A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 23rd 04, 10:11 PM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
(Philip Homburg) writes:

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wally writes:

3. Is it reasonable to wait (and hope) for a digital databack that
will turn this camera into a high end digital camera?

My guess: It's not going to happen. *Nobody* has done that for a
35mm body yet.


You mean that all those Kodak backs for the 801, F90, F5 (and the one for
the F3) are just fiction?


Yep. Or at least I've never heard them mentioned by anybody. More
info?


Go to the Kodak web site and look for obsolete digital cameras. F90 based
cameras are the DCS 410, 420, and 460. I think the 660 and 760 are based on
the F5. There is also a whole series based on Canon cameras, and there is
a 3xx serie based on a Nikon APS camera.

Howmany DSLRs do you know with removable finders?


Um, 3 or 4 I think.


Which ones?

Furthermore, it would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor, or else
the viewfinder would be wrong, making it completely unsaleable in the
current market. Full-frame sensors are still exotic, expensive,
high-end items.


Again not true.


What's not true about it?


'It would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor'.

Um, the rapid techonology change seems to me to argue *for*
replaceable backs on standard bodies and *against* specialized
bodies.


I doubt it. You can't do special cameras like the D2H if you are stuck
with older mirror/shutter mechanisms.

For the price of a 1Ds it should be easy to include a body for free.
Large cameras with an integrated motor-drive (such as an F5) are not the
ideal cameras for digital backs.

Seperate backs will be a good marketing strategy when the market is close
the saturation. When people buy your cameras as fast as you can produce
them, it is not a good strategy.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #2  
Old June 23rd 04, 10:13 PM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I've actually heard of those, but I thought they were sold as
*cameras* rather than backs.


When you sell a DCS 460 for, say $8000, it does not really matter whether
the body is included or not.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #3  
Old June 24th 04, 02:01 AM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film

(Philip Homburg) writes:

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
(Philip Homburg) writes:

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wally writes:

3. Is it reasonable to wait (and hope) for a digital databack that
will turn this camera into a high end digital camera?

My guess: It's not going to happen. *Nobody* has done that for a
35mm body yet.

You mean that all those Kodak backs for the 801, F90, F5 (and the one for
the F3) are just fiction?


Yep. Or at least I've never heard them mentioned by anybody. More
info?


Go to the Kodak web site and look for obsolete digital cameras. F90 based
cameras are the DCS 410, 420, and 460. I think the 660 and 760 are based on
the F5. There is also a whole series based on Canon cameras, and there is
a 3xx serie based on a Nikon APS camera.


The 660 and 760, at least, were sold as cameras, not backs; which is
what lead me to understand the earlier models had been in fact, which
people say wasn't true. But it was true for the 660 and 760, because
I read the descriptions and looked at the pictures carefully.

Howmany DSLRs do you know with removable finders?


Um, 3 or 4 I think.


Which ones?


660 and 760, for two. (Modified Nikon F5)

I also thought the Nikon D1 and the Canon 1D were, but that appears
not to be true; hence only two, not the 3-4 I thought. (Haven't
checked the Contax model, though).

Furthermore, it would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor, or else
the viewfinder would be wrong, making it completely unsaleable in the
current market. Full-frame sensors are still exotic, expensive,
high-end items.

Again not true.


What's not true about it?


'It would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor'.


See what I wrote? It's still up there. It would have to incorporate
a full-frame sensor, *or else the viewfinder would be wrong*. That's
absolutely true.

And then I claim that it's not a viable product if the viewfinder is
wrong. You can argue with that, since we haven't tried the
experiment; so far it's just my opinion.

Um, the rapid techonology change seems to me to argue *for*
replaceable backs on standard bodies and *against* specialized
bodies.


I doubt it. You can't do special cameras like the D2H if you are stuck
with older mirror/shutter mechanisms.


Why not? And are the mirror/shutter mechanisms of the N80 and N70,
which recent digital products are based on, in any way superior to the
mirror/shutter mechanism in the F5 or F100?

For the price of a 1Ds it should be easy to include a body for free.
Large cameras with an integrated motor-drive (such as an F5) are not the
ideal cameras for digital backs.


But they're the bodies that people will want them for.

Seperate backs will be a good marketing strategy when the market is close
the saturation. When people buy your cameras as fast as you can produce
them, it is not a good strategy.


When the market is close to saturation, there will be very few
film-based bodies in the market at all, and most of them won't have
interchangeable backs.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/
  #4  
Old June 24th 04, 05:01 AM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film


"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...


You mean that all those Kodak backs for the 801, F90, F5 (and the one

for
the F3) are just fiction?


Yep. Or at least I've never heard them mentioned by anybody. More
info?


Go to the Kodak web site and look for obsolete digital cameras. F90 based
cameras are the DCS 410, 420, and 460. I think the 660 and 760 are based

on
the F5. There is also a whole series based on Canon cameras, and there is
a 3xx serie based on a Nikon APS camera.


All of the cameras you mention were just that, complete camera bodies based
on those film bodies. They had a clump on the bottom, in place of the power
booster that held all of the digital circuitry. None of that was available
as an add-on.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #5  
Old June 24th 04, 07:29 AM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film

In article CmsCc.3710$rh.118@okepread02,
Skip M wrote:

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
q.phicoh.net...


You mean that all those Kodak backs for the 801, F90, F5 (and the one

for
the F3) are just fiction?

Yep. Or at least I've never heard them mentioned by anybody. More
info?


Go to the Kodak web site and look for obsolete digital cameras. F90 based
cameras are the DCS 410, 420, and 460. I think the 660 and 760 are based

on
the F5. There is also a whole series based on Canon cameras, and there is
a 3xx serie based on a Nikon APS camera.


All of the cameras you mention were just that, complete camera bodies based
on those film bodies. They had a clump on the bottom, in place of the power
booster that held all of the digital circuitry. None of that was available
as an add-on.


You can remove the digital back and replace it with a regular film back.
It is simply an add on. The fact that it made economic sense to sell
those things including the body doesn't change the fact that from a
technical point of view, it is simply a digital back for an existing
camera.

It mainly proves that there are no technical reasons why you can't build
digital backs for existing cameras. It is just the most manufactures think
that it doesn't make economic sense (at the moment).



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
  #6  
Old June 24th 04, 07:39 AM
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film

In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
'It would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor'.


See what I wrote? It's still up there. It would have to incorporate
a full-frame sensor, *or else the viewfinder would be wrong*. That's
absolutely true.


The Kodak backs are not full frame. Did you check which trick they used
to reuse existing finders? It is so trivial I'm not going to spell
it out. (Download the DCS 460 manual for a really nice overview).

And then I claim that it's not a viable product if the viewfinder is
wrong. You can argue with that, since we haven't tried the
experiment; so far it's just my opinion.


Kodak did try it. They sold lots of them at very high prices. That makes
it a viable product to me.

I doubt it. You can't do special cameras like the D2H if you are stuck
with older mirror/shutter mechanisms.


Why not? And are the mirror/shutter mechanisms of the N80 and N70,
which recent digital products are based on, in any way superior to the
mirror/shutter mechanism in the F5 or F100?


The D2H is an improvement over the F5. It is better then what Nikon build
before.

Seperate backs will be a good marketing strategy when the market is close
the saturation. When people buy your cameras as fast as you can produce
them, it is not a good strategy.


When the market is close to saturation, there will be very few
film-based bodies in the market at all, and most of them won't have
interchangeable backs.


The DSLR market may saturate before everybody has dropped film. The D70/D100
and even the D1 don't work well well manual focus lenses.
I don't know how many people simply refuse to buy a Nikon DSLR until
they come with one that does works for them.


--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.