Digital Back For Film Cameras

KungPOW · 07-18-2010, 12:14 AM

When is it ok to start flaming people who drop this idea on the forum?

Its a stupid idea.

Thats me being kind.

Here is it done:

Canon AE-1 Digital mod rejuvenates classic SLR [Video] - SlashGear

Now, do you still want one?

alohadave · 07-18-2010, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by KungPOW

When is it ok to start flaming people who drop this idea on the forum?

Its a stupid idea.

Thats me being kind.

Here is it done:

Canon AE-1 Digital mod rejuvenates classic SLR [Video] - SlashGear

Now, do you still want one?

It would have been nice if they had some description of what they did. Not a bad looking mod.

**Kerrowdown** · 07-18-2010, 05:39 AM

Is this the only way to obtain an FF Pentax in the foreseeable future.

A digital LX, interchangeable viewfinders, screens, dust sealed etc, now there's a thought.

stevebrot · 07-18-2010, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by alohadave

It would have been nice if they had some description of what they did. Not a bad looking mod.

Nice looking, but the AE1 is just a shell with a P&S inside. Even the lens is fake. Canon never made a 10mm f/1.4 pancake (f/1.4!!!). Notice that there is no viewfinder.

Steve

clark · 07-18-2010, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Ira

May I ask:

Why?

So the 'uber cool' american apparel type photographers can get that 'vintage SLR' look, with all the advantages of digital...

Marc Sabatella · 07-18-2010, 09:16 AM

FWIW, I think the basic idea of a digital back is fabulous. Sure, most people would probably still choose a regular FF digital SLR over something converted in this fashion, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a market for a digital back.

Realistically, Pentax is a bit player in the DSLR world. They can barely hold their ground against Canon and Nikon in the consumer / "prosumer" world with APS-C cameras. Despite the constant clamoring from a few fo Pentax to produce a FF camera, I predict they'd compete against Canon & Nikon even *less* well in that market. They have what, a 3% share of the APS-c market? I'd predict 1% of the FF market - they just don't have the lens selection, accessory availability, dealer network, professional support, or anything else that would be required to compete in the FF market, and it rather surprises me that this isn't pointed out more often.

*However*, while Pentax might not be able to compete in the FF-regular-DSLR world, they'd probably *own* the FF-digital-back world. If they - or anyone, really - produced a digital back for the K1000 that was even remotely usable and was priced significantly less than an actual FF camera, I think it could do quite well. There are, after all, a *ton* of K1000's out there. And once the work was done of designing the thing, putting together variants for ME Super or other cameras would be simple enough.

Of course, it would also be easy enough to make such a back work with a Canon or Nikon film camera, but I think that even if someone did that, it would generate nothing but yawns and snickers. People who want an FF Canon or Nikon aren't likely to settle for that.

KungPOW · 07-18-2010, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Nice looking, but the AE1 is just a shell with a P&S inside. Even the lens is fake. Canon never made a 10mm f/1.4 pancake (f/1.4!!!). Notice that there is no viewfinder.

Steve

And it is exactly what the OP was going on about.

alohadave · 07-18-2010, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Nice looking, but the AE1 is just a shell with a P&S inside. Even the lens is fake. Canon never made a 10mm f/1.4 pancake (f/1.4!!!). Notice that there is no viewfinder.

Steve

Yeah, I noticed that the viewfinder was missing. I didn't realize that the whole thing is fake.

alohadave · 07-18-2010, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

*However*, while Pentax might not be able to compete in the FF-regular-DSLR world, they'd probably *own* the FF-digital-back world. If they - or anyone, really - produced a digital back for the K1000 that was even remotely usable and was priced significantly less than an actual FF camera, I think it could do quite well. There are, after all, a *ton* of K1000's out there. And once the workd was done of designing the thing, putting together variants for ME Super or other cameras would be simple enough.

I don't think that Pentax could do it. They are primarily an optics company. They'd need expertise from a real electronics vendor, and at that point, you'd be better off just contracting with them to make it to your specifications.

If it had been brought to market in 2001-02, or even as late as 2004, you'd have a viable market, but it's too little too late at this point.

Marc Sabatella · 07-18-2010, 04:44 PM

I guess I don't see why designing a digital back is harder than designing a whole digital camera. If Pentax can produce the K-7, why - from a technical perspective - could they not produce a digital back for the K1000?

On the other hand, I could certainly see them feeling it not worth their time, because as you say, it's probably too late for this to be a serious product. But I still a third party who did this - targetting the K1000 in particular - could have themselves a nice niche market all to themselves.

alohadave · 07-18-2010, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I guess I don't see why diesign a digital back is harder than designing a whole digital camera. If Pentax can produce the K-7, why - from a technical perspective - could they not produce a digital back for the K1000?

On the other hand, I could certainly see them feeling it not worth their time, because as you say, it's probably too late for this to be a serious product. But I still a third party who did this - targetting the K1000 in particular - could have themselves a nice niche market all to themselves.

You are right that it isn't inherently more difficult than a whole camera. I don't think it plays to their strengths though.

It would be a great niche market for someone inclined to do it, with the skills to do it.

stevebrot · 07-18-2010, 06:17 PM

Technical issues related to digital backs:

Coupling to camera shutter mechanism. This is the big one. The back needs some way to know when the shutter is open/closed in real time.
Overrides to body wind/shutter interlocks. This is not an issue with non-MD cameras but is a major issue for cameras with auto film load/wind/rewind.
Power...batteries are bulky and must be part of the back or have power provided via a tether.

Rather than attempting to retrofit old SLRs, I think a more fertile ground may be with a modular small format camera system similar to what is already available in the medium and large format world. Think of it this way:

Universal chassis
Interchangeable film/digital backs
Multiple power options
Body-based AF drive as optional module
Standards-based hardware/firmware interfaces

As technology improves, you update your back, not your camera. If you need AF, you attach the optional battery/motor grip. The lens mount would be non-proprietary. I have seen articles where this sort of thing has been done as proof of concept, but not with a commercial goal (e.g. Frankencamera platform).

We can dream, eh?

Steve

RioRico · 07-19-2010, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I have seen articles where this sort of thing has been done as proof of concept, but not with a commercial goal (e.g. Frankencamera platform).

Fascinating project. Wish them well. But I recall proposals and predictions of the last couple decades re: opensource / modular automotive units. In theory, a customer could design their own vehicle via menu: select a chassis, drivetrain, body, features etc, and the car is robot-built to your specifications, complete with performance parms etc. The manufactury would be completely generic, just plugging together the components you want from various sources. Somehow, carmakers didn't care much for this idea. And don't even mention modular homes...

Similarly, camera foundries won't rush to build generic modular photo parts. Yeah, a generic chassis that can take any desired sensor, screen, control module, etc would be great. But whose bottom line would be affected? Whose oxen would be gored? Whose technologies would have to be licensed to make this commercially viable? There's a major problem just with licensing and making a good set of lens mounts. A good modular system would accommodate all new and legacy lenses, just as PCs must handle bookoo legacy warez. This is a non-trivial exercise.

Blue · 07-19-2010, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Ira

May I ask:

Why?

Because.

Blue · 07-19-2010, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by KungPOW

When is it ok to start flaming people who drop this idea on the forum?

Its a stupid idea.

Thats me being kind.

Here is it done:

Canon AE-1 Digital mod rejuvenates classic SLR [Video] - SlashGear

Now, do you still want one?

The concept isn't stupid. Have you ever handled an SV or an AP body?

07-18-2010, 09:16 AM	#21
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	FWIW, I think the basic idea of a digital back is fabulous. Sure, most people would probably still choose a regular FF digital SLR over something converted in this fashion, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a market for a digital back. Realistically, Pentax is a bit player in the DSLR world. They can barely hold their ground against Canon and Nikon in the consumer / "prosumer" world with APS-C cameras. Despite the constant clamoring from a few fo Pentax to produce a FF camera, I predict they'd compete against Canon & Nikon even less well in that market. They have what, a 3% share of the APS-c market? I'd predict 1% of the FF market - they just don't have the lens selection, accessory availability, dealer network, professional support, or anything else that would be required to compete in the FF market, and it rather surprises me that this isn't pointed out more often. However, while Pentax might not be able to compete in the FF-regular-DSLR world, they'd probably own the FF-digital-back world. If they - or anyone, really - produced a digital back for the K1000 that was even remotely usable and was priced significantly less than an actual FF camera, I think it could do quite well. There are, after all, a ton of K1000's out there. And once the work was done of designing the thing, putting together variants for ME Super or other cameras would be simple enough. Of course, it would also be easy enough to make such a back work with a Canon or Nikon film camera, but I think that even if someone did that, it would generate nothing but yawns and snickers. People who want an FF Canon or Nikon aren't likely to settle for that. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-18-2010 at 04:42 PM.

07-18-2010, 04:44 PM	#25
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I guess I don't see why designing a digital back is harder than designing a whole digital camera. If Pentax can produce the K-7, why - from a technical perspective - could they not produce a digital back for the K1000? On the other hand, I could certainly see them feeling it not worth their time, because as you say, it's probably too late for this to be a serious product. But I still a third party who did this - targetting the K1000 in particular - could have themselves a nice niche market all to themselves. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 07-19-2010 at 09:39 AM.

07-18-2010, 06:17 PM	#27
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Technical issues related to digital backs: Coupling to camera shutter mechanism. This is the big one. The back needs some way to know when the shutter is open/closed in real time. Overrides to body wind/shutter interlocks. This is not an issue with non-MD cameras but is a major issue for cameras with auto film load/wind/rewind. Power...batteries are bulky and must be part of the back or have power provided via a tether. Rather than attempting to retrofit old SLRs, I think a more fertile ground may be with a modular small format camera system similar to what is already available in the medium and large format world. Think of it this way: Universal chassis Interchangeable film/digital backs Multiple power options Body-based AF drive as optional module Standards-based hardware/firmware interfaces As technology improves, you update your back, not your camera. If you need AF, you attach the optional battery/motor grip. The lens mount would be non-proprietary. I have seen articles where this sort of thing has been done as proof of concept, but not with a commercial goal (e.g. Frankencamera platform). We can dream, eh? Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC A 24mm f2.8 (A24/2.8) lens for Film or Digital SLR Cameras (Worldwi	C2H4	Sold Items	10	05-08-2010 09:10 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC K35/2 35mm f2 lens for Film/Digital SLR Cameras - Collecter's Item	C2H4	Sold Items	10	01-14-2010 09:12 PM
Can you use digital lenses on autofocus film cameras?	beagley	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	13	03-03-2009 03:59 AM

07-18-2010, 12:14 AM	#16
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	When is it ok to start flaming people who drop this idea on the forum? Its a stupid idea. Thats me being kind. Here is it done: Canon AE-1 Digital mod rejuvenates classic SLR [Video] - SlashGear Now, do you still want one?

07-18-2010, 05:34 AM	#17
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by KungPOW When is it ok to start flaming people who drop this idea on the forum? Its a stupid idea. Thats me being kind. Here is it done: Canon AE-1 Digital mod rejuvenates classic SLR [Video] - SlashGear Now, do you still want one? It would have been nice if they had some description of what they did. Not a bad looking mod.

07-18-2010, 05:39 AM	#18
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,860	Is this the only way to obtain an FF Pentax in the foreseeable future. A digital LX, interchangeable viewfinders, screens, dust sealed etc, now there's a thought.

07-18-2010, 08:53 AM	#19
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by alohadave It would have been nice if they had some description of what they did. Not a bad looking mod. Nice looking, but the AE1 is just a shell with a P&S inside. Even the lens is fake. Canon never made a 10mm f/1.4 pancake (f/1.4!!!). Notice that there is no viewfinder. Steve

07-18-2010, 09:00 AM	#20
clark Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 301	Originally posted by Ira May I ask: Why? So the 'uber cool' american apparel type photographers can get that 'vintage SLR' look, with all the advantages of digital...

07-18-2010, 10:20 AM	#22
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Originally posted by stevebrot Nice looking, but the AE1 is just a shell with a P&S inside. Even the lens is fake. Canon never made a 10mm f/1.4 pancake (f/1.4!!!). Notice that there is no viewfinder. Steve And it is exactly what the OP was going on about.

07-18-2010, 04:07 PM	#23
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by stevebrot Nice looking, but the AE1 is just a shell with a P&S inside. Even the lens is fake. Canon never made a 10mm f/1.4 pancake (f/1.4!!!). Notice that there is no viewfinder. Steve Yeah, I noticed that the viewfinder was missing. I didn't realize that the whole thing is fake.

07-18-2010, 04:13 PM	#24
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella However, while Pentax might not be able to compete in the FF-regular-DSLR world, they'd probably own the FF-digital-back world. If they - or anyone, really - produced a digital back for the K1000 that was even remotely usable and was priced significantly less than an actual FF camera, I think it could do quite well. There are, after all, a ton of K1000's out there. And once the workd was done of designing the thing, putting together variants for ME Super or other cameras would be simple enough. I don't think that Pentax could do it. They are primarily an optics company. They'd need expertise from a real electronics vendor, and at that point, you'd be better off just contracting with them to make it to your specifications. If it had been brought to market in 2001-02, or even as late as 2004, you'd have a viable market, but it's too little too late at this point.

07-18-2010, 06:06 PM	#26
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I guess I don't see why diesign a digital back is harder than designing a whole digital camera. If Pentax can produce the K-7, why - from a technical perspective - could they not produce a digital back for the K1000? On the other hand, I could certainly see them feeling it not worth their time, because as you say, it's probably too late for this to be a serious product. But I still a third party who did this - targetting the K1000 in particular - could have themselves a nice niche market all to themselves. You are right that it isn't inherently more difficult than a whole camera. I don't think it plays to their strengths though. It would be a great niche market for someone inclined to do it, with the skills to do it.

07-19-2010, 02:32 AM	#28
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by stevebrot I have seen articles where this sort of thing has been done as proof of concept, but not with a commercial goal (e.g. Frankencamera platform). Fascinating project. Wish them well. But I recall proposals and predictions of the last couple decades re: opensource / modular automotive units. In theory, a customer could design their own vehicle via menu: select a chassis, drivetrain, body, features etc, and the car is robot-built to your specifications, complete with performance parms etc. The manufactury would be completely generic, just plugging together the components you want from various sources. Somehow, carmakers didn't care much for this idea. And don't even mention modular homes... Similarly, camera foundries won't rush to build generic modular photo parts. Yeah, a generic chassis that can take any desired sensor, screen, control module, etc would be great. But whose bottom line would be affected? Whose oxen would be gored? Whose technologies would have to be licensed to make this commercially viable? There's a major problem just with licensing and making a good set of lens mounts. A good modular system would accommodate all new and legacy lenses, just as PCs must handle bookoo legacy warez. This is a non-trivial exercise.

07-19-2010, 10:37 AM	#29
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Ira May I ask: Why? Because.

07-19-2010, 10:38 AM	#30
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by KungPOW When is it ok to start flaming people who drop this idea on the forum? Its a stupid idea. Thats me being kind. Here is it done: Canon AE-1 Digital mod rejuvenates classic SLR [Video] - SlashGear Now, do you still want one? The concept isn't stupid. Have you ever handled an SV or an AP body?