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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital back for F3?
Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for
all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are sold today. Aaron |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Aaron Blacksmith wrote:
Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are sold today. Aaron Better than the F5? F6? D2x? In what way? -- J www.urbanvoyeur.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Aaron Blacksmith wrote:
Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are sold today. Depends which. The F5, F6, EOS-1v and Maxxum 9 are certainly better bodies than the F3. To date the only 35mm cameras that have backs available are the Leica R8 and R9. At that the backs aren't on the shelves yet, but should be shortly, assuming Leica survive the Extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders later this month. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
UrbanVoyeur wrote: Aaron Blacksmith wrote: Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are sold today. Aaron Better than the F5? F6? D2x? In what way? The F3 is supposed to be the only Nikon camera that has a light meter that works with shift lenses even when they are shifted. Compared to the F5, etc. the F3 also has center-weighted light metering with all finders. Other than that, the F4 is the camera that gets the most out of manual focus Nikkors. I like the handling of the F3+MD4, but Nikon made far too many mistakes designing the F3 (the way the light meter is unreadable in low light situations is probably the worst feature, but switching off the light meter readout when a flash is detected is a close second, having a dead camera when the batteries in your motor drive are dead is another brillant design feature, then there the lack of a switch on the MF-18 to rewind the film completely). -- 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote: Aaron Blacksmith wrote: Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are sold today. Depends which. The F5, F6, EOS-1v and Maxxum 9 are certainly better bodies than the F3. To date the only 35mm cameras that have backs available are the Leica R8 and R9. At that the backs aren't on the shelves yet, but should be shortly, assuming Leica survive the Extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders later this month. Well ... it depends on available from *whom*. :-) Kodak made a back to convert the N90s to a 1.3MP digital for the AP -- called the NC2000e/c -- and several other variants for other markets. I've got two of these -- one with a N90s body, and one with a plain N90 body. I think that they're still making backs to convert the N90s (and perhaps others) to digital. I think that the N90(s) was selected because of the 10-pin connector on the front of the body, giving easy interconnection to the various information in the camera, including frame numbers, and easier integration between the camera body and the digital back. I'm not sure what other Nikon film bodies may have this connector, if any. But if any others do, and if they have the tripod socket in the same physical location, it might be possible to put this back on one of the other bodies. But -- at 1.3 MP, it is not particularly attractive today, other than the fact that it can work with any of the AI lenses with full metering (unlike the D70). But it also has no image display (just a tiny display which displays the count of photo space remaining in the storage media, and the SCSI ID when interfacing it -- plus a pie chart to give you an idea what percentage of your media is already in use. So -- no chimping. Oh yes -- it also has a rather awkward RAW format, and nothing else, so you are stuck needing the plugin from Kodak to convert the images to either jpegs, or to PhotoShop's own internal format. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Gisle Hannemyr writes:
AFAIK, the last back Kodak made for the N90s was the 6 Mpx DCS 460 (in 1995). If anyone know of a newer digital back for the Nikon N90s - then I am /very/ interested. The current crop of Kodak DSLRs are based on the Nikon F80 (DCS Pro SLR/n, F-mount), or the Sigma SD10 (DCS Pro SLR/c, EF-mount) - but the newers cameras are rebuilds - it is no longer a "digital back" that has been adapted to replace the film back as was the case with the older cameras. If you want a Kodak DSLR with a Nikon Fx body, then the DCS 660 or DCS 760 are the models to get. Both are based upon Nikon's F5 body, and have the same 6.3 Mpx sensor with 1.3x crop. I think I want the DCS-660M, actually. Except none seem to be for sale anywhere; which probably means that if one *were* available it'd be out of my price range. I'd also like to verify that it actually *gets* the considerably improved sensitivity that absence of the color filters ought to give it. -- 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/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I think F3 has the optimal functionality when you want a MF camera. The
quality is outstanding (only the F2 and the Leicas). A digital back with a full size sensor would make it superior. Then it's a matter of taste if you prefer the F4-F5-F6. When I say "toys" I refer to all the DSLR's below the professional models, e.g. D70, 10D, 100D, 20D and all the digital crap from Pentax, Minolta and Olympus. "UrbanVoyeur" wrote in message ... Aaron Blacksmith wrote: Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are sold today. Aaron Better than the F5? F6? D2x? In what way? -- J www.urbanvoyeur.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Aaron Blacksmith wrote: I think F3 has the optimal functionality when you want a MF camera. The quality is outstanding (only the F2 and the Leicas). A digital back with a full size sensor would make it superior. Is the F3 a MF camera? I thought that it was a 35mm SLR, like the rest of the F series from Nikon. Perhaps I should point out why you are unlikely to find a full-frame digital back for an unmodified 35mm film camera. 1) The film camera must have a physical frame very close to the film plane. At a greater distance, the edges of the image would be blurred, and you also need physical support of the film to hold it flat. 2) A sensor must have readout connections -- which are made along the edges, and a protective cover, which is a millimeter or two above the surface of the sensor (and is often also an anti-aliasing filter). 3) A full-frame sensor thus must have the readout connections outside of the frame, and the protective cover/anti-aliasing filter would thus hit the physical frame of the film support, thus forcing the sensor back and out of focus. 4) All conversions which I have seen (mainly the NC2000e/c which was a Kodak conversion of the N90s to digital for the AP) have the sensor rigidly mounted to the back, and projecting into the physical frame of the film support and guides. If it were full frame, this would not be possible. 5) Thus -- for a full frame sensor, you would need to machine away part of the film support -- which is also support for the focal plane shutter. At this point, you have an F3 (or whatever other camera) which is no longer capable of using film. If anyone knows that my suggestions and opinions above are wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, please amend your suggestions to accept a less than full frame sensor, or a destructively modified (e.g. non-reversible) camera body no longer capable of using film. For MF cameras like the Hasselblad, the film plane is part of the removable back, so a full-frame sensor is possible in a special back with those, with no modification to the body. (Though you might need some additional mechanical or electrical linkages to tell the focal plane when to transfer the image from the sensor to bufferer memory, and finally to the media of choice.) I believe that the presence of the 10-pin connector on the Nikon N90s was why it was used as the starting point for several conversions by Kodak. How much could the F3 body relay to the back for inclusion in the exif data? Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Gisle Hannemyr writes:
David Dyer-Bennet writes: I think I want the DCS-660M, actually. Except none seem to be for sale anywhere; which probably means that if one *were* available it'd be out of my price range. So we are two. I would actually settle for a DCS 460m, but that one is just as elusive. I'm even desperate enough to consider (but so far just consider) getting a Sigma SD10 for B&W work. Apart from the Sigma SD9 and SD10, and the vintage Kodaks - do there exist any other DSLR that do not have a Bayer colour mask in front of the sensor? Not yet, to my knowledge. The SD10 would presumably have the (minor) resolution advantage, but I don't believe it has the sensitivity advantage, which is the main benefit I'm hoping for. -- 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/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
DoN. Nichols wrote: 5) Thus -- for a full frame sensor, you would need to machine away part of the film support -- which is also support for the focal plane shutter. At this point, you have an F3 (or whatever other camera) which is no longer capable of using film. Mounted slides are not full-frame either. Losing a millimeter or so should be no 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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bulk Loading 120 film? | Alan Smithee | In The Darkroom | 19 | April 29th 05 01:38 PM |
digital back on MF vs digital 35mm? | ColdCanuck | Digital Photography | 12 | January 14th 05 11:00 PM |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 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 |