conversion of film slr to dig slr

hi all,
i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to the great
nikon company and the reply was as stupid as the japanese can be

does anyone have any thought on this or am i crazy?

please read on:


Sir,
i posted my comments in facebook
please have a look below and please comment
thank you:



http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=2373072738

Icq Man wrote
at 11:49pm
CONVERSION ADAPTORS FOR FILM CAMERAS TO DIGITAL CAMERAS

oooooooooops
i forgot to put titles to my two contiguous posts no 2870 and 2872
thousand apologies
icqman 2008 08 17 sun 11.53 pm


Icq Man wrote
at 11:35pm
i am not sure if i have posted this here or some other photography fora of
facebook. The problem with facebook is it is still suffering teething pains,
blocking members, crashing, viri and it lacks, to me the most important, across
facebook cross reference of one's posts. If this post hereunder has appeared
here before, i regret i dont see any response or facebook crashed and lostface??
;-) OK here goes my comments:
i have been doing silver halide films photography for the past 25 years, having
now, 2 nikon fm, 2 nikonfe, 2 nikonf3, all with remote control motor drives
attached, nikkor 52mm sized f1.2, 2.8.105,180-250, 500reflex, ae lenses with
hosts of nikorr filters, countless flashes which i threw away when not
serviceable.
now comes the digital cameras-- i am wont to change to digital but as silver
halide films are getting very hard to come by i am forced to go digital but i am
still refusing . heheheh.
..... continue next post as each post is limited to 1 000 characters

Icq Man wrote
at 11:44pm
some of us remember how the slr blew the conventional cameras to the bushes.
these companies made a study on why this was so -- the most important reason--
poor focus. So the leica (which i have m1, m2 and m42) re invented the wheels to
come up with autofocus and this blew slr ;-)
Here is my question: why should i switch to digital nikon even though some of
the nikkor ae lenses can be adapted to the relevant nikon d series.?
nikon should come up with some sort of conversion kit, e.g. convert the
backplates into digital with xxx gig chips memory on the millions of nikon
cameras in the world ?
of course, nikon would say it is tough. Nothing is tough if they want to put
their heads into it.
maybe some other camera companies would come up with a universal digiital
adaptors for the conventional film cameras??
i am saving thes two posts just in case facebook crashes again . Any response
would be most appreciated.
thanks a lot
2008 08 17 sunday posted in wall photography,facebook



====================================
and nikon "immediate" reply is this:
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:50:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Nikon Inc. Technical Support"
Subject: CONVERSION ADAPTORS FOR FILM CAMERAS TO DIGITAL CAMERAS
[Incident:080817-000102]
Reply-to: "Nikon Inc. Technical Support"
Message-id: m
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: Multipart/Alternative;
boundary="------------Boundary-00=_Y48RVA40000000000000"
X-Scanner-mx2:
Original-recipient:



Your question has been received. You should expect a response from us within 24
hours.

To reply by email click "Reply" in your email program, move your cursor to the
blank line between the two lines below and type your response.

[=== Please enter your reply below this line ===]

[=== Please enter your reply above this line ===]

To update your question from our support site, click here.

Discussion Thread
Customer (icq man)08/17/2008 12:50 PM
http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=2373072738 Icq Man wroteat 11:49pmCONVERSION
ADAPTORS FOR FILM CAMERAS TO DIGITAL CAMERASoooooooooopsi forgot to put titles
to my two contiguous posts no 2870 and 2872thousand apologiesicqman 2008 08 17
sun 11.53 pm Icq Man wroteat 11:35pmi am not sure if i have posted this here or
some other photography fora of facebook. The problem with facebook is it is
still suffering teething pains, blocking members, crashing, viri and it lacks,
to me the most important, across facebook cross reference of one's posts. If
this post hereunder has appeared here before, i regret i dont see any response
or facebook crashed and lostface?? ;-) OK here goes my comments:i have been
doing silver halide films photography for the past 25 years, having now, 2 nikon
fm, 2 nikonfe, 2 nikonf3, all with remote control motor drives attached, nikkor
52mm sized f1.2, 2.8.105,180-250, 500reflex, ae lenses with hosts of nikorr
filters, countless flashes which i threw away when not serviceable. now comes
the digital cameras-- i am wont to change to digital but as silver halide films
are getting very hard to come by i am forced to go digital but i am still
refusing . heheheh..... continue next post as each post is limited to 1 000
charactersIcq Man wroteat 11:44pmsome of us remember how the slr blew the
conventional cameras to the bushes. these companies made a study on why this was
so -- the most important reason-- poor focus. So the leica (which i have m1, m2
and m42) re invented the wheels to come up with autofocus and this blew slr
;-)Here is my question: why should i switch to digital nikon even though some of
the nikkor ae lenses can be adapted to the relevant nikon d series.?nikon should
come up with some sort of conversion kit, e.g. convert the backplates into
digital with xxx gig chips memory on the millions of nikon cameras in the world
?of course, nikon would say it is tough. Nothing is tough if they want to put
their heads into it.maybe some other camera companies would come up with a
universal digiital adaptors for the conventional film cameras??i am saving thes
two posts just in case facebook crashes again . Any response would be most
appreciated.thanks a lot2008 08 17 sunday posted in wall photography,facebook

Thanks for using Nikon products!

Nikon Inc. (USA) Support / Service
http://support.nikontech.com

Any use, dissemination, distribution, posting on Internet bulletin boards,
disclosure or copying of this e-mail or any information contained herein by or
to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of this E-mail without reading or saving in any manner.


=====================================



cksickfûçkk
aka running dog chow-kow-sick-fûçk who shouts thief for the past 20 years and this dog is a "lawyer" LOL

cksickfûçk wrote:
hi all,
i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to the great
nikon company and the reply was as stupid as the japanese can be

does anyone have any thought on this or am i crazy?

The whole thing is so badly formatted as to defy a reading.

The subject of adding digital backs to film SLR's was extensively
discussed in various groups. Google the usual groups for more.

Feasible? Yes.

Right way to go? Debatable.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Neil Gould wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
cksickfûçk wrote:
hi all,
i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to
the great nikon company and the reply was as stupid as the japanese
can be

does anyone have any thought on this or am i crazy?
The whole thing is so badly formatted as to defy a reading.

The subject of adding digital backs to film SLR's was extensively
discussed in various groups. Google the usual groups for more.

Feasible? Yes.

Right way to go? Debatable.

This isn't a new idea. Try the Leica DMR as a point of reference.

But I agree that whether it is a good approach is debatable.

In groups such as rpe.35mm this was discussed a lot in the early decade
and there was some excitement over a device that looked like a 135 film
cassette with a blade going over the exposure area that contained the
sensor. Elegant idea that never came to fruition.

For my Maxxum 9 a digi-back to replace the existing back would have been
a wonderful solution for a wonderful camera. I could have retained the
best of film and digital.

I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still
quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped)
back for it I'll have a 24 Mpix body for my Minolta lenses which (most
of them) out resolve my Hasselblad lenses in any case.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

In groups such as rpe.35mm this was discussed a lot in the early decade
and there was some excitement over a device that looked like a 135 film
cassette with a blade going over the exposure area that contained the
sensor. Elegant idea that never came to fruition.

Ah here it is...

http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/imagek.html


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
cksickfûçk wrote:
hi all,
i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to
the great nikon company and the reply was as stupid as the japanese
can be

does anyone have any thought on this or am i crazy?

The whole thing is so badly formatted as to defy a reading.

The subject of adding digital backs to film SLR's was extensively
discussed in various groups. Google the usual groups for more.

Feasible? Yes.

Right way to go? Debatable.

This isn't a new idea. Try the Leica DMR as a point of reference.

But I agree that whether it is a good approach is debatable.

--
Neil

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 6:27 AM:


I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still
quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped)
back for it I'll have a 24 Mpix body for my Minolta lenses which (most
of them) out resolve my Hasselblad lenses in any case.

Get a scanner for your film backs and enjoy
72Mpix (non-cropped) now. Nothing could
be easier or cheaper.

Alan Browne wrote:

I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still
quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped) back
for it I'll have a 24 Mpix body for my Minolta lenses which (most of them)
out resolve my Hasselblad lenses in any case.

Two things:
1) They don't (outresolve your Hasselblad, nor most other quality MF
lenses).
They should (!) to be able to keep up (same for all 35 mm format lenses).
But that doesn't mean that they do. And they indeed don't.

2) The quality of 24 MP produced by a sensor with big wells is much better
than 24 MP produced by sensor with tiny wells. The old 16 MP back may well
produce better (though with less MP) images than a 24 MP minisensor.

;-)

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still
quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped) back
for it I'll have a 24 Mpix body for my Minolta lenses which (most of them)
out resolve my Hasselblad lenses in any case.

Two things:
1) They don't (outresolve your Hasselblad, nor most other quality MF
lenses).
They should (!) to be able to keep up (same for all 35 mm format lenses).
But that doesn't mean that they do. And they indeed don't.

I reviewed these a long while ago, and several of my Minolta lenses (one
of which is a Sony made Carl Zeiss design) are sharper than my 80mm and
150mm Carl Zeiss 'blad lenses per MTF tests.

I don't have the curve for the 120 Makro, it is probably sharper at
close focus range and not bad at longer ranges; but not as sharp as the
150 at infinity...

I am sure that the 100 f/2.8 macro (Minolta) is sharper than the 120
Makro and the 150. Easy. Likewise my 135 f/1.8 (a CZ design) is
sharper than the 80 and 150 (possibly not the 120 Makro at short range).

The Minolta 85mm f/1.4 has legendary sharpness... (though I don't (yet)
own one ... and I may get the CZ version instead).

The only fly in the ointment above is that the sources for the curves
were not the same lab/bench/tech. MMV.

2) The quality of 24 MP produced by a sensor with big wells is much better
than 24 MP produced by sensor with tiny wells. The old 16 MP back may well
produce better (though with less MP) images than a 24 MP minisensor.

OTOH, I can justify a 24 Mpix $4,000 FF body new where I can't justify a
used 16 Mpix back @ nearly $10,000...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

The only fly in the ointment above is that the sources for the curves
were not the same lab/bench/tech. MMV.

That's not an only fly, but a swarm of flies.
But since you own these lenses, why look at curves?

2) The quality of 24 MP produced by a sensor with big wells is much
better than 24 MP produced by sensor with tiny wells. The old 16 MP back
may well produce better (though with less MP) images than a 24 MP
minisensor.

OTOH, I can justify a 24 Mpix $4,000 FF body new where I can't justify a
used 16 Mpix back @ nearly $10,000...

With "justify" meaning "afford", yes. I know the feeling. ;-)

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The only fly in the ointment above is that the sources for the curves
were not the same lab/bench/tech. MMV.

That's not an only fly, but a swarm of flies.
But since you own these lenses, why look at curves?

2) The quality of 24 MP produced by a sensor with big wells is much
better than 24 MP produced by sensor with tiny wells. The old 16 MP back
may well produce better (though with less MP) images than a 24 MP
minisensor.
OTOH, I can justify a 24 Mpix $4,000 FF body new where I can't justify a
used 16 Mpix back @ nearly $10,000...

With "justify" meaning "afford", yes. I know the feeling. ;-)

No, just "justify". There are other things in life.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.