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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
pluto wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" in this The unsormountable problem however was that the distance between the film gate and the place for the film cassette varies, not just with camera make, but even beween models of one manufacturer. So many different 35 mm cameras, so many different electronic film units needed. At first it was a fun idea. But it very quickly progressed from silly, through rather stupid, to extremely boring. thanks Q.G. de Bakker for the addendum. indeed the lead goes to limbo? simpleton me, is thinking of the backplate pressing down on the film can be jam packed with electronics to sense the distance, etc to work like digital? For a "back" solution, it's no issue at all since the 'back' of the camera can extend backwards. The surface of the sensor need only be on the film plane. This does make the proposed "cassette with a blade" idea hard or impossible to do (there were other issues as well); but replacement backs is another alternative that could have worked for some SLR's. (eg: one problem was triggering the exposure, so cameras with a sync connection could trigger the exposure that way. Some MF backs use this approach). But yes, the cassette idea is dead and no 35mm SLR makers have opted to make backs for their cmeras. OTOH, I hardly can see how they would be much cheaper than the full bodies DSLR's of today. The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and digital for those of us who still shoot both. -- -- 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. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
On 2008-08-28, pluto wrote:
[savvo] wrote/and/or quoted: On 2008-08-28, pluto wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" [...] At first it was a fun idea. But it very quickly progressed from silly, through rather stupid, to extremely boring. i am looking at my first nokia digital phone which was just a mobile phone.The latest nokia (some 4 years after the first) has camera, radio, scan, gprs and SMALLER!! i think the ny camera company needs to get a lead from nokia to fin(nish) the project? ;-) Well yes, you could take a phone camera innards and fit them into a 135 canister without too much problem. The necessary 4mm lenses might be a little harder to come by. heheheh, thanks savvo for the side swap bordering to ridicule?? !! ;-) I don't know what you find funny. I was being perfectly serious. You (I think) suggested using the camera parts of a Nokia phone to resurrect the old 135 can digital insert idea. Digital phone camera sensors are tiny. If you were to construct such a device all your Nikon lenses would give you tiny fields of view unless you have some in the 3-5mm range. in my introibo -badly formated though, i profered my delima: plethora of useable Yes. I wish you'd do something about that, it makes reading your posts difficult and replying to them a real pain. nikkor lenses (from 1.2 to 500 reflex let alone the flashguns and filters) and the 6 unburstable nikon bodies. my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the sunsets? i have not bought any dig camera yet though i am salivating at the d50 and higher but the damned thing is the the old film nikkor lenses are mostly not adaptable to the digital ones. ;-(((( Well the D50 is rather out-of-date but you can probably pick up second-hand ones for very little. All your AF film lenses will work. You could get a D200 at very good prices now which will also happily work with all the MF lenses. that is why i ask if anyone has come up with the idea of adaptation of the silver halide cameras-- there must be billions of them before the digital ones come around . Yes. People had the idea. It's already been discussed a couple of messages back. i have thrown in the nokia idea and your "ridicule" is taken in jest , ;-) I think you're confusing me with an Australian. well, being the case as it it. i should not be surprised if nokia advances forward with camera models that could and surely threaten the professional ones. I would. They'd have an awfully long way to go and have expressed no interest so far in doing so. I suppose they could probably afford to buy Sigma if they were so inclined but I'm sure they're quite happy owning the mobile phone market. thanks savvo for the smile on my face this early morning ;-)) Glad to help. However unintentionally. -- savvo orig. invib. man |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:54:46 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" in this
message from subject as: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: pluto wrote: aaaaaaaah LOL why not?? you have given another good key to an invention. why not invent digital films?? that is the rub 'Digital Film' was invented. The rub was having to decide for what camera. oh? was the "dig film" not standardised to the 135 specs? please see my response to alan on nokia simplification of the nokia camera which is getting more and more sophiscated and who knows may one day blow the other digital and film cameras to the bushes, thanks to all again ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:10:33 -0400, Alan Browne
in this message from subject as: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: pluto wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" in this The unsormountable problem however was that the distance between the film gate and the place for the film cassette varies, not just with camera make, but even beween models of one manufacturer. So many different 35 mm cameras, so many different electronic film units needed. At first it was a fun idea. But it very quickly progressed from silly, through rather stupid, to extremely boring. thanks Q.G. de Bakker for the addendum. indeed the lead goes to limbo? simpleton me, is thinking of the backplate pressing down on the film can be jam packed with electronics to sense the distance, etc to work like digital? For a "back" solution, it's no issue at all since the 'back' of the camera can extend backwards. The surface of the sensor need only be on the film plane. ok Alan Browne lets take it from here. i was told how the nokia camera works. there is a memory chip which store the dig images the chip which does the rest of the autofocus, aperture... blah blah extension plugs to direct load to computer all the dig signatures. if nokia can do this why cant nikon (taking nikon as an eg as i am using nikon ) the back can have all what nokia is having and more this plate can be detatched to connect to computer to load the images am i crazy? This does make the proposed "cassette with a blade" idea hard or impossible to do (there were other issues as well); but replacement backs is another alternative that could have worked for some SLR's. (eg: one problem was triggering the exposure, so cameras with a sync connection could trigger the exposure that way. Some MF backs use this approach). But yes, the cassette idea is dead and no 35mm SLR makers have opted to make backs for their cmeras. OTOH, I hardly can see how they would be much cheaper than the full bodies DSLR's of today. you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses why should i throw these out for dig and start all over again? nikon "owes" me to solve the digital problems ;-))) The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and digital for those of us who still shoot both. hmm this sounds logical ;-) ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:18:02 -0400, savvo
in this message from subject as: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: On 2008-08-28, pluto wrote: [savvo] wrote/and/or quoted: On 2008-08-28, pluto wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" [...] At first it was a fun idea. But it very quickly progressed from silly, through rather stupid, to extremely boring. i am looking at my first nokia digital phone which was just a mobile phone.The latest nokia (some 4 years after the first) has camera, radio, scan, gprs and SMALLER!! i think the ny camera company needs to get a lead from nokia to fin(nish) the project? ;-) Well yes, you could take a phone camera innards and fit them into a 135 canister without too much problem. The necessary 4mm lenses might be a little harder to come by. heheheh, thanks savvo for the side swap bordering to ridicule?? !! ;-) thanks again savvo for the quick response I don't know what you find funny. I was being perfectly serious. You (I think) suggested using the camera parts of a Nokia phone to resurrect the old 135 can digital insert idea. Digital phone camera sensors are tiny. If you were to construct such a device all your Nikon lenses would give you tiny fields of view unless you have some in the 3-5mm range. that is why i mentioned that if one applies the nokia camera idea to the larger camera - in this case, the 135 format, with the necessary changes/modifications/upgrading, to accomodate the existing film lenses there should be some light in the bigger tunnels rather than the 3-5 mm nokia lenses ;-)) in my introibo -badly formated though, i profered my delima: plethora of useable Yes. I wish you'd do something about that, it makes reading your posts difficult and replying to them a real pain. thousand apologies again to all in this very very helpful group. in fact, i never thought any body would respond at all seeing that the titan nikon replies so "stupidly" to my long query. so out of desperation, i lop the introibo to all the rec photo groups and thought nothing of it -- being so disgusted by nikon whom i "supported" faithfully for some 30 years. nevertheless, i am very very happy that this rec.photo.equipment-medium-format responded so quickly that i did not notice long after i posted enmasse. thanks again to all the good people of this group ;-)) nikkor lenses (from 1.2 to 500 reflex let alone the flashguns and filters) and the 6 unburstable nikon bodies. my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the sunsets? i have not bought any dig camera yet though i am salivating at the d50 and higher but the damned thing is the the old film nikkor lenses are mostly not adaptable to the digital ones. ;-(((( Well the D50 is rather out-of-date but you can probably pick up second-hand ones for very little. All your AF film lenses will work. You could get a D200 at very good prices now which will also happily work with all the MF lenses. you are right. i mentioned the d50 as i was fiddling with the charts of ae/mf lenses to see which ones are adaptable to nikon digs. after applying the mf collars. i think i can manage to adapt about 6 of the 20 over lenses and at that time (12 years ago) the whopping cost of the mf rings, service charges and the d50 body at that time was really crazy ! yes, now with the d200 , i dont see any charts of adapting ae lenses anymore in the nikon websites. This means i have to say goodbye to all my nikkor lenses, bodies and all.? that is why i ask if anyone has come up with the idea of adaptation of the silver halide cameras-- there must be billions of them before the digital ones come around . Yes. People had the idea. It's already been discussed a couple of messages back. yes, thanks savvo et al. i have thrown in the nokia idea and your "ridicule" is taken in jest , ;-) I think you're confusing me with an Australian. oh? i am a newbie here. ;-)) well, being the case as it it. i should not be surprised if nokia advances forward with camera models that could and surely threaten the professional ones. I would. They'd have an awfully long way to go and have expressed no interest so far in doing so. I suppose they could probably afford to buy Sigma if they were so inclined but I'm sure they're quite happy owning the mobile phone market. hmm savvo, i am not sure of that ;-) i think nokia outwardly shows "no" interest other than mobile phones. it does have some investments on thing like mechanical, scientific and large scale imaging satelites companies. do you really think nokia would buy sigma?? - nokia-associated companies have outdone millipore in large scale reverse osmosis-- singapore is using the ro from oy santasalo, finland and not from millipore. of course sg reverse engineers the ro to take on sea water .. this is asia ;-)) thanks savvo for the smile on my face this early morning ;-)) Glad to help. However unintentionally. indeed, savvo all of you are great helps. glad that i found this group ;-) ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
pluto wrote:
oh? was the "dig film" not standardised to the 135 specs? Here's what you are supposed to have read in an earlier post you replied to: "The unsormountable problem however was that the distance between the film gate and the place for the film cassette varies, not just with camera make, but even beween models of one manufacturer. So many different 35 mm cameras, so many different electronic film units needed." In other words: "What 135 specs!?" please see my response to alan on nokia simplification of the nokia camera which is getting more and more sophiscated and who knows may one day blow the other digital and film cameras to the bushes, Many people know: they never will. The only thing these toy-thingies are good at is raising pixel count, and miniaturising. And these two things only will guarantee that the quality of the pictures they produce will be even less than that of a smelly, sticky brown substance. ;-) Sophisticated? Only if you are turned on by gadgetry, and do not pay attention to quality at all. Take a hint from the fact that people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for huge digital machines, while the pixel count in ever shrinking mobile phone cameras is available, very often for US$ 0.00. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
pluto wrote:
lets take it from here. i was told how the nokia camera works. there is a memory chip which store the dig images the chip which does the rest of the autofocus, aperture... blah blah extension plugs to direct load to computer all the dig signatures. if nokia can do this [...] They can't. So stop mentioning Nokia in every single post. why cant nikon (taking nikon as an eg as i am using nikon ) the back can have all what nokia is having and more this plate can be detatched to connect to computer to load the images am i crazy? Perhaps. Perhaps just hard of learning. ;-) you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses why should i throw these out for dig and start all over again? nikon "owes" me to solve the digital problems ;-))) But they have. As a Nikonmaniac you should already know that there are Nikon digital cameras (proper ones) that will take your lenses. Your bodies can still be used too, but with film. The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and digital for those of us who still shoot both. hmm this sounds logical ;-) But undoable. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
On 2008-08-29, pluto wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:18:02 -0400, savvo wrote/and/or quoted: On 2008-08-28, pluto wrote: [savvo] wrote/and/or quoted: On 2008-08-28, pluto wrote: that is why i mentioned that if one applies the nokia camera idea to the larger camera - in this case, the 135 format, with the necessary changes/modifications/upgrading, to accomodate the existing film lenses there should be some light in the bigger tunnels rather than the 3-5 mm nokia lenses ;-)) So you put an APS-C sensor out on a very thin flexible substrate and somehow manage to cram all the image processing, buffering, and batteries into the film can. Where are you going to put the flash card? Maybe you're happy just to store, say, 36 shots onboard and take the unit out to connect it to a USB port. How long before that exposed sensor is covered in dust. Ever had a bit of grit in the back of your camera that's scratched your negs? What's that going to do a sensitive bit of silicon? You don't want to run the sensor all the time because you've had to cram the smallest possible batteries in, plus you don't want to overheat it, so how do you sync it to the shutter? nikkor lenses (from 1.2 to 500 reflex let alone the flashguns and filters) and the 6 unburstable nikon bodies. my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the sunsets? i have not bought any dig camera yet though i am salivating at the d50 and higher but the damned thing is the the old film nikkor lenses are mostly not adaptable to the digital ones. ;-(((( Well the D50 is rather out-of-date but you can probably pick up second-hand ones for very little. All your AF film lenses will work. You could get a D200 at very good prices now which will also happily work with all the MF lenses. you are right. i mentioned the d50 as i was fiddling with the charts of ae/mf lenses to see which ones are adaptable to nikon digs. after applying the mf collars. i think i can manage to adapt about 6 of the 20 over lenses and at that time (12 years ago) the whopping cost of the mf rings, service charges and the d50 body at that time was really crazy ! yes, now with the d200 , i dont see any charts of adapting ae lenses anymore in the nikon websites. This means i have to say goodbye to all my nikkor lenses, bodies and all.? The D200 works with way more lenses than the D50 will. I've not been with Nikon long enough to know what an AE lens is, but I did used to use an AI lens on my D200. I would. They'd have an awfully long way to go and have expressed no interest so far in doing so. I suppose they could probably afford to buy Sigma if they were so inclined but I'm sure they're quite happy owning the mobile phone market. hmm savvo, i am not sure of that ;-) i think nokia outwardly shows "no" interest other than mobile phones. it does have some investments on thing like mechanical, scientific and large scale imaging satelites companies. If Sony, one of the two major sensor manufacturers and a market-leader in pro and consumer video equipment can't get its DSLR market share out of the single figure %ages, despite a head start from buying Minolta's expertise and plant, I'm very sure Nokia will be very happy to stay out of the bear pit. do you really think nokia would buy sigma?? No. Not a chance. I was musing on a preposterous proposition. -- savvo orig. invib. man |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:30:12 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" in this
message from subject as: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: pluto wrote: lets take it from here. i was told how the nokia camera works. there is a memory chip which store the dig images the chip which does the rest of the autofocus, aperture... blah blah extension plugs to direct load to computer all the dig signatures. if nokia can do this [...] They can't. So stop mentioning Nokia in every single post. sorry, Q.G. de Bakker it is a shorter word for mobilephone ;-)) why cant nikon (taking nikon as an eg as i am using nikon ) the back can have all what nokia is having and more this plate can be detatched to connect to computer to load the images am i crazy? Perhaps. Perhaps just hard of learning. ;-) yeah ;-))) you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses why should i throw these out for dig and start all over again? nikon "owes" me to solve the digital problems ;-))) But they have. As a Nikonmaniac you should already know that there are Nikon digital cameras (proper ones) that will take your lenses. mmmmmmm not all lenses some of them only as i have posted Your bodies can still be used too, but with film. yea, now what when films are hard to come by nowadays even more the developing and printing of the films The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and digital for those of us who still shoot both. hmm this sounds logical ;-) But undoable. righto. thanks Q.G. de Bakker for all the helps. ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
conversion of film slr to dig slr
On 2008-08-29, Noons wrote:
savvo wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 8:37 PM: How long before that exposed sensor is covered in dust. If you keep the cover closed, a long time. The sensor would not be exposed anymore than in a dslr. Except of course if you open the back. Which you don't need to anymo there is no film there. You've missed the point. How do you access the pictures that you have shot if you never open the camera? Try reading the thread to find out what it's about. Ever had a bit of grit in the back of your camera that's scratched your negs? What's that going to do a sensitive bit of silicon? Since when is silicon "soft"? It's what makes up sand! What is soft is the anti-alias plastic filter in front of it. That can be replaced and/or cleaned easy if the back cover can be opened. It does NOT move when you wind, so it doesn't get scratched like film does! In fact, there is NOTHING inside such a camera that can scratch it. I didn't say it would scratch it. I asked pluto to consider what it _might_ do. You don't want to run the sensor all the time because you've had to cram the smallest possible batteries in, plus you don't want to overheat it, so how do you sync it to the shutter? batteries in all my slrs are in the handle and they are big rechargeable AAs which last forever. Longer than my dslr's punny little lithium stuff anyway... You've missed the point. Go back and read the thread. As for synching it to the shutter, that can be easily achieved with any slr that has a flash contact: shutter won't open until flash contact is closed. Plenty of time to "turn on" the sensor: like you say it doesn't need "warming". How do you get the flash sync through the closed back of the camera to the 'digital film'? my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the sunsets? they won't. just look for it instead of believing the crap. heaps of alternatives. you can even still find new film for super8 movie cameras and they went out ages ago! not to mention 620 and other "weird" formats long gone from production. The D200 works with way more lenses than the D50 will. I've not been with Nikon long enough to know what an AE lens is, but I did used to use an AI lens on my D200. Exactly. The D200, D300, D700, D2(x) and D3 can all use AI and AI-S lenses, as well as all the AF models. That's with metering. Without it even my D80 works fine with anything since AI. That's since the 60's. If Sony, one of the two major sensor manufacturers and a market-leader in pro and consumer video equipment can't get its DSLR market share out of the single figure %ages, despite a head start from buying Minolta's expertise and plant, I'm very sure Nokia will be very happy to stay out of the bear pit. indeed. but Sony is inching in, that's for sure. and it takes time to build up momentum: once they sort out their range into a coherent lot, things will move fine. It's only this year they have had more than one model, while the others have been at it for nearly a decade! So what's your point about Nokia's willingness or ability to compete? -- savvo orig. invib. man |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
conversion of film slr camera to dig slr | pluto | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | August 24th 08 07:12 PM |
Film to digital conversion | Esteban | Digital Photography | 9 | May 23rd 08 04:20 PM |
Nikon & RAW Conversion? | Peter Gibbons | Digital Photography | 7 | October 16th 07 02:54 PM |
Color print film for B/W conversion? | Doug Robbins | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | November 17th 05 02:06 AM |
8mm to DVD Conversion | Stuart Droker | Film & Labs | 0 | November 10th 03 04:52 PM |