[Egg Salad]

I hope this is the right section for delusional dreams...

A lot of people on here want Pentax to release a FF camera - myself included.
And there are also a lot of people who like the compactness and build of older cameras. Well there are various middle format cameras out there which as far as I understand are essentially film cameras equipped with digital sensors. But these are way more expensive than the ordinary hobby photographer can pay or wants to pay.

So my question is: Why are there no digital backs for 35mm (why is it 35mm? - it's 36mm*24mm) cameras? Sure there can't be a conversion kit for every film camera out there - so just make this 3 or so different (most popular) models.
In my imagination I don't really see that much of a problem - replace the back with a sensor + computer and fit the battery in the film compartment. It doesn't have to do 8 pictures/second or even have a jpeg engine - just the same camera but in digital. Ok, a screen would be nice but as I've read many could even live without it.

For me, AV and M-mode would suffice especially when only used with fully manual primes.

I have to say I never really used film cameras (I was too young back then to be interested in them) but I fully understand why people want them. I for myself am kind of metal-fetishist (both in music and as a material) and I'd love to use my old lenses on matching cameras.

---

Last edited by Egg Salad; 02-03-2010 at 01:03 PM.

[Blue]

This would be slick if they could pull if off for the m42 cameras and one for the k cameras and maybe another for the digital ones.

[séamuis]

I hope this is the right section for delusional dreams...

A lot of people on here want Pentax to release a FF camera - myself included.
And there are also a lot of people who like the compactness and build of older cameras. Well there are various middle format cameras out there which as far as I understand are essentially film cameras equipped with digital sensors. But these are way more expensive than the ordinary hobby photographer can pay or wants to pay.

So my question is: Why are there no digital backs for 35mm (why is it 35mm? - it's 36mm*24mm) cameras? Sure there can't be a conversion kit for every film camera out there - so just make this 3 or so different (most popular) models.
In my imagination I don't really see that much of a problem - replace the back with a sensor + computer and fit the battery in the film compartment. It doesn't have to do 8 pictures/second or even have a jpeg engine - just the same camera but in digital. Ok, a screen would be nice but as I've read many could even live without it.

For me, AV and M-mode would suffice especially when only used with fully manual primes.

I have to say I never really used film cameras (I was too young back then to be interested in them) but I fully understand why people want them. I for myself am kind of metal-fetishist (both in music and as a material) and I'd love to use my old lenses on matching cameras.

it has been thought of. (and many people, myself included would love for such a thing to be engineered) there was one company that had developed prototypes? (shown with nikon cameras) but the company went under or couldn't get the funding needed. something like that. but I honestly don't know why it hasn't been developed yet. I think the tech is miniature enough at this point to fit inside a film compartment with replacement back. maybe the idea just hasn't struck the right inventor. I think that we will see such a thing in the not too distant future. as more people become hip to the logic that a sensor can be put in place of film in a lot of cameras and that there are people who would love to purchase such a thing instead of continuing to shell out thousands for digital bodies, somebody will jump on the chance to make money.

its possible that all the big sensor manufacturers wont work with such an idea, possible because they don't want to help create competition for their own cameras or sensor manufacturing for other companies.

[Blue]

I'd convert one of my K2 bodies and either an SV or the ES chrome body in a NY second.

[séamuis]

http://www.sitmark.com/Portfolio/SiliconFilmOverview.pdf

eFilm

[séamuis]

I'd convert one of my K2 bodies and either an SV or the ES chrome body in a NY second.

if it was a simple as the apparently dead eFilm, I would use that on my SV without hesitation. im not sure id go forth with some sort of system that requires modification to the body, but a drop in, self-contained unit in place of the film cartridge, oh my yes. if that hit the market, id sell all of my digital bodies and probably a portion of my film equipment (not including my eagerly awaited Optio i-10) and my SV would pretty much become my everyday use body.

god, if only I could get away with carrying an SV that I could use film in one day and then go digital with the same body by just swapping cartridges.... uhhh and no batteries (other than what is in the "eFilm"). a wet dream for sure.

[Blue]

if it was a simple as the apparently dead eFilm, I would use that on my SV without hesitation. im not sure id go forth with some sort of system that requires modification to the body, but a drop in, self-contained unit in place of the film cartridge, oh my yes. if that hit the market, id sell all of my digital bodies and probably a portion of my film equipment (not including my eagerly awaited Optio i-10) and my SV would pretty much become my everyday use body.

god, if only I could get away with carrying an SV that I could use film in one day and then go digital with the same body by just swapping cartridges.... uhhh and no batteries (other than what is in the "eFilm"). a wet dream for sure.

I wouldn't modify my K, that's for sure. I would one of my Honeywell/Heiland bodies though. However, I like that film roll looking adapter. I'm guessing it is market forces from the sensor companies that have been the hurdle. For the roll adapter concept, it wouldn't have to be over complicated i.e. keep it simple like the SV.

[Egg Salad]

Seems like I've hit the right spot on this forum - or at least those who want the same.

As for modification: If the battery would be flat enough not to stand out too far there must not even be a camera modification.

Only problem that comes to my mind is the sensor activation. How should the sensor "know" when a picture should be recorded? If active permanetely like in live view they would certainly run too hot. (Un)Fortunately this isn't my project so I don't really have to worry about this.

What I initially forgot to mention but what is probably clear to anyone is that the sensors have to be full frame - and like others suggested, free to choose. Ranging from 10MP to ~25MP.

Regarding profit collapse through these things: sure many wouldn't buy a modern camera then but on the other side also many would use their old cameras again and buy these backs for whatever reason (don't like modern look, handling, quality).

[Talisker]

Try googling the Leica DIGITAL-MODUL-R; admittedly it was only for the R8 and R9 but it was more or less obsolete by the time it escaped the factory and damn near killed Leica.

[Parallax]

Talisker, huh? Not bad, but prefer Ardbeg or Lagavulin.

[Blue]

Try googling the Leica DIGITAL-MODUL-R; admittedly it was only for the R8 and R9 but it was more or less obsolete by the time it escaped the factory and damn near killed Leica.

That's because Leica was on life support at the time.

[jogiba]

Because the market for a $5,000 digital back for a $200 used Pentax 35mm SLR is non existent.

[Blue]

Because the market for a $5,000 digital back for a $200 used Pentax 35mm SLR is non existent.

That's about as much of a strawman argument as can be. No tech development is cheap until it makes mainstream production. Otherwise the K-x would cost as much as the K-7 and the K-7 would cost twice as much as it did.

Did you look at the roll film adapter from ~ 10 years go in the report posted by Seamuis? Once something like that got the details worked out and went into production, there is no reason it should be $5k. Plus, the roll film adapter gismo could be used in more than one body!

[GoremanX]

Because the market for a $5,000 digital back for a $200 used Pentax 35mm SLR is non existent.

That's about as much of a strawman argument as can be. No tech development is cheap until it makes mainstream production. Otherwise the K-x would cost as much as the K-7 and the K-7 would cost twice as much as it did.

Sorry, but his argument is sound from a manufacturing standpoint. There's virtually no market for it, so why would any company bother making it? It's way cheaper to buy a K-7 than it would be to buy a full frame digital back for a film camera. Also, it probably costs about the same to buy a FF Nikon, Canon or Sony than it would be for the digital back. Not to mention the terrible lack of features such a hybrid camera would have compared to its contemporaries. You'd end up with an old camera that takes pictures in an old way, for the same price as a full-featured modern digital camera that can take 8 shots per second, do automatic exposure bracketing, and myriad other things.

I'm sure you and a handful of people could come up with valid reasons why this would be a good idea, but that doesn't magically create a market for it.

Which camera should this digital back be designed for? I have a 1969 Spotmatic, what do you have? What do other people have? How do you pick one specific model? Or even 5 specific models?

The whole concept was interesting back when digital cameras couldn't compete with film cameras, but that's no longer the case.

[Blue]

Sorry, but his argument is sound from a manufacturing standpoint. There's virtually no market for it, so why would any company bother making it? It's way cheaper to buy a K-7 than it would be to buy a full frame digital back for a film camera. Also, it probably costs about the same to buy a FF Nikon, Canon or Sony than it would be for the digital back. Not to mention the terrible lack of features such a hybrid camera would have compared to its contemporaries. You'd end up with an old camera that takes pictures in an old way, for the same price as a full-featured modern digital camera that can take 8 shots per second, do automatic exposure bracketing, and myriad other things.

I'm sure you and a handful of people could come up with valid reasons why this would be a good idea, but that doesn't magically create a market for it.

Which camera should this digital back be designed for? I have a 1969 Spotmatic, what do you have? What do other people have? How do you pick one specific model? Or even 5 specific models?

The whole concept was interesting back when digital cameras couldn't compete with film cameras, but that's no longer the case.

Actually, there is a market. It is likely a niche market. How many houses out there have a 35mm film camera in the closet because all of the local film developers stopped developing film? Did you look at the thing I'm talking about? It wouldn't matter it were the spotmatic ES or SV. If it were the actual back, yes it would. Then again, you may have a point about no market. There are no market for Zeiss and Voightlander manual focus lenses for digital bodies.




As far as the back argument goes, I acknowledged that in my original post. Pentax or 3rd party would have to pick a common m42 model and common K model and go with it. Some of the m42 bodies had the same back and some models had optional backs so that could be exploited as well.

Edit: http://www.ideinc.com/silfilm.html Whether it ever happens or not, it is still a hell of a concept, especially for those of us with working collections.

Edit: Edit: There is never a shortage of naysayers.