digital dummy

[WVBill]

Wouldn't it be great if someone made a reasonably priced "digital back" for an old Nikon (or whatever) SLR?!
You could switch to the film back when you wanted to do film and the digital back for digital. Same body, same lenses.

 

[looch]

WV - you're on to something. I'm thinking more of a 35mm digital film cartridge. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already being worked on.

 

[MikePA]

The closest I've seen to this are the digital bodies that allow people with a Nikon, for example, to continue to use their Nikon lenses.

 

[frank_f15]

that would be a great workaround, that way i could use all those expensive lenses, and such and still get the bennifits of digital when i wanted.going to see my grandson this weekend for his 2nd birthday, and it very hard to work 3 cameras, the minolta 35 mm, the digital, and the camcorder. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif a grandpops work is never done /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[GaryM]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( WV - you're on to something. I'm thinking more of a 35mm digital film cartridge. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this is already being worked on. )</font>

Two companies attempted this within the last three or four years. First one went bust. Second one bought them out and also failed.

Apparently several things caused the failure.

Quick drop in price of digitals after the high priced first units.

Expense of creating a CCD or CMOS imaging sensor that would aproximate 35mm film size.

No way to change out the memory. Had to download to PC.

Difficulty of exercising control over the unit with a camera that wasn't designed for such.

Check this URL: http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1032460933.html for more information

 

[AMP762]

Thanks much guys,I'm beginning to think I understand /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gifI know from past that is dangerous.
one more guestion all the digitals seem to have very small lens compared to 35mm this has to cut down field of vision does it effect anything else?


Paul

 

[GaryM]

Doesn't cut the F.O.V. at all. Because the image sensor is MUCH smaller than a 35mm film size. That's why the digitals focal length is listed as 35mm equivilent. My Nikon CoolPix 995 has a true F.L. range of 8-32mm. But it's 35mm equivilent is 39-152mm. Not all manufacturers use the same sensor size, although they are close. So listing the F.L. as a 35mm film equivilent makes sense.

And it lets you use smaller filters too! BTW, don't spend money on any glass filters other than a polarizer and perhaps neutral density. About all other effects can be done better with manipulation on the PC.

 

[mwechtal]

I don't think that they were available seperately, but the Kodak professional digital cameras were "just" backs for a particular Nikon model. As near as I could tell, the camera body was unmodified. Last I checked, the price started at about $10,000. They do have 35mm size ccd chips in there, and the chip has to be a substantial portion of the price.

There was a UPI model that I believe was B&W only, and had various interfaces to transmit images via various types of phones.

They probably still make them, but I haven't looked lately.

Mike

 

[GaryM]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( They do have 35mm size ccd chips in there, and the chip has to be a substantial portion of the price.

Mike )</font>

That may have been the case with some models. But if you look at the specs for the currently available Canons and Nikons you'll find that there is about a 1.5 X focal length increase for the lenses when used on the digital models. That's because the sensors are smaller than a 35mm frame size.

 

[mwechtal]

Gary,
Remember, I'm talking <font color="red"> professional </font> models here. We're talking about 14Mpixels. Kodak has had about 15-20 models of professional digital cameras that are essentially an EOS or F5 body with a Kodak back. At first these all had 35mm format CCD chips, but I see the current crop are CMOS chips. They seem to have only one model SLR at this point, with backs for medium and large format available also. The SLR version is now on a custom Nikon body. Here's a url (hopefully) Kodak DCS Pro 14n

That said, the prices are a bit much for the average Joe. The DCS Pro 14n is about $4,000. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif Shoot, I wouldn't have the computing power to process the images!
Mike

 

[GaryM]

I was mostly thinking of the Nikon D100 and similar. Most of these use a smaller than 35mm frame sensor. I generally don't look at cameras that cost as much as a new tractor. OK, I look, but don't capture the details as I know I'll never have one.

 

[GaryM]

Just happen to have a May 2003 copy of PC Photo here at my desk. They have an article on digital LSRs.

Canon Eos-1D, Eos-10D, FugiFinepix S2, Nikon D100, Nikon D1X, Nikon D1H, and Sigma SD9 all have a 1.3 to 1.7x focal length multiplier. These units list at $1499 to $3999.

The Canon Eos-1DS, Contax N Digital, Kodak DCD Pro 14N have no multiplication factor. They run from$8K to 5K. And of course that's with no lenses!

A little steep I think. But I'd consider one if you have a spare!

 

[frank_f15]

GARY; i get the same magazine. find it informative in some respects but seems they seem to check out the higher price cameras, nice to read about , but the average guy(me) has no use for anything that expensive, is a pretty nice mag. tho.