panos.v wrote:
The EOS 1V retailed for more than $2000 when new. If anyone was to make a drop-in sensor as suggested and Canon sold you a body, you can be certain that regardless of how much the sensor cartridge cost, Canon would then charge you $2000 for the body.
Yes, that, the Nikon F6, Maybe Contax RTS III, Leica R8/R9, and a few other bodies. These are all really high-end bodies. That is my point. Presumably Brian wants to put a fun old Nikon FM or similar body back into action, not buy the latest and most expensive film bodies. There is hardly any point, because these film bodies are often most like actual DSLRs.
Honestly, the most fun that might come out of something like this is just to take a slightly cropped sensor, maybe 1.3x crop, with some low resolution, align it with all the physical components of some cheap but good and plentiful body, say the Nikon FE2, attach a sync cable and accept the limitation of 1/250s max speed, leave out the LCD and have only the most rudimentary physical dials, like ISO, and treat the whole thing like a digital Holga with no preview. Forget about any quality, any sharpness, any decent workflow, and just have fun with the junky results. That *might* work.
briantho wrote:
I suggested a solution to what people thought was one of the biggest reasons such backs don't exist, the variation of 35mm camera designs.
What is the solution exactly? To use a smartphone as a LCD? Yes ok, it is feasible but on a daily use basis is it practical? Don't know about you but if I had to hold a camera, take a shot then take the phone out of my pocket to check it or have to hold the phone with my other hand or maybe use a rubber band to hold it with the camera, well yes ok that "works" but, no, no it doesn't.
carstenw wrote:
Honestly, the most fun that might come out of something like this is just to take a slightly cropped sensor, maybe 1.3x crop, with some low resolution, align it with all the physical components of some cheap but good and plentiful body, say the Nikon FE2, attach a sync cable and accept the limitation of 1/250s max speed, leave out the LCD and have only the most rudimentary physical dials, like ISO, and treat the whole thing like a digital Holga with no preview. Forget about any quality, any sharpness, any decent workflow, and just have fun with the junky results. That *might* work....Show more →
1.3 is probably optimistic. I'd say it would have to be something P&S sized. After all they can fit a camera in a phone! Imagine the crop factor on that!
In the end, anything is possible but whether it makes any practical and economical sense is a different matter.
Leica did fit a 1.3x crop sensor on their R8, without removing the film rails, so that seems like a good starting point for the investigation. At least it is possible to design the sensor and electronics so that it fits on the camera side.
carstenw wrote:
Leica did fit a 1.3x crop sensor on their R8, without removing the film rails, so that seems like a good starting point for the investigation. At least it is possible to design the sensor and electronics so that it fits on the camera side.
Keep in mind the R8 body was designed and built with the required communication that other film 35mm cameras don't have.
Yes, but the film rails were in place! So the 1.3x sensor idea may be feasible, i.e. such a sensor board can be designed to fit in the physical space behind film rails. I doubt this is the case for a FF sensor board.
Bifurcator wrote:
I wanna know how they intend to initiate the capture tho.
carstenw wrote:
Good question. The only signal most 35mm film cameras can give that they are about to shoot would be the flash contacts, so a cable from the sync to back would probably be the best solution. This is how primitive MFDB setups work. The accuracy and timing of the sync signal would be crucial though. This of course does not address the lack of necessary tolerances in placing the sensor the correct distance from the lens mount. Probably each and every camera you would want to make such a change to would have to be sent in for adjustment, possibly repeatedly. ...Show more →
Yeah... I guess for bodies with a cable release socket they could also screw in a switch and just increase the overall height of the shutter release button. The Sensor would become active a split second prior to the shutter release and stop when the finger was removed. Auto-winding cameras would be getting ME's but otherwise I see no reason why it wouldn't work.
carstenw wrote:
The main one is a question of tolerances. The old film bodies and film lenses were made to looser tolerances, partly because 35mm film is relatively low resolution (apart from a few specialty films), partly because film actually has depth, unlike painfully flat sensors, and so light focused at various depths can actually still look sharp, and partly because the whole system, meaning lenses, mounts, and camera bodies, is just not set up accurately enough to yield satisfying results.
have to disagree here, there are lots of reasons why this is difficult to make work in a non kludgy way plus the difficulty of sensors being much thicker than film in front, but lens and camera mount tolerances aren't one of them. manual focus lenses and cameras mount/viewfinder assemblies had much higher tolerances in these regards than present day autofocus cameras and lenses do. the reason is autofocus – it allowed manufacturers to save money by decreasing tolerances in those areas as autofocus could compensate. there is a reason that "kit lenses" from 30 years ago are more consistant in performance (even given their variable treatment) than kit lenses today. the same is true for viewfinders as they actually had to be used for something other than framing. even high end autofocus lenses are typically not made to the same high mechanical tolerances as say the lowly takumar 55/1.8 was.
Jewced wrote:
I don't really understand the attraction to a digital back. For one, you lose all the advantages of shooting a film camera. You lose the pleasure of shooting film. Additionally, many film cameras have bodies that would be considered "archaic". Modern digital cameras have much more advanced bodies and are designed to produce digital images. Using a film body to make digital images is using the wrong tool for the job. I can understand the "nostalgia" aspect of the attraction; it makes sense that one may like shooting old bodies and the glass that goes with them. But if that's the case, why not just shoot film? ...Show more →
Some people (like me for example) just like using film bodies (all metal, solid feeling, retro, familiar fit, very inexpensive now) more than digital bodies (all plastic feeling, round lumpy designs, cost prohibitive) and there's really not much more to it than that.
Shooting film these days almost always requires the digitization step via scanner or whatever) this wouldn't take the fun out of film, it would remove film and repurpose the bodies. I think there are two different loves that are being confused here. One is the love for film. The other is the love of the old bodies. This will not satisfy the for film-love obviously.
It's not the wrong tool for the job. The job is capturing an image. The tool is a camera. No change there. This device would not need to compete with the features of a dedicated DSLR. 50 images per battery would be fine - as one example. No ISO changes without a USB connection to the computer - set via software, or via some manually pressed button exposed on the back are examples of acceptable sacrifices.
Maybe this would help to explain it: I recently got a Yashica J5 film body for $20 with lens. When I got it home I spent several hours snapping pretend pictures with it. Just to hear it and feel it's operation. Slightly more recently I got a Minolta Dynax 5, (α-5 / α-Sweet II / Maxxum 5) for about the same with 2 lenses. I've had it a few days now and I've taken about 50 imaginary pictures with it - and another 50 or 60 testing some of the alpha mount AF lenses. How nice would it be if in all cases I could also remove a digi-cartridge and DL those non-existant images to my computer. I'm certainly not about to go on a film craze and spend $50 to $200 a week on film and developing just to use these bodies or the others I like tinkering with.
OK, That's a little embarrassing to admit and all but it might give you some idea of why such a device is so appealing to so many. Mostly, we just like using those camera bodies and their native lenses. Cameras are cool devices!
Then just shoot film if you like using old bodies. I don't get why it's that hard to comprehend. Digital backs aren't practical, cost effective, or profitable. You can't expect to have the best of both worlds.
Jewced wrote:
Then just shoot film if you like using old bodies. I don't get why it's that hard to comprehend. Digital backs aren't practical, cost effective, or profitable. You can't expect to have the best of both worlds.
agreed, and i do shoot film. what would probably be practical, cost effective, and (somewhat) profitable would be a digital FF camera with decent build made to the size and basic control layout of a classic manual slr instead of the bloated monstrosities and ergonomic disasters being spewed out these days.
sebboh wrote:
have to disagree here, there are lots of reasons why this is difficult to make work in a non kludgy way plus the difficulty of sensors being much thicker than film in front, but lens and camera mount tolerances aren't one of them. manual focus lenses and cameras mount/viewfinder assemblies had much higher tolerances in these regards than present day autofocus cameras and lenses do. the reason is autofocus – it allowed manufacturers to save money by decreasing tolerances in those areas as autofocus could compensate. there is a reason that "kit lenses" from 30 years ago are more consistant in performance (even given their variable treatment) than kit lenses today. the same is true for viewfinders as they actually had to be used for something other than framing. even high end autofocus lenses are typically not made to the same high mechanical tolerances as say the lowly takumar 55/1.8 was....Show more →
Interesting. It is probably a mix then. Certainly the sensor, the mount, and the glass in "digital" lenses must be much more planar than was necessary for film, but the actual distances may well vary more.
For me the interest would be mostly to have the old, more manual, operation back, and the solid feeling metal bodies. My D3 is as solid as can be, but there is a charm and simplicity to my old OM-1 which the D3 doesn't have.
sebboh wrote:
have to disagree here, there are lots of reasons why this is difficult to make work in a non kludgy way plus the difficulty of sensors being much thicker than film in front, but lens and camera mount tolerances aren't one of them. manual focus lenses and cameras mount/viewfinder assemblies had much higher tolerances in these regards than present day autofocus cameras and lenses do. the reason is autofocus – it allowed manufacturers to save money by decreasing tolerances in those areas as autofocus could compensate.
Actually that is wrong. Autofocus works by assuming that the film/sensor plane is in a certain position. You could argue it removes the issue of tolerances as far as the viewfinder goes as you don't need to see it in focus in the viewfinder, however the mirror and film/sensor plane still need to be in an accurate position as the mirror is where AF is calculated and the film/sensor plane is where it is assumed the image should fall. The mirror-to-sensor plane distance needs to be as accurate as possible for AF to work.
In the past film was kept in place via the pressure plate, ie a bunch of springs. Nowadays sensors are part of a rigid frame so the tolerances are a lot tighter. This is one of the reasons Hasselblad recommends that if you buy one of their digibacks for a V camera you send it in for alignment.
there is a reason that "kit lenses" from 30 years ago are more consistant in performance (even given their variable treatment) than kit lenses today. the same is true for viewfinders as they actually had to be used for something other than framing. even high end autofocus lenses are typically not made to the same high mechanical tolerances as say the lowly takumar 55/1.8 was.
Tolerances in kit lenses today CAN be looser, this is where autofocus actually helps. If the kit lens components are rattling around the camera can still tell the lens to focus correctly.
Not a digital back for 35mm cameras but the Ricoh GXR is the only currently available system for non MF cameras which provides a sort of 'upgreadability'. You can use different sensor+lens modules with the same main body. Although the M mount module is the only interesting option, for the time being. Having to buy a new sensor with each lens is absolute nonsense IMHO.
It would be feasible for 'Canikony' or 'Pentalympus' to offer a system based on Ricoh's concept : modules with sensor + lens mount separated from the main body. Firmware updates could adapt camera's electronics to future new sensors.
I bet they won't do it. Probably it wouldn't be cost effective.
Jewced wrote:
Then just shoot film if you like using old bodies. I don't get why it's that hard to comprehend. Digital backs aren't practical, cost effective, or profitable. You can't expect to have the best of both worlds.
But film sucks ass. And it costs a buttload. And waiting for development sucks. And scanning negs (or transparencies) is a PITA. Almost nothing about film interests me.
If we were talking about MF or LF then yeah, I could see the point. But 135? ... I have a 110 camera too but I'm not going to waste my time with that either.
sebboh wrote:
...i do shoot film. what would probably be practical, cost effective, and (somewhat) profitable would be a digital FF camera with decent build made to the size and basic control layout of a classic manual slr instead of the bloated monstrosities and ergonomic disasters being spewed out these days.
I don't care so much about the FF aspect of it. If this cartridge thinggy were APS that would be OK by me. Thus and therefor, the new OM-D seems to fit your descriptors - with the noted exception.
If this technology were developed, you could just replace the sensor instead of the whole camera as technology moved ahead unlike replacing the whole camera like today.
This thread reminds me of a thread in a Mamiya TLR forum years ago... people wondering why Mamiya ever stopped producing TLRs, "why there's a huge market out there". I about got crucified when I suggested that Mamiya probably had sound business reasons not to continue the TLR line.
99% (okay, I made that figure up) of all camera owners out there are happy using their point-and-shoot or digital Rebel. If all of the technological challenges/problems listed above were overcome, is there a market for this at the price point that would be required to cover all the R&D? If there were, some entrepreneur would have gone for it. Silicon Film tried...
Don't get me wrong, I'm very sympathetic to the goal. I loved my old Canon FTb, and that Lecia M2 was... sexy. And like Bifurcator, I find film to be a PITA -- so I would love to be able to pick up these cameras again and shoot digital. But in the real world it ain't gonna happen.
panos.v wrote:
In the past film was kept in place via the pressure plate, ie a bunch of springs. Nowadays sensors are part of a rigid frame so the tolerances are a lot tighter. This is one of the reasons Hasselblad recommends that if you buy one of their digibacks for a V camera you send it in for alignment.
this is certainly true, i was talking about lens, mount, and viewfinder tolerances. positioning of the sensor and it's support certainly requires higher tolerances than a film pressure plate. as far as the autofocus sensor goes, i was under the impression that most manufacturers designed their cameras so that this could be calibrated (either physically or electronically at the factory) rather than relying on high mechanical tolerances for it to be accurate.
... I have a 110 camera too but I'm not going to waste my time with that either. 