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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
Philip Homburg wrote:
snip Obviously, there no point in making a product that nobody wants to buy. But suppose that you can make a 'digital film' that fits lots of Nikon and Canon bodies. The problem with this now is that all of the major SLR makers now make their own DSLR cameras and it is possible to buy a DSLR which you can use their lenses on for even less than the projected cost of the Imagek/Silicon Film product. Are you just going going to wait until can make something that fits all 35mm cameras ever produced? Or are you just going to ship when the market is big enough to support the product you can make? I believe that history has passed them (Imagek/Silicon Film) by. Unless you're talking about the constantly shrinking pool of users (most I would guess would have moved on to DSLR cameras made by Nikon, Pentax or Canon) for manual focus Minolta (MD/MC) and Canon (FD) cameras and lenses. It is like Leica where it is better to sell cameras with a weak IR filter, than not selling any digital M. (However, Leica should have warned people in advance about this problem). Leica is the only game in town for using their M lenses on a digital body, Epson stopped making their RD-1 or RD-1s about a year ago. Even then, the image quality has to be reasonable. Otherwise, there is no point in using it. The IR contamination problem seems to have been squashed with two methods by Leica, giving M8 users 2 free IR block lens filters and offering a firmware upgrade that corrects it for in-camera jpeg files. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
In article ,
dj_nme wrote: I believe that history has passed them (Imagek/Silicon Film) by. Unless you're talking about the constantly shrinking pool of users (most I would guess would have moved on to DSLR cameras made by Nikon, Pentax or Canon) for manual focus Minolta (MD/MC) and Canon (FD) cameras and lenses. I think I would pay something like $1000 for a good 1.3x (maybe also for 1.5x) sensor that works well in a Nikon F/F2/F3/F4. Even then, the image quality has to be reasonable. Otherwise, there is no point in using it. The IR contamination problem seems to have been squashed with two methods by Leica, giving M8 users 2 free IR block lens filters and offering a firmware upgrade that corrects it for in-camera jpeg files. You left out the third method: convert the image to B/W. Using filters is good way to turn an excellent lens in an average one. I don't believe for one moment that either IR or aliasing issues can be solved in software. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Turning film cameras into digital cameras
In article ,
lid writes On 2007-04-14 02:24:43 -0400, said: On Apr 6, 10:07 pm, "Pat" wrote: On Apr 6, 10:28 pm, wrote: Let's for the moment we think "out of the box". If there is a product which has the shape of either a 35 mm or 120filmcartridge, and you can just load itintoyour oldfilmcamera. heavily edited, for brevity It's been done. The old Nikons had removeable backs. When things first went digitial, you would swap off the back and put on adigital back. Hello, Pat: The Nikon SLR "digital backs" were supplied by Kodak, however. Cordially, John Turco And also, it wasn't just the back, the body was modified as well. Kodak made two series one out of Nikon bodies and the other with a Canon body. Not with all of them - the early Kodak backs fitted specific UNMODIFIED Nikon and Canon camera bodies and could be used interchangeably with film backs. The only "modification" was the special focus screen, which was an interchangeable item on the cameras in any case. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...odak/index.htm shows an early Kodak back that fitted on a standard Nikon F3. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...dak/index1.htm shows the DCS-4xx series which fitted standard Nikon F90/N90 series cameras - check the note near the top of the page, interchangeable with a standard film back. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...dak/index2.htm shows the DCS-1c 3c and 5c series designed for unmodified Canon EOS cameras. The Kodak manuals (downloadable from the pages) also state these backs are compatible with unmodified cameras. These cameras all had electronic shutter controls accessible through the motor drive interfaces and, importantly, a space of several millimetres between the film plane and the shutter blind. Later Kodak backs used modified cameras. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Turning film cameras into digital cameras | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 106 | May 8th 07 06:03 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 |