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 » Photo Equipment » Other Photographic Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Turning film cameras into digital cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 1st 07, 01:28 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc
dj_nme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 399
Default 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  
Old May 1st 07, 03:48 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default 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  
Old May 1st 07, 03:56 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc
Bill Funk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,500
Default Turning film cameras into digital cameras

On Tue, 1 May 2007 08:36:44 +0200, (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

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.

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?


Let's suppose you could solve the problem of actually fitting a sensor
between the current camera's back and shutter.
You will still need to do some modifications to the camera to allow
communication between the camera and the insert.
Then, there's the problems of where to put the battery, how to get rid
of heat, and storage/retrieval of the images.

How would one determine the size of the market? I don't think there
are enough owners of cameras who would seriously want to spend for the
insert plus the mods needed, when DSLRs that are much more capable
already exist at what may well be the same or lower cost. (But I could
be wrong.)

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign office
stopped using her maiden name last week and now
simply refers to her as Hillary Clinton. She's
completely dropped the name Rodham. It's a sure
sign that one of her brothers is about to get
indicted again.
  #64  
Old May 1st 07, 07:39 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc
Jerry[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Turning film cameras into digital cameras

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2007 08:36:44 +0200, (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

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.

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?


Let's suppose you could solve the problem of actually fitting a sensor
between the current camera's back and shutter.
You will still need to do some modifications to the camera to allow
communication between the camera and the insert.
Then, there's the problems of where to put the battery, how to get rid
of heat, and storage/retrieval of the images.

How would one determine the size of the market? I don't think there
are enough owners of cameras who would seriously want to spend for the
insert plus the mods needed, when DSLRs that are much more capable
already exist at what may well be the same or lower cost. (But I could
be wrong.)


I'd think another problem would be a variance in the distance between
the film cannister and the centre of the sensor, which would likely vary
between cameras. With film this isn't critical, with a digital insert
it would need to be precise.
  #66  
Old May 2nd 07, 09:48 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc
Kennedy McEwen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default 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  
Old May 7th 07, 10:38 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default 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

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

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 17th 04 12:52 AM
turning traditional cameras into digital cameras Dan Jacobson Digital Photography 15 October 31st 04 05:37 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? [email protected] Film & Labs 20 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 AM.


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.