A digital back - but is it really what serious film camera fans want?

pathdoc · 09-21-2018, 01:03 PM - **2 Likes**

I'm Back's Digital Backs for Old 35mm Cameras Are Now In Production

There is a model compatible with the Spotmatic.

Supposedly coming to Photokina.

To me, it seems the inventor has missed the point. We want a digital back or insert with which we will use the original camera controls (ALL of them), and which does not substantially increase the size of the camera.

This is one small step, I guess, and it seems at least to be one step ahead of ihagee etc's vaporware.

**twilhelm** · 09-21-2018, 01:09 PM - **2 Likes**

They missed the mark, by about 18 years I’d say. From the looks of the prototype, it’s nearly impossible to use the viewfinder properly.

I’ll keep my film cameras shooting film...

**Kevin B123** · 09-21-2018, 01:22 PM

Just why?. Save up and get a K-1 and be done with it.
The comments section is just hilarious

victormeldrew · 09-21-2018, 01:27 PM

Surely the point of film cameras is...the film? In what way is a periscope feeding a mediocre sensor in the ugliest device in the world better than scanning film?
If it kept the look of the body, I can see wannabe hipsters liking it...but proper hipsters want to use film. And proper photographers want film cameras to use film... Amateurs mostly just want a capable digital.

Who is it for??

automorphism · 09-21-2018, 01:33 PM

The image quality is pretty bad. It could still produce interesting images for sure, but if you want that "look" you can always add grain and bad IQ in post. It looks like it would be a very frustrating camera to use. Seems like just shooting film would be easier, and you'd get better quality.

**pepperberry farm** · 09-21-2018, 01:44 PM

... for channeling my inner Instamatic, perhaps?

pschlute · 09-21-2018, 01:47 PM

Reminds me a bit of the old Polaroid film backs for the Hasselblad cameras.

normhead · 09-21-2018, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by pschlute

Reminds me a bit of the old Polaroid film backs for the Hasselblad cameras.

They area bit better than that, but getting correct focus is definitely an issue. I have a Program Plus and an ME, so, no decisions to be made here.

**Kerrowdown** · 09-21-2018, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by normhead

decisions to be made here

Nor here... no LX coverage.

**ChrisPlatt** · 09-21-2018, 02:49 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by automorphism

The image quality is pretty bad.

If this is the best it can achieve look for them to be closed out in the Lomography shop.

Chris

DeadJohn · 09-21-2018, 02:56 PM

It's a contender for worst photo product of 2018.

Atrocious image quality. My Canon Powershot from 2010 gave far better results. It's not just grain, everything is blurred.

Awkward ergonomics. Bad user interface. Ugly. Not at all what people who want digital or film want. It's a product made for people who don't look before buying.

$205 isn't a fortune, but the Canon S95 I mentioned above can be bought on Ebay for $60.

**clickclick** · 09-21-2018, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

no LX coverage

and that would be a good thing

**twilhelm** · 09-21-2018, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by clickclick

and that would be a good thing

I agree. Please don’t cannibalize any LXs.

Wild Mark · 09-21-2018, 05:47 PM

I love the concept, really do, but hate the application. Surely it is possible to do much better than this. Surely basic functionality could be crammed into the space available in the film canister with sensor placed over the film backing plate. Really terrible job of it I have to say.

pakinjapan · 09-21-2018, 06:47 PM

if I were a film guy, I would stick with film, If I want a digital camera to use with my legacy lenses without hurt my wallet ... I would just buy a K5. it is still a great body.

09-21-2018, 01:03 PM - 2 Likes	#1
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	A digital back - but is it really what serious film camera fans want? I'm Back's Digital Backs for Old 35mm Cameras Are Now In Production There is a model compatible with the Spotmatic. Supposedly coming to Photokina. To me, it seems the inventor has missed the point. We want a digital back or insert with which we will use the original camera controls (ALL of them), and which does not substantially increase the size of the camera. This is one small step, I guess, and it seems at least to be one step ahead of ihagee etc's vaporware.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pets when you're trying to stay awake , but can't, but you want to....	cmohr	Post Your Photos!	5	07-20-2018 09:01 AM
Digital photography for film fans?	ChrisPlatt	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	14	02-24-2017 09:07 PM
ND Filters: I know what I want to do, but not what filter I want	applejax	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	7	03-17-2016 09:11 AM
People Alina - Film & Digital (but mostly film) and a cautionary tale	alan_smithee_photos	Post Your Photos!	9	01-23-2015 05:45 PM
SD card quality are they really that serious???	josh_smith77073	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	38	01-05-2014 05:23 PM

09-21-2018, 01:09 PM - 2 Likes	#2
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	They missed the mark, by about 18 years I’d say. From the looks of the prototype, it’s nearly impossible to use the viewfinder properly. I’ll keep my film cameras shooting film...

09-21-2018, 01:22 PM	#3
Kevin B123 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,176	Just why?. Save up and get a K-1 and be done with it. The comments section is just hilarious

09-21-2018, 01:27 PM	#4
victormeldrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: South West UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,493	Surely the point of film cameras is...the film? In what way is a periscope feeding a mediocre sensor in the ugliest device in the world better than scanning film? If it kept the look of the body, I can see wannabe hipsters liking it...but proper hipsters want to use film. And proper photographers want film cameras to use film... Amateurs mostly just want a capable digital. Who is it for??

09-21-2018, 01:33 PM	#5
automorphism Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 791	The image quality is pretty bad. It could still produce interesting images for sure, but if you want that "look" you can always add grain and bad IQ in post. It looks like it would be a very frustrating camera to use. Seems like just shooting film would be easier, and you'd get better quality.

09-21-2018, 01:44 PM	#6
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,679	... for channeling my inner Instamatic, perhaps?

09-21-2018, 01:47 PM	#7
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,202	Reminds me a bit of the old Polaroid film backs for the Hasselblad cameras.

09-21-2018, 02:28 PM	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pschlute Reminds me a bit of the old Polaroid film backs for the Hasselblad cameras. They area bit better than that, but getting correct focus is definitely an issue. I have a Program Plus and an ME, so, no decisions to be made here.

09-21-2018, 02:37 PM	#9
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,819	Originally posted by normhead decisions to be made here Nor here... no LX coverage.

09-21-2018, 02:49 PM - 1 Like	#10
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	Originally posted by automorphism The image quality is pretty bad. If this is the best it can achieve look for them to be closed out in the Lomography shop. Chris

09-21-2018, 02:56 PM	#11
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	It's a contender for worst photo product of 2018. Atrocious image quality. My Canon Powershot from 2010 gave far better results. It's not just grain, everything is blurred. Awkward ergonomics. Bad user interface. Ugly. Not at all what people who want digital or film want. It's a product made for people who don't look before buying. $205 isn't a fortune, but the Canon S95 I mentioned above can be bought on Ebay for $60.

09-21-2018, 02:59 PM	#12
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	Originally posted by Kerrowdown no LX coverage and that would be a good thing

09-21-2018, 03:13 PM	#13
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	Originally posted by clickclick and that would be a good thing I agree. Please don’t cannibalize any LXs.

09-21-2018, 05:47 PM	#14
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	I love the concept, really do, but hate the application. Surely it is possible to do much better than this. Surely basic functionality could be crammed into the space available in the film canister with sensor placed over the film backing plate. Really terrible job of it I have to say.

09-21-2018, 06:47 PM	#15
pakinjapan Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,041	if I were a film guy, I would stick with film, If I want a digital camera to use with my legacy lenses without hurt my wallet ... I would just buy a K5. it is still a great body.