Turning film cameras into digital cameras

It's a nice idea, but has some *very* significant practical
difficulties, which is largely why digital backs are not made for the
35mm market.

There was such a thing proposed and got to prototype stage, IIRC, back
around 2000-1. Then I decided to sell my Leica M3 rather than to wait for
such a chimera camera.

Nope. It is now generally recognised as a ploy to fool venture capitalists
into giving someone a load of money.

Of course, Leica developed a digital camera back for the R series. - Is it
still available?


They do: http://www.leica-camera.de/photograp...gital-modul-r/
(site in German).

"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote:


It's a nice idea, but has some *very* significant practical
difficulties, which is largely why digital backs are not made for the
35mm market.

There was such a thing proposed and got to prototype stage, IIRC, back
around 2000-1. Then I decided to sell my Leica M3 rather than to wait for
such a chimera camera.

Nope. It is now generally recognised as a ploy to fool venture capitalists
into giving someone a load of money.

Of course, Leica developed a digital camera back for the R series. - Is it
still available?


They do: http://www.leica-camera.de/photograp...gital-modul-r/
(site in German).


The Leica Digital Modul-R has been discontinued, because the main
supplier (Imacon) insisted on a minimum order size that was considered
much too large by Leica Camera (info from a Leica press release).
Stocks of new Digital Modul-R backs are now very low.

The relationship between Imacon and Leica has deteriorated to such an
extent that it could be described as hostile. The problem started
when Imacon merged with Hasselblad, with whom Leica Camera's
relationship has been sour for some years.

Look no further than the expensive and ultimately abortive development
work done on Leica lenses for medium format, and the introduction of
the Hasselblad X-Pan.

At least you CAN with a Hasselblad. Snag is, the cheapest back costs three
time much as a new 500CM (or whatever it's called now) and it still isn't
full-frame.
"Danepipesmoker" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 6, 9:28 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 120 film cartridge, and you
can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
format, instead of into film, would you buy such a product? It is
just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
again, just like the digital cameras.
Some of you may said that is the same question whether there is a
"back cartridge" that can be fitted into the old Hasselblad, Mamiya RB
or M645, in which it changes into digital cameras. However, I heard
that this speacil back is very expensive. Correct me if such a product
exist for professional photographers, but at a very high costs! (such
that it is just easier to throw away the old cameras and buy a new
digital one).
The next question is whether technically this is possible. Will people
buy them, and use their old cameras (which some had invested heavily
before the digital era came to play). This sounds like a crazy idea,
but I sometime wonder that if it is possible. There are lots of smart
people and inventors in this world, and I am sure they have the brain
to create such a product. I am sure that this would not be welcomed by
digital cameras' manufacturers, as it will compete with their product.
Although some of the "players" are still the same (Kodak, Fuji, Nikon,
Canon, Pentax, etc).
Unfortunately, we are living in a world which are driven by narrow
"track of minds", set by big corporations which decided upon our
direction into the future.
Thanks for sharing my "dream". I am now awake from my day dreaming.
Thanks for the discussion.

My father has an old Hasselblad that he is looking into getting a
digital back for and we were just in a photography shop in downtown
Chicago doing some pricing for it, as well as online. Yes it is a
small fortune to do so!

It is the convenience factor that is so appealing, being able to slip
a SD card from the camera to the PC or Mac is just far too appealing
these days

Kind regards,

Danepipesmoker
www.iansforest.com

In article .com,
writes
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 120 film cartridge, and you
can just load it into your old film camera. However, this product acts
like a digital "film", in which it will store images in digital
format, instead of into film,
It is
just exactly like your old film cartridge, put into the back of your
camera, set the camera as it has a film in it, advance the lever ,
take photos, go to next shot, etc. The difference would be when you
complete the shots (24 or 36 exposure), you connect this cartridge to
your computer and downloaded the digital data, just like a media card
in your digital cameras. This product would be re-used again and
again, just like the digital cameras.

You mean just like this stuff?
http://www.sitmark.com/Portfolio/Sil...lmOverview.pdf

would you buy such a product?

Nobody did.

It started life as a great idea from Irvine Sensors Corporation, a
company that has survived for decades conning cash from the gullible in
government and private finance. It was spun out to an independent debt
laden company called Imagek which had to change its name to SiliconFilm
because nobody wanted to invest in or work for something called "I'm A
Geek". From something that was hailed to fit in all 35mm SLR bodies it
soon became Nikon FM-2 specific and finally debued at PMA in 2001 where
it was already too little too late and eventually did the decent thing
and disappeared into the mists of time to be quietly fogotten about...
until you asked! ;-)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9909/99...iliconfilm.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0001/00...iliconfilm.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0012/00...efilmagain.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01...onfilmefs1.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01...sp#siliconfilm
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0105/01...nfilmships.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01...mvaporizes.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02...nfilmagain.asp

--
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)

In article ,
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
cover plate.

That doesn't make any sense. Kodak produced an large collection of backs
for standard Nikon and Canon cameras. As far as I know, the Kodak backs
were quite popular. They also had to put any protective covers/filters
between the film plane and the shutter (though it is possible that Kodak
restricted themselves to camera with enough space).




--
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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:42:31 +0200, (Philip Homburg)
wrote:

In article ,
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
cover plate.

That doesn't make any sense. Kodak produced an large collection of backs
for standard Nikon and Canon cameras. As far as I know, the Kodak backs
were quite popular. They also had to put any protective covers/filters
between the film plane and the shutter (though it is possible that Kodak
restricted themselves to camera with enough space).

It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
place of the film.
Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
models), but that's just not the same thing.

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

The View on Disney-owned ABC dropped Rosie
O'Donnell, even after she agreed to stop
talking about George Bush. The president
has no leverage over ABC. Disney is not a
defense contractor, unless you count the
war rationales we buy from Fantasyland.

In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:
It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
place of the film.
Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
models), but that's just not the same thing.

Having a product is better than having no product. If there is a large
class of cameras that do have enough space and a few cameras don't, then
it makes sense to focus on the products you can sell.

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).


--
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

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:

It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
place of the film.
Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
models), but that's just not the same thing.


Having a product is better than having no product. If there is a large
class of cameras that do have enough space and a few cameras don't, then
it makes sense to focus on the products you can sell.

I'm not sure if that is realy true, a good example I can think of in the
digital SLR marketplace is Pentax Vs Contax (Kyocera using the Zeiss
trademark).
Both companies developed a DSLR body to put around a Dalsa 6.1mp 24x36mm
sized sensor.
Pentax realised during the development phase that the IQ from the chip
wasn't up to snuff (Dalsa also put the price up) and canned the project
before going beyond (what software develpoers call) "alpha testing" of a
few finished prototype camera.
The Contax version of the story is different and they pushed it out the
door, even though it had "issues" with noise at anything other than it's
base ISO setting.
The cost of manufacture and the bad press (and the hit to sales of an
already "niche" product) that came off the back of the noisy sensor is
what killed off Contax as a digicam brand.

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.

In article coh.net,
Philip Homburg writes
In article ,
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Several "technical" issues were responsible for that development time,
not least of which was the issue of getting the sensor on the same plane
of focus as film would be, which meant a naked sensor, no filter or
cover plate.

That doesn't make any sense. Kodak produced an large collection of backs
for standard Nikon and Canon cameras.

The Kodak backs only fitted very specific Nikon and Canon bodies and
certainly weren't interchangeable across the Nikon & Canon range.

They also had to put any protective covers/filters
between the film plane and the shutter (though it is possible that Kodak
restricted themselves to camera with enough space).

Precisely. Many film cameras have the shutter blind very close to the
film plane and would compete with the sensor filter for space.

A generic "one size fits all" digital sensor to replace film is
impossible for this reason, and others that I mentioned. That was
eventually accepted by Imagek/SiliconFilm who announce that their
product would be specific to only one Nikon body type shortly before
they ceased trading.
--
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)

In article ,
dj_nme wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:

It makes sense as a "back" is different from an insert to take the
place of the film.
Backs can be made to fit a particular model (or line of similar
models), but that's just not the same thing.


Having a product is better than having no product. If there is a large
class of cameras that do have enough space and a few cameras don't, then
it makes sense to focus on the products you can sell.

I'm not sure if that is realy true, a good example I can think of in the
digital SLR marketplace is Pentax Vs Contax (Kyocera using the Zeiss
trademark).
Both companies developed a DSLR body to put around a Dalsa 6.1mp 24x36mm
sized sensor.
Pentax realised during the development phase that the IQ from the chip
wasn't up to snuff (Dalsa also put the price up) and canned the project
before going beyond (what software develpoers call) "alpha testing" of a
few finished prototype camera.
The Contax version of the story is different and they pushed it out the
door, even though it had "issues" with noise at anything other than it's
base ISO setting.
The cost of manufacture and the bad press (and the hit to sales of an
already "niche" product) that came off the back of the noisy sensor is
what killed off Contax as a digicam brand.

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?

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.


--
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