If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On Apr 7, 8:04 pm, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Summer Wind" wrote: "nospam" wrote: that means either milling the film rails or fit the whole unit within the film opening so the focal plane is physically in the right place. unfortunately, there's a shutter mechanism that gets in the way of doing that. Could it work with medium format TLRs? The shutter is in the lens. That old Rolleiflex in the closet could have a new life as a digital camera. My 50s Rollei TLR produces lovely 77MP files without any modifications whatsoever. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan This is like how digital image files measure as larger the more noise they contain. Recording every little grain on the film probably takes a huge amount of memory, yet the pictures contain (likely) no more visible resolution than a high megapixel DSLR. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On May 7, 11:41 am, Bill Funk wrote:
On 6 May 2007 21:03:13 -0700, Rich wrote: I don't know. Because a Nikon FE-2 body, all metal, built like a tank cost $400 and a flimsy plastic DSLR designed for midgets and women costs as much or more? Because the cheapest well-made DSLR (the Canon 30D) costs $1000 for a body? But mostly because if we are FORCED by camera companies to have to use digital bodies with shapes designed for FILM (because of bunch of old photoluddites don't like change) then maybe having DECENT film bodies with digital hearts isn't such a bad idea? The form SLRs took is a function of many years of refinement; it's a form-follows-function thing. They are shaped that way because that shape works well for the use of that product. DSLRs perform the same end function; why would a different shape develop? It did. Olympus's E-10, 20 and E-1 all had radically different body designs that most people recognized as improvements over the existing moch SLR bodies other digitals had. Of course, for Olympus sales to take off, they had to throw in the "innovation towel" and kowtow the status quo with the boring E-500 body design. Is there really a NEED for a left hand side of a DSLR that formerly only existed to hold a film spool in SLRs? Face it, people fear and hate change, and it is completely irrational. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On 7 May 2007 14:42:53 -0700, Rich wrote:
Of course, for Olympus sales to take off, they had to throw in the "innovation towel" and kowtow the status quo with the boring E-500 body design. Is there really a NEED for a left hand side of a DSLR that formerly only existed to hold a film spool in SLRs? Face it, people fear and hate change, and it is completely irrational. Most people that have commented on this (in fact, all that I'm aware of) have indicated that the smaller the camera, the harder it is to hold without adding blur-inducing camera movement. Mass is a factor, but size may be a greater factor, and due to the way cameras are held with two hands, a greater width would help much more than a greater height. This isn't to say that cameras that have small left sides such as Oly's C-8080 can't be held with reasonable stability. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
Bill Funk wrote:
On 6 May 2007 21:03:13 -0700, Rich wrote: I don't know. Because a Nikon FE-2 body, all metal, built like a tank cost $400 and a flimsy plastic DSLR designed for midgets and women costs as much or more? Because the cheapest well-made DSLR (the Canon 30D) costs $1000 for a body? But mostly because if we are FORCED by camera companies to have to use digital bodies with shapes designed for FILM (because of bunch of old photoluddites don't like change) then maybe having DECENT film bodies with digital hearts isn't such a bad idea? The form SLRs took is a function of many years of refinement; it's a form-follows-function thing. They are shaped that way because that shape works well for the use of that product. DSLRs perform the same end function; why would a different shape develop? There is also the slight detail that when the FE-2 was released in the early 1980's that $400 was a large-ish sum of money, equal to slightly more than the average weekly wage in the USA at the time. Strangely enough, the cheapest DSLR cameras now costs a bit less, when adjusted for inflation. It's possible now to buy a Nikon D40 for less than $600, so that is slightly cheaper than an average weekly wage and cheaper (relatively) than the "cheap" FE3 that Rich is writing anout. From B&H the Nikon D40 costs $545, this is roughly 2/3 an average weekly wage, making it much cheaper in relative terms than the Nikon FE3 was in the early 1980's. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
On 7 May 2007 14:42:53 -0700, Rich wrote:
On May 7, 11:41 am, Bill Funk wrote: On 6 May 2007 21:03:13 -0700, Rich wrote: I don't know. Because a Nikon FE-2 body, all metal, built like a tank cost $400 and a flimsy plastic DSLR designed for midgets and women costs as much or more? Because the cheapest well-made DSLR (the Canon 30D) costs $1000 for a body? But mostly because if we are FORCED by camera companies to have to use digital bodies with shapes designed for FILM (because of bunch of old photoluddites don't like change) then maybe having DECENT film bodies with digital hearts isn't such a bad idea? The form SLRs took is a function of many years of refinement; it's a form-follows-function thing. They are shaped that way because that shape works well for the use of that product. DSLRs perform the same end function; why would a different shape develop? It did. Olympus's E-10, 20 and E-1 all had radically different body designs that most people recognized as improvements over the existing moch SLR bodies other digitals had. Of course, for Olympus sales to take off, they had to throw in the "innovation towel" and kowtow the status quo with the boring E-500 body design. Is there really a NEED for a left hand side of a DSLR that formerly only existed to hold a film spool in SLRs? Face it, people fear and hate change, and it is completely irrational. Ah, I see. "Many" people saw the new shape as an improvement, but Oly had to throw in incentives to sell the things. (Read "bribes") -- THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! First Lady Laura Bush hosted a formal dinner for Queen Elizabeth Monday. The dress code was white-tie-and-tails for the men. They sometimes had white tails at the Clinton White House but the bunnies were always cleared out before Hillary came home. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
digital lens on film cameras | Jasen | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | October 8th 05 06:07 PM |
Digital Cameras,Cameras,Film,Online Developing,More | Walmart | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 16th 04 11:52 PM |
turning traditional cameras into digital cameras | Dan Jacobson | Digital Photography | 15 | October 31st 04 04:37 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? | [email protected] | Film & Labs | 20 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |