Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-17-2009, 09:03 AM   #46
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
In film era, I believe we replaced our SLR bodies less frequently. In digital era, we have been replacing our SLR bodies as well as lenses very frequently! :-( Promoting economy? ;-)
In the film era, to get more resolution or other different visual qualities (spectral response, etc), we buy some different film. Thus did Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji etc get rich. In the digital era, the camera IS the film; so for different visuals, we must buy some different (new) cameras. Thus do Canikonympax get rich.

The economically logically approach for photographers (not camera makers) would be to add a digital sensor to a film camera; cf Hasselblad. Back in Ye Olde Days, someone made a digital sensor assembly in the shape of a 35mm film canister with protruding plate (the sensor) but it wasn't that great and never caught on. Perhaps it would be more feasible now, but Canikonympax have no motivation to do so.

To expand the question of this thread: Do you expect to continue replacing cameras for as long as you live? At what price?

And: What are the economics of buying and processing lots of film, vs buying a new digicam? IOW, how many rolls of film would pay for your most recent digicam?

03-17-2009, 07:46 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Re: Digital Backs

Digital backs are not a viable option for smaller format DSLRs as it is too costly and bulky to make. Its not just a sensor but also with all the associated image processing and circuitries.

For MF or LF DSLRs, they are viable.

As for DSLR versus film, I bet we shoot much more than when we used film owing to the convenience. *Every* DSLR of mine should have its cost paid back already and management of photos is far more easy.

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
In the film era, to get more resolution or other different visual qualities (spectral response, etc), we buy some different film. Thus did Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji etc get rich. In the digital era, the camera IS the film; so for different visuals, we must buy some different (new) cameras. Thus do Canikonympax get rich.

The economically logically approach for photographers (not camera makers) would be to add a digital sensor to a film camera; cf Hasselblad. Back in Ye Olde Days, someone made a digital sensor assembly in the shape of a 35mm film canister with protruding plate (the sensor) but it wasn't that great and never caught on. Perhaps it would be more feasible now, but Canikonympax have no motivation to do so.

To expand the question of this thread: Do you expect to continue replacing cameras for as long as you live? At what price?

And: What are the economics of buying and processing lots of film, vs buying a new digicam? IOW, how many rolls of film would pay for your most recent digicam?
03-17-2009, 08:16 PM   #48
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Digital backs are not a viable option for smaller format DSLRs as it is too costly and bulky to make. Its not just a sensor but also with all the associated image processing and circuitries.
The complete package for a 35mm-format digital back would include cylinders to occupy the space of the film can and takeup roll, and the film-plane sensor itself. (A thin extension tube might be needed to maintain register distance.) We see many small PNS cams of comparable (or less) volume, also filled with battery, lens drive, etc. The electronics are quite compressible into such space. The 35mm SLR body would already contain its own batteries, drives, etc. The drawback of this digiback is, there's no room for controls. You might need a remote (plugged into the flash socket?) to change ISO, WB, etc. Anyway, size is not the limiting factor - major manufacturers just don't have the economic incentive to produce this, as it would devour their dSLR sales.

QuoteQuote:
As for DSLR versus film, I bet we shoot much more than when we used film owing to the convenience. *Every* DSLR of mine should have its cost paid back already and management of photos is far more easy.
Exactly, especially for non-professionals. If you're selling pictures, film is the least of expenses. The rest of us, living on less-than-infinite budgets, must consider carefully the costs of film and processing.
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!
camera, dslr, photography, poll
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What to replace my Samsung GX-20 with? theperception2008 Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 03-10-2010 03:36 PM
Can the FA 31 replace two lens? SylBer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 12-30-2009 05:47 PM
Replace 16-50 with primes? Crepusculum Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 10-12-2009 12:47 AM
K-7 replace K20d? or not? gemini Pentax DSLR Discussion 50 06-03-2009 04:30 AM
Would you replace a 16-45 with the 18-250? jmdeegan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 02-02-2008 07:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 AM. | 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