality from brand-centric hand-wavery.
Shutter.
I use the 645DF and the shutter is just so loud! You can hear it go off at 100 paces. It must be easy enough to quieten down.
I'm not sure why this matters at all? I don't have the DF, but have an older AFD. Unless the DF is significantly louder, it's perfectly fine to me. Is the intent to shoot during quiet events (which would probably be indoors, in low light, in which case...)? Or to take sneak in some waist level no-look street photos? Plus how many dBs of attenuation makes it quiet "enough"?
Portrait to Landscape.
Allow the sensor to be rotated in relation to the body. Its a really useful feature when doing portrait work. Really useful.
Rotating backs are great. High five.
We don't need Live View
We need "Focus View". I've thought about this a lot. So hear me out. I use the viewfinder for composition, so I don't need the actual image on the digital back too. Thats just doubling up. I do need to know about focus, with the option of histogram too. So I would like a 'Live Focus Mask'. Plus I don't want it on the back. I want the green focus mask subtly superimposed in the viewfinder, with a button to turn it on and off again. I'm not sure it is possible, but it would be an amazing feature.
No, we don't need Live View. Only if you want "focus view". Because pulling data from the sensor, decoding it, and performing contrast detect is the main burden of the work. Sending the output to the display is straight forward.
The idea of a live focus mask superimposed on the viewfinder is kinda cool, similar to 4th gen HUD tech. But then you'd have to shrink it to fit on a camera. And it'll be even more expensive. And have even less functionality than live view, since you can't magnify it to get better resolution. So I don't see the point.
Image Previews
If I had a black screen with the areas of focus masked off in green with a small histogram as an alternative to a full image preview, I would use it much more often. Plus it would probably save on battery life.
I'm curious about your statement. Do you find that the image detracts from the focus peaking? If there's no image there, how to you correlate the focus peaking marks with what's in the frame? I'm sure most of the time you can guess, but why not just have the image there? You're already looking at the screen...
Keep it simple
Modern day 35mm cameras are swiss army knives to me. They have too many options, too many features and its possible to take too many pictures. So a swiss army knife merged with a machine gun. For me the beauty of MF is the lack of options and the concentration on simplicity. I can't use a 35mm camera for this reason. My thought process is sped up and I stop thinking about the end product. But thats just me. However the important point is stay focussed on simplicity. It works well.
Complexity is an issue only if it precludes simplicity in operation. If a device offers some set of features, and allows the user to use only a subset of those features with no interference, what's the big deal? On the other hand, if the device prevents the user from doing something fundamental (or makes it awkward to do so), then I agree that is a design issue. But DSLRs? Really?
All of them can function just like an old spotmatic. Set it ONCE to average metering, Manual exposure, fixed ISO, manual focus, and single shot. Then forget about your settings, and just capture. I believe the user should take responsibility for his/her actions, NOT rely on a device to artificially limit what can be done.
Ok my essay is over. Sorry for the length.
If you have reached the end of this, congratulations! My question to you is what other MF features are needed to bring back the differentiation between the formats that made MF so popular in the film days? What would you add? What do you disagree with?
But please please please, no Dx0 orientated pixel peeping nonsense.
I don't know what made MF popular in the film days. I know I like using my RZ with ektar. It's just as quick to setup as a 35mm, but then again I shoot small format film (well, everything really) like I do MF. I love my 4x5, except when I take it out. Then I curse it. Then I love it again when I see the tranny. I'm guessing MF was a balance of "sensor" quality and deployability back in the day. So not so much a "differentiation", as an "acceptable mix of both worlds".
Assuming the above sentence has any merit, then as others have said the modern DSLR is already the functional equivalent of film MF. Modern MFDB is more analogous to film large format.