Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2018, 07:15 AM   #16
Pentaxian
timw4mail's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Driving a Mirage
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,670
QuoteOriginally posted by tibbitts Quote
I had several film bodies from several brands, including an SP-F. I find digital bodies better in every way except for the viewfinder, which I can't use for manual focusing - but I only have APS, not full frame digital. There was a mechanical appeal to older bodies that new cameras can't or don't seem to replicate, but in terms of functionality, newer is vastly better, and virtually nobody would sacrifice the functionality for mechanical appeal. The older bodies didn't have the number of input devices necessary for digital.
That sure doesn't explain the lasting appeal of the K1000.

01-06-2018, 05:05 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,872
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
I still maintain that it is not possible to:
1) Put a digital sensor in the same space the film plane occupied on a existing film camera
You don't have to do that. I would accept a thicker digital back even if the OP would not.

QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
2) Connect the analog controls of a film camera to a digital back
You don't have to do that. It does not have to be all automatic, as people assume these days. The digital back could have its own ISO setting knob, and you would then set the one on the camera to be the same for metering purposes. Clearly you could not use the off-the-film exposure control of the LX etc, for those you would need to use manual mode in the camera

QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
3) Include both the electronics and any meaningful size battery in the space currently occupied by the film canister.
You don't have to squeeze that stuff into the canister space. You could put it in a grip.

I think the point is that there would only be a tiny and diminishing market for such a device.

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 01-06-2018 at 05:08 PM. Reason: Minor rewording
01-06-2018, 05:43 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
I think the point is that there would only be a tiny and diminishing market for such a device.
I'm certain we agree on that.
01-06-2018, 06:56 PM   #19
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,104
There's a long an ignominious history to these things:

SILICON FILM TECHNOLOGIES : Working prototype apparently but it had a tiny 1.2 MPix sensor with a crop factor of 2.85.
PSEUDO Film Canister plans to succeed where others failed, bringing digital sensors to 35mm bodies - DIY Photography : Vapourware
RE-35 | Digital cartridges for analog 35-mm cameras : a hoax
'I'm Back' is a New Digital Back for Old 35mm Cameras : Seems to work but it's huge and only works as a video camera with the film camera in the bulb setting

As Jatrax noted the technical problems are:

1. The photosensitive part of a digital sensor sits behind glass making the register distance longer. That means no infinity focus and the focusing screen is way off unless you mill down the camera's film gate and relocate the shutter.

2. The sensor electronics have no way to know the user has hit the button unless you disassemble the film camera and install the needed contacts to detect a shutter press.

3. Tiny batteries inside an electronics-packed canister simply don't have the power to run a decently large sensor.

01-06-2018, 07:02 PM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,457
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
There's a long an ignominious history to these things:

SILICON FILM TECHNOLOGIES : Working prototype apparently but it had a tiny 1.2 MPix sensor with a crop factor of 2.85.
Silicon Film never actually showed a working prototype. They simply claimed to have a working prototype. And that was years after the original announcement.
01-06-2018, 08:12 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,701
Just get a Sony A7 and a good K mount adapter.
Its the closest thing to a ME super in size (nowhere near the build).
Shoots close to one too as all you need to do is to use Av mode and select the aperture via the lens ring.
01-07-2018, 12:47 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Kombivan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 576
If it was done and you had to chose one camera it would have to be the MZ_5 or zx-5 but you wouldn't have to because an adapter could fit all models. especially if it was cut into the back of your camera door.

As for shutter an extra shutter button could be glued to the existing shutter button wiith wirers connected to the sensor - one problem solved and in the case of the mz-5 will make the shutter button taller which is needed anyway.


Last edited by Kombivan; 01-07-2018 at 12:58 AM.
01-07-2018, 03:00 AM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
We are imagining this as our favorite film camera with a SiliconFilm canister inside... but it would be a Kodak DCS420.
01-07-2018, 04:54 AM - 1 Like   #24
Pentaxian
Lord Lucan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: South Wales
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,872
@photoptimist - some interesting links and good points there :-

The Silicon Film Technologies page says "connect to your PC or Mac for instant viewing, electronic storage ...[etc]"

That shakes my confidence straight away if they regard that as an achievement to be fan-fared as their a second bullet point rather than just a mention in the detailed spec - it really should go without saying.

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
1. The photosensitive part of a digital sensor sits behind glass making the register distance longer.
I admit I was not aware of the glass thickness issue. You could however make a slightly smaller sensor (say APS-C size) that projcted forward a little in the film gate to get the correct register distance.

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
2. The sensor electronics have no way to know the user has hit the button.
Again, I was unaware that a DSLR sensor was switched on (and off again?) as the shot was taken; I had assumed it was on all the time that the camera was (like film was always sensitive), otherwise what does the physical shutter do? Anyway, that being the case, how about using the flash sync socket on the camera body with a lead to tell the digital back when the mechanical shutter was fired? Or even put the shutter release on the digital back with a cable release going to the camera's shutter button?

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
3. Tiny batteries inside an electronics-packed canister simply don't have the power to run a decently large sensor.
I think that getting a digital back into the envelope an existing film camera body is an even more pointless challenge than making a digital back for it at all. It used to be considered cool to carry a film camera with a massive motor drive attached, even if you did not need it. Now the hipsters are demanding that the minimal envelope is maintained even if there were a real need to exceed it!

I am not advocating a digital back for film cameras; it is just interesting to speculate how it might be done.
01-07-2018, 09:29 AM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,104
QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
@photoptimist - some interesting links and good points there :-

The Silicon Film Technologies page says "connect to your PC or Mac for instant viewing, electronic storage ...[etc]"

That shakes my confidence straight away if they regard that as an achievement to be fan-fared as their a second bullet point rather than just a mention in the detailed spec - it really should go without saying.
LOL! Well it was the year 2000 and I notice that the page with their demo video has a version of the video optimized for 28.8 kbits/sec modems!


QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
I admit I was not aware of the glass thickness issue. You could however make a slightly smaller sensor (say APS-C size) that projcted forward a little in the film gate to get the correct register distance.
The "small protruding sensor" design seems to be what Silicon Film Technologies did. Whether that protruding sensor would hit the flying shutter curtain or blades is another matter. There's not a lot of room in the film gate.

QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
Again, I was unaware that a DSLR sensor was switched on (and off again?) as the shot was taken; I had assumed it was on all the time that the camera was (like film was always sensitive), otherwise what does the physical shutter do? Anyway, that being the case, how about using the flash sync socket on the camera body with a lead to tell the digital back when the mechanical shutter was fired? Or even put the shutter release on the digital back with a cable release going to the camera's shutter button?
The difference in battery life between mirrorless and DSLR is partially due to this issue. A DSLR sensor can be off almost all of the time up until just before the moment of exposure (that also keeps the DSLR's sensor cooler which reduces image noise relative to "always on" mirrorless camera sensors).

When the user hits the shutter button on a DSLR, the camera turns on the sensor and prepares it to take an image. But to get a clean image, the camera must reset the sensor to clear any electrical charge that's sitting in the pixels. All that must happen AFTER the shutter button press but BEFORE the shutter opens. Your cable release design would certainly work.

Unfortunately, the standard flash sync comes too late in the chain of events (unless the digital cartridge only supports 1/1000 sec shutter speed or faster). Using FP-sync (assuming the camera has that) would work because that sync signal fires before the shutter opens to give FP-sync flash bulbs time to fire and get to full brightness.

A second minor issue is that a digital film cartridge has no way of knowing when the exposure is over. I'd imagine that the default setting would run the sensor for a bit more than a 1 second exposure to ensure that the sensor did not stop recording the scene before the shutter closed (assuming the film camera' shutter speeds are 1 second or faster). Supporting longer exposures might use a "bulb" mode setting for the film cartridge that requires a second button press somewhere to end the exposure.


QuoteOriginally posted by Lord Lucan Quote
I think that getting a digital back into the envelope an existing film camera body is an even more pointless challenge than making a digital back for it at all. It used to be considered cool to carry a film camera with a massive motor drive attached, even if you did not need it. Now the hipsters are demanding that the minimal envelope is maintained even if there were a real need to exceed it!

I am not advocating a digital back for film cameras; it is just interesting to speculate how it might be done.
I don't want this product either but do enjoy the weekend noodling to think about the possibilities. The only feature I miss from a film camera is the spot-metering system on the Olympus OM-4 that let you take multiple spot readings, showed those readings on a clever bar graph, and took the average. It was fantastic for metering the dynamic range of a scene and setting the exposure relative to the "whites" and "blacks" of the scene.
01-10-2018, 03:30 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Or even put the shutter release on the digital back with a cable release going to the camera's shutter button?
Hasselblad used a similar solution when their older 501 cameras were coupled to a Digital back. But there is one obvious problem - forget the cable, and the camera is basically an expensive swiss engineered brick.

Cameras that have a date back option - the timing signal for the date back could be exploited and used to trigger the circuits of a digital back, since date and time printing occurs at roughly at same time as film exposure.
01-17-2018, 01:40 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,206
Forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been hashed out but I haven't read the whole thread and I'm not going to for at least 8 hours. Here goes:

Honestly, I think it can be done - adding in digital components into a film body. It would require a near complete teardown of the camera with the exception of the front panel(s)/lens mount and pentaprism assembly except where needed to insert electronics. The rear panel would need replacing to allow room for the sensor and electronics. Pretty much the only thing that would remain from the original camera would be the front plate and lens mount. And maybe, maybe, the pentaprism/pentamirror assembly. Maybe.

So do I think it possible? Yes, everything is possible in the beginning. Do I think it's worth the expense and time? Well, if you're an electrical, mechanical and optical engineer that had their heart set on converting their old Pentax film body to digital, then go ahead but I think it's not worth it. That converted camera, while it may be nostalgic, wouldn't measure up to modern standards and it would've cost more to convert than it would to buy a brand new digital camera. If you want classic looking cameras, there are the Olympus OM-D series.

All this being said, I personally would love to be able to create such a film-to-digital conversion set but I have neither the technical expertise nor the time or money. Personally, I'd just buy an OM-D E-M5.
01-29-2018, 11:08 AM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,377
Yes, it is possible. No, it won't work well. Yes, it will be really expensive. Nobody will buy it.

All those medium format adaptations suffered from misalignments. Did you ever work with one of these cameras? Kodak DCS cameras had a swinging sensor inside - nothing really stable. Oh yes and how do you connect to the camera electronics... You can use medium format backs with lenses of almost any kind by adding an ALPA shutter module in between. System works very well, but the price is a little bit off from an ME Super. Same thing in 35mm format would still be very expensive.

In two years you may put a cell phone camera in your ME Super and call it digital, but it will have nothing to do with 35mm format or anything real.
01-30-2018, 12:17 AM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 459
I wonder how good the Leica system is, R8/R9 with digital back. Since this was a feature right from the start, one would expect superb results (apart from the megapixel number). If it wasnt for the money and another mount, I would try. Of course, this is not a system which can be usd with other cameras.
01-30-2018, 04:02 AM   #30
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by yucafrita Quote
I wonder how good the Leica system is, R8/R9 with digital back.
It wasn't great, the Kodak CCD used had a weird crop factor of 1.37. The Leica DMR also added a substantial amount of weight to the R8/R9 camera which made it less attractive than the Canon 1D MK IIN which had a similar form factor, and was lighter by about 900 grams, while offering a 1.3 crop factor and what many considered to be better ergonomics for a DSLR.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, camera, dslr, factor, love, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Retrofit PLM AF on older lenses bdery Product Suggestions and Feedback 5 02-10-2017 07:47 AM
Likelihood of a price drop for the K-70? mgvh Pentax K-70 & KF 10 11-11-2016 07:49 AM
Chance of K-5 to K-5II AA Filter Retrofit (or removal?) snake Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 50 08-12-2013 08:14 AM
How to make being falsely accused of being a paedophile pay ihasa General Talk 15 11-18-2012 02:29 PM
Likelihood of EVIL Pentax @ Photokina? lurchlarson Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 07-24-2010 12:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top