[GoremanX]

First off, if there is a "Dude" in this thread would be you. I probably have underwear older than you (but lets not go there).

From Wiktionary:

Dude
1. (slang) A man.
1. (slang, used in the vocative) A term of address for a man.

I'm not sure where you took offense from that. "Dude" implies no age group or derogatory meaning. It's just a simple word that's been in common use since the '60s or so. It's been in my vocabulary for decades.

As far as the canon goes, I'm guessing that is more your style.

It's an old Canon S3 IS compact super zoom that I used for many years. I recently upgraded to DSLR photography because I found I'd reached the limits of what I could do with a compact. I see nothing wrong with that. The S3 IS now sits unused on my desk and was handy when I needed to take a ridiculous picture to poke fun at a ridiculous series of posts from someone who gets angry way too easily.

Furthermore, I don't know where you came up with the idea of a 5 generations old sensor, but I'm guessing it is a lack of reading comprehension skills on your part.

Not at all, it comes from the mention of 5 MP.

We were talking about a current sensor that could cover the film window that is 24x36mm. The efilm concept isn't for you. We get that so move on. Don't go away mad, just move on.

The reality is that all camera sensors are manufactured by very few companies (because only they have facilities to make them), and they only have a few factories making them. Due to market demand, all current full frame sensor production is dedicated to super-high end parts for expensive cameras. That makes these sensors prohibitively expensive, and it makes it unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to make an inexpensive FF sensor for the type of application you're describing.

I think the efilm idea is brilliant! I'd happily slap one into my Spotmatic if I could (and if it wasn't super-'spensive). But it doesn't exist, and likely never will for the reasons listed above. I don't want a product that combines the limitations of both film and digital with the advantages of neither.

As to the "cost of sensors" argument, there seems to be some confusion as to what makes a digital camera digital. The CMOS sensor is actually an analogue device. There's a whole slew of electronics involved for converting this analogue information into a digital format, and then making an actual picture out of it. "Just the sensor" is only a tiny part of cost equation.

[Blue]

From Wiktionary:

Dude
1. (slang) A man. Slang that makes you sound like punk
1. (slang, used in the vocative) A term of address for a man.

I'm not sure where you took offense from that. "Dude" implies no age group or derogatory meaning. It's just a simple word that's been in common use since the '60s or so. It's been in my vocabulary for decades.

It was the timing and the attitude with which you used it. It would be like someoe suddenly going Mr. GoremanX . . . out of left field if they were laying into you in a serious way in the south. Its also annoying when someone is being overly sarcastic in an exchange kind of like writing in bold in the quote.

It's an old Canon S3 IS compact super zoom that I used for many years. I recently upgraded to DSLR photography because I found I'd reached the limits of what I could do with a compact. I see nothing wrong with that. The S3 IS now sits unused on my desk and was handy when I needed to take a ridiculous picture to poke fun at a ridiculous series of posts from someone who gets angry way too easily.



Not at all, it comes from the mention of 5 MP.
It was in reference to the time warp comment, again it comes down to reading comprehension.



The reality is that all camera sensors are manufactured by very few companies (because only they have facilities to make them), and they only have a few factories making them. Due to market demand, all current full frame sensor production is dedicated to super-high end parts for expensive cameras. That makes these sensors prohibitively expensive, and it makes it unrealistic to expect anyone to be able to make an inexpensive FF sensor for the type of application you're describing.

I think the efilm idea is brilliant! I'd happily slap one into my Spotmatic if I could (and if it wasn't super-'spensive). But it doesn't exist, and likely never will for the reasons listed above. I don't want a product that combines the limitations of both film and digital with the advantages of neither.


As to the "cost of sensors" argument, there seems to be some confusion as to what makes a digital camera digital. The CMOS sensor is actually an analogue device. There's a whole slew of electronics involved for converting this analogue information into a digital format, and then making an actual picture out of it. "Just the sensor" is only a tiny part of cost equation.

We were talking about the possibility of something like the efilm making into production. It would be an option for vintage cameras including the Contax S, Pentax AP, K etc as well. That was the point. The technical challenges are a given and no one disputed that.

[GoremanX]

Ok, I see I'll have to get REAL creative with the way I quote, because you break all convention and make it impossible to reply point-by-point.

Slang that makes you sound like punk

(I'm guessing about what size/color/style you used, but that looks about right.)

Do you hate that devil music known as Rock n' Roll, too? Who the heck takes issue with the word "dude"? That's quite amusing.

It was the timing and the attitude with which you used it. It would be like someoe suddenly going Mr. GoremanX . . . out of left field if they were laying into you in a serious way in the south.

I'm sorry, next time I'll add <attitude> tags throughout my text so you don't ascribe non-existant attitudes to my vocabulary.

<super confused look on my face>

Seriously, instead of assuming someone is laying into you, assume instead that they're being jovial and friendly. It'll make your whole forum reading experience a lot less bitter.

<fatherly look while giving wise advice>

And by the way, that "in the south" thing is BS. I've got tons of friends in TN, GA, NV and FL that I hang out with regularly on biking trips. They all use the word "dude" in their vocabulary without any special meaning attached.

<wagging my index finger at you>

Its also annoying when someone is being overly sarcastic in an exchange kind of like writing in bold in the quote.

erm... I'm not sure if you're being super-ironic here, or if you really don't know how hypocritical that sounds. You're writing in bold in my quotes...

<confused all over again>

How do you carry on a daily conversation without blowing a gasket, anyways? Sarcasm is ever-present throughout society. Some call it the most evolved form of the English language. I think that's meant to be sarcastic, though.

<amused at my own wit>

It was in reference to the time warp comment, again it comes down to reading comprehension.

Ah yes, that's much better than sarcasm. Just flat out accuse me of having a lack of reading comprehension just because I disagree with you. You'd make an awesome politician.

<no, seriously, I mean that as it's typed>

We were talking about the possibility of something like the efilm making into production. It would be an option for vintage cameras including the Contax S, Pentax AP, K etc as well. That was the point. The technical challenges are a given and no one disputed that.

That's great. So great in fact that I participated in the discussion. I'm so sorry I interrupted your pristine conversation with my opposing viewpoint. Seriously, how dare I take part in your special thread in this public forum? What was I thinking? I saw someone's post, agreed with it, and suddenly this turned into a flamewar.

I think maybe you're a little paranoid.

<handing you a foil pyramid hat>

Lighten up a little. Opposing viewpoints are healthy!

edit: I shall quote ONCE AGAIN from the very subject of this thread; why are there no digital backs for 35mm cameras?

It doesn't matter if the discussion moved on to efilm or tea cups, the thread topic is a QUESTION! "why are there no...?" I was simply attempting to answer that question with real facts. I'm sorry if I've dashed all your dreams of turning your film cameras into digital ones.

[alohadave]

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.

The people who are likely to have old film cartridges lying around are either not shooting anymore, or average people who have moved on to digital P&S cameras or cell phones. Any serious film photographer knows where to process film.

There is no real market for something like this. Maybe in 2000-2002 before digital took hold in a real way but not now.

[Blue]

"What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate"

"Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."

[GoremanX]

There is no real market for something like this. Maybe in 2000-2002 before digital took hold in a real way but not now.

uh oh... someone else disagrees with this thread

"What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate"

"Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."

Why is that in bold? Are you shouting movie quotes at me?!?

Ever see "The Big Lebowski"? You'd hate it, the word "dude" is used in it almost constantly

[lithos]

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

Of course it was, you fool! They'd been in a coma since the mid-seventies...

Mostly, it's probably scaling the construction. A decent digital back for a 35mm SLR would probably be only a bit smaller than one for an MF camera. You've got to fit in batteries, processor, RAM, memory slots, LCD, buttons...and, of course, the sensor.

It works with MF cameras because, hell, most of 'em were born with interchangeable backs anyway, and portability is less important with them.

[séamuis]

The people who are likely to have old film cartridges lying around are either not shooting anymore, or average people who have moved on to digital P&S cameras or cell phones. Any serious film photographer knows where to process film.

There is no real market for something like this. Maybe in 2000-2002 before digital took hold in a real way but not now.

wrong assumption. I have several thousand dollars worth of digital equipment AND a fridge full film. im not a "serious film photographer" what is that? like the all too often used "pro"? its about the convenience of digital capture with the enjoyment of using the type of camera that one prefers. those of you with opposing viewpoints are not looking at it from the correct angle. this isnat about improvement, or being a "serious" photographer. its about a product that allows a person to have the option of both film and digital capture in an older camera. its a recreational product geared more towards hobby photography, not someone looking to use a nikon F4 in place of a D3 but retain digital capture. (not that it wouldn't be a possibility)

I mean lets really think about this.. how many people right here on the forum have made comments or created wish lists about a camera that is essentially like their film cameras in terms of ease of use and simplicity? digital LX's, digital MX's, digital ME Supers, digital Spotmatics, etc. those people who would love a simple film camera type of digital in a small form factor with minimal modern "advancements" such as no LCD. it gets met with confusion and more often than not extreme negativity by those with thousands in modern digital bodies and lenses playing "pro" but search the forums and you will see that there are people that are looking for such a thing, and it isnt just in the pentax camp.

the target cameras here are likely to be mostly from the 80's and back. I believe there is a market. how many of the people that have by your assumption "moved to a P&S" would pick that film camera back up if they could get a technology like "eFilm" and go back to enjoying photography how they always have, without having to spend several thousand dollars on modern equipment or continue to pay for film purchase and development? I am a freelace photojournalist myself, and although I mostly due small stuff here in Savannah I have been published with photos taken on rather old film equipment. and to have something like "eFilm" would be a great thing for me. and I know im not the only person who would like it. im aware that it would likely be a small market, but to say there would be no market is just asinine to be honest, and there is know way for you to really know that the market doesnt exist when the product in question at current also doesnt exist.

[séamuis]

Of course it was, you fool! They'd been in a coma since the mid-seventies...

Mostly, it's probably scaling the construction. A decent digital back for a 35mm SLR would probably be only a bit smaller than one for an MF camera. You've got to fit in batteries, processor, RAM, memory slots, LCD, buttons...and, of course, the sensor.

It works with MF cameras because, hell, most of 'em were born with interchangeable backs anyway, and portability is less important with them.

I cant really comment on a back, but the "eFilm" type of system would require no LCD. and with my thoughts, will only require a button for ISO adjustment. it fits inside the camera in place of the film.

I cant speak for everyone else, but what I am talking about IS NOT a digital back to turn my old film camera into a modern digital. if I wanted that I would use my modern digital(s). its a concept that simply allows the convenience of digital capture in place of film. what the thread OP had in mind when asking his question though I dont know.

[Asahiflex]

I cant really comment on a back, but the "eFilm" type of system would require no LCD. and with my thoughts, will only require a button for ISO adjustment. it fits inside the camera in place of the film.

I cant speak for everyone else, but what I am talking about IS NOT a digital back to turn my old film camera into a modern digital. if I wanted that I would use my modern digital(s). its a concept that simply allows the convenience of digital capture in place of film. what the thread OP had in mind when asking his question though I dont know.

Still I think a digital back would be the best option. Why? Because it makes the electronics so much more simple and... the back of for instance the ME-Super is interchangeable (for the Data backs). The ME-Super already has contacts on the bottom for the winder, so this could be used for a simple form of communication between the digital back and the camera. That's all. Such a back could also have a LCD display built in.

Now on to the good part. The Chinese seem to be avid photographers; they like old glass and old cameras (at least that's my impression selling stuff on eBay, more than 50% of my items are sold to China). I'm sure that they will, when FF sensors are much more commonplace than today, create such a solution for us old camera lovers. 99% Of all camera adapters is already made in China and the knowledge is there, so I don't see why this couldn't happen.

A true filmcartridge-only solution would be much harder to produce due to the many differences between film chambers and the distance from the film chamber to the shutter opening.

[Egg Salad]

I cant really comment on a back, but the "eFilm" type of system would require no LCD. and with my thoughts, will only require a button for ISO adjustment. it fits inside the camera in place of the film.

I cant speak for everyone else, but what I am talking about IS NOT a digital back to turn my old film camera into a modern digital. if I wanted that I would use my modern digital(s). its a concept that simply allows the convenience of digital capture in place of film. what the thread OP had in mind when asking his question though I dont know.

No, that sounds about right.

In my childish way I was thinking about exchanging the medium the picture is recorded with - nothing more. Maybe a swivel LCD not to spoil the original look but not necessarily. If it worked back then it should work even better now. Wasted pictures cost near to nothing with digital.

I still don't really see why this kind of digital thing would cost "thousands of dollars".

The conclusion I can draw now is that there is no real reason these things don't exist - I think the argument that there is no market is invaled. You can't say nobody buys it if it doesn't exist.
Show a prototype on some camera convention/show and see how it is accepted. If it does well, release pilot series. It will either work out or fail - but you can't say before.

What I didn't think of is the always ever lasting flame war the internet encourages.

[pingflood]

I can't believe people are STILL refering to "silicon film" as anything other than a scam. They kept dragging investors along for years while being "almost ready" to have something, and never produced anything tangible. There was no way they could've fit a sensor into the space they claim, and nobody ever put their hands on any actual product from them. The "prototypes" they showed were just molded plastic with nothing inside them. The tradeshow demo they did was a scam too, taking the same pictures with a digital camera earlier and then re-taking them with the fake "prototype".

Scam, scam, scam.

[Wheatfield]

I bet you are caught in a time warp arguing that 5 mp digital SLR are cost prohibitive and technologically impossible. The year, 1995.

No, but I am wondering why, if someone thinks they can make a buck off of it, why it has not been done.
The obvious answer is that it either cannot be done profitably or the technical problems inherent im making it work cannot be overcome, because if it could be, someone would have done it.
Silicon Film died on the drawing board and no one picked up the concept and ran with it.
Can you explain why?

[séamuis]

No, but I am wondering why, if someone thinks they can make a buck off of it, why it has not been done.
The obvious answer is that it either cannot be done profitably or the technical problems inherent im making it work cannot be overcome, because if it could be, someone would have done it.
Silicon Film died on the drawing board and no one picked up the concept and ran with it.
Can you explain why?

it didn't die on the drawing board. a working prototype was unveiled. in fact DPreview got their hands on it. if you do a search for "silicon film" you will see the high res photos of the last working prototype. that was nearly a decade ago. we have come quite a ways since then. I believe funding was pulled? or the company developing it went under. there is no evidence that I see that would point to the product itself not being technically feasible. why someone else hasn't run with it I don't know. maybe some patent issues? whatever the reason, I highly doubt it is simply due to being technically infeasible.

[pingflood]

Please share the information about this "working prototype".

It was nothing but a scam, the entire venture, and the company has now metamorphosed into trying to scam people with fuel additives under a different name.