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.

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.

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.

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.

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.