Slashdot Mirror
Digital Photography for Standard Cameras?
NightWhistler asks: "I've been hearing stories for some time now about digital modules that can be used inside normal photo camera's as a sort of 'digital film', effectively turning a standard camera into a digital one. If they exist and performance is good, I would love to get my hands on one of those babies... ;-) Has anyone actually seen one of these, or perhaps have experience with them?" There may have been one company that did this, but I think they went out of business, recently. I've always thought this was a neat idea, but is there really a market for this kind of modification?
I'm not a serious photographer, but the ability to have full control over focus, aperture and exposure is important to me. I have found few digital cameras that will admit to being less intelligent than me in this regard, and none which allow (physical) aperture control.
I have done a fair amount of nature photography, especially birds. For a non-digital camera, aperture and film speed are critical. Optical magnification (as in a 2x or 4x converter, as opposed to a longer lense) is almost out of the question because each filter makes you lose 1 or 2 f-stops, which means a longer exposure and more chance of movement.
I have yet to find a digital camera which can adequately address this problem. They all use magnification filters instead of telephoto lenses so that they stay compact, and most only have digital compensation which they claim is aperture control.
A CCD which fits in place of a normal 35mm film would be a great way to get high quality photographs.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
I believe that what the poster is looking for is called a "digital camera back". Knowing that he should be able to find one that is suitable for him.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
With the cost of Digital SLR's comming down people seem to be opting for a new camera body to match thier lens collection.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.....my life is my own.
See also: Wired Story and Slashdot discussion thereof.
They're still at it. Their Web Site says it will be available soon (last updated Feb 14, 2002).
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
A pixel doesn't mean anything unless its providing useful imaging however, and a digital camera back such as this can provide many more useful pixels than a consumer model and also has a colour depth of 12 bits.
Compared to a consumer digital camera the CCD area on these are huge, which means that each pixel receives more light. The list price is $7995.00.
Here are a couple of links to reviews and Kodak's web site:
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
I've always thought this was a neat idea, but is there really a market for this kind of modification?
I wanted to buy one. I've been watching the Silicon Film company for some years now (at least 3 or 4, I think), since when they were called "ImageK" or somesuch. It's been frustrating that they can't deliver (they seem to be turning into the Moller Skycar of the digital camera world).
However, even if they were selling them today, I still wouldn't buy one yet. It's too slow (ISO 100 just doesn't cut it much of the time), and it doesn't use the full 35-mm frame. That is, the imaging area is only a little square in the middle of the frame (about as large as the typical focusing circle). I always thought that if they simply took that one sensor, and tiled it to fill the frame, they'd (a) have full-frame coverage, and (b) have serious uber-mega-pixel capability. I guess the electronics (or dies) simply didn't support that.
Also, it's hard to make something like this fit exactly within a film canister's volume (and the film's path). Sure, you can make the outside dimensions fit, but film is pretty darned thin, and I think that's where their plugin fails -- each camera's back "pressure plate" on the film varied enough that it's hard to make a "one size fits all" drop-in.
Also, a big advantage of dedicated digital cameras is having a viewscreen that you can use to review, zoom, delete, etc. And easily changed media. I'd written them, when they were still in early prototype stage, suggesting that they work out some kind of inductive pickup so you could transmit the image out of the camera and onto a thin screen / CF container velcroed to the back of the body. Dunno if they liked the idea, hated it, or found it unworkable. (or, more than likely, it never made it past the front lines).
Add to this the price tag (can't find one now -- at one time it was as high as $700). It's simply not an option, certainly not for casual hobbyists like me and most likely not for any serious photographers who'd most benefit from digital (especially, say, sports photographers).
As someone else has pointed out, the newer digital SLRs (designed from the ground up) are very good, and often take the full complement of their respective manufacturers' lenses. I recently saw the Canon SLR (last year's model, I think), and was blown away. It takes the same lenses as my Elan-II, and weighs about the same. It has the same interface as my pocket digital Elph (which I like a lot), but takes pictures at up to 800 speed (I think, it might have been up to 1/1600, even). Of course, it helps that it had VERY fast lenses attached. But it is definitely the best of both worlds, and newer models have improved resolution.
If they could make these with replacable imaging units (so you could swap in a better CCD when higher resolutions become available), then it'd be just about perfect.
So, yes, there is a market for drop-in replacements -- everyone with an SLR who wants to retain the control and flexibility of an SLR, and use their current lenses. But with major manufacturers making very good digital SLRs, the only remaining advantages are the ability to swap between film and digital with the same camera, as needed (which might be nice, but I'd rather carry two cameras and be able to switch on the fly), and the ability to upgrade the sensor (and considering that many people keep their $1000+ SLR bodies for *years*, this could be a significant advantage). Personally, I'm not sure it's worth it any more, especially if Canon and Nikon develop replacable imaging units.
Too bad. It was a very geeky-cool idea.
Nor am I terribly serious about photography, but my family and I do like our vacation slides. We used to use the Nikon FA for slides, and the FT2 for snapshots, but the latter has been waiting for a round tuit for too many years to get the light meter fixed. So the FA has been swapping between print and slide film, unconvenient at times.
In the medium run, I see moving the FA back to slides, and getting a digital for snapshots. That leaves me with a serious controllable camera when it really matters, and pre-selection on snapshots when that matters.
In the longer term, I don't know what we'll do. I have a small collection of Nikon mount lenses, though I guess they're all obsolete by any contemporary terms. Certainly predates autofocus. I wish someone would come up with a digital SLR back too, and upgradable CCDs would sure be a good idea, while they're at it.
But perhaps the SLR/prism viewer itself is obsolete, given that the CCD can deliver a preview image just fine. But the whole eyepiece viewing and control is certainly more precise than a mini-preview screen. Perhaps if they could deliver the image through an eyepiece and keep the better muscular control.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
These being the C-2000 series, C-3000, and C-4000.
All of them have a similar body that's somewhere halfway between an SLR and a rangefinder camera. It's not SLR, but it's *close* - I had similar requirements to you, and my dad's 2020 was the first digital I actually found to be sufficient. I have a 3000, it's wonderful.
It has MOST of what you ask, in the sub-$1000 price range. (Aperture control, shutter speed control, and film speed control, although instead of graininess, higher film speeds = noise.)
Going a bit farther, you have the option of the Olympus E-10, around $1200-1500, which is a full-blown SLR.
The only thing missing in your case is the lens issue.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
You can control all those things, I've played with some of them.
http://dcresource.com is a good site for this sort of information.
You won't get the good high quality Digital SLR's from your local computer shop, but a real photography store might have them.
Personally I just bought a Point and Shoot Fuji 2600.
In it self this is not a bad idea. However, the reason why there are very few actual products is the difference in format. The area of a film that is normally exposed to light is much larger than the chips used in digital camera's. A chip that would go in a conventional camera would of course be the same size and such chips are more expensive and (as far as I know) not available. Even if there are any such products, you are probably better off with a professional digital camera.
For the same reason the quality of digital camera's is lagging behind normal camera's. You can't just take the components of a normal camera and throw in a few chips. The lenses and other components all need to be adjusted to the new format. Develeping such components takes time and requires massive investment in R&D. The few good professional digicams that are available are very expensive.
Jilles
Two years ago, my boyfriend bought me a very nice digital camera for xmas. I used it a lot for year (sometimes driving him crazy, I'm afraid, with my "just hold on a minute because I want to get a picture of this" shenanigans) but eventually I discovered that I wanted more control than I was able to get with the digital camera. So this year for xmas, I bought myself a very nice rather high-end 35mm camera, and I'm really getting better at "photography." While the digital camera was really good for learning about framing and composition and such, I'm really not sure that I could have made this next step without a 35mm camera (and the experience with different kinds of film and lenses). I also discovered that scanning and photoshopping prints was an amazing process that really taught me about the "digital darkroom." Now I want a great digital camera very badly but I'm discovering that none of them match the film speeds and lenses available with the 35mm (except at the >$2000 level, which is a little out of my range right now, but considering how much I spent on the 35mm camera...). At any rate, I'd love a digital back for my "better" 35mm so I can use my lenses, but only if it also simulates ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 film. I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to pay, but I think it'd be a lot if it really did simulate the "analog experience."
The main difference between the cameras in each series is the resolution.
2000-series is 2.1 megapixels
3000-series is 3.3
4000-series is 4.something
Not too much major changes other than this, but there are minor benefits to higher-series cameras.
For example, the C-3000 adds sound capability and USB, which the 2000-series didn't have. It also has better "preserve featurs between poweroff" settings. The 2000-series had "Reset to factory" and "Don't change", the 3000 series added "Reset to custom settings"
Don't know what other than res the 4000 series adds, but for the sort of stuff you're looking for it's probably minor tweaks and higher res, just like the 3000s "major" differences were mainly gimmicks (although nice to have occasionally for general use)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The problem for you is that your cameras probably do not have interchangable backs. There are very few 35mm cameras that have interchangeable or digital backs; see this web page for an example that does. In the "professional" medium format (2inch x 3inch negative) and large format (4inch x 5inch negative) worlds, there are many cameras and digital backs available. Plan on investing, at a minimum, $10K to get started; some digital backs run $50K to $100K.
Last time I saw one of these it was uber expensive, almost the cost of a digital camera. Besides that, it would still have to convert digital to analog which is never as good as pure digital or pure analog, depending on the situation. Photograph in analog by all means, but stick with scanners to digitize it :)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
less battery requirements (can do weeks on a single lightweight battery; try THAT with digital!). more reliable. flash is better calibrated (my f100 body and the sb28 flash works WAY better than my d1 body and sb28dx flash).
and finally, scanning the negs directly (nikon ls2000, last years film scanner) produces closer to 10megapix. the best prosumer digitals are still half of that, at best. and not the color accuracy of film, yet, either.
digital is great. I love it. but purists will still use film and then scan it with a home scanner or a pro drum scanner.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
And, based on the digital back prices quoted above, this is still mucho cheaper than any digital option. I figure I can shoot a couple of thousand rolls of film and still be ahead.
If you have a medium format camera with interchangeable backs, they sell digital versions.
,6x7 etc) are much more expensive than 35 mm ones but were designed to take different backs. The larger size negative means more megapixels.
Medium format cameras (6x6
However those backs are very expensive.
As cameras become more computer like they seem to also to be coming more disposable
These cameras all offer FULL control:
- Canon G2, S30, S40, D30, D60
- Nikon 5000, 5700, D100, D1X, D1H
and the list goes on....
Send your film to a proper lab and you won't get the scratches and finger prints. Also have them put the negatives in proper archival quality sleeves. If you see finger prints on the negatives when they come to you complain loudly as that is damage. When printing it is nearly impossible to remove a fingerprint with out washing the negative. Whenever you get a negative wet the emulsion surface softens and is much more easily dammaged. Blow off dust with a clean air supply, never use your finger, and only use a very soft brush as a last resort. Also control dust in you film handling area. I'd strongly reccomend getting something like a HEPE filter from Target or Walmart and run it all the time in your film handling area. When handling the negatives, only touch the edges and never touch the surfaces. Clenliness is also a must. When I was working in the studio I would wash my hands a few times over the day to remove finger oils. We didn't use goves because of dust from the fibers. We'd also dust the counter a few times using a dust magnet type cloth. Usually between each set of negatives we worked with. The sequence was clean the light box area, find and dust off the negative storage box, then clean the hands and finally bring out the negatives and/or slides. Following those rules we only had to touch up one negative in two years. Either the film came scratched or the photo lab scratched it, we don't know which but when I unpacked it at the light box it was already scratched. We never had problems with dust specs.
1.) differing focal lengths
2.) synchronization of the film camera and digital camera's mechanisms
3.) form factor limitations fiting into existing cameras
4.) need to customize to many camera lines, leading to a lot of R&D
(disclaimer: I like film, the following is just an analogy, don't get religious over it). Digital film or digital camera backs are much building a mechanical horse to pull a wagon instead of building a car. There are a few situations where they seem to succeed. For example, I've seen Leaf digital backs put to great use in studio use, where many of the limitations can be easily worked around (ie, just use longer shutter or more light).
Hmmm, this is one of those, "Why didn't I think of that" moments. I think it's a great idea, and I'm surprised there aren't swarms of them flooding store shelves yet. Digital cameras are great, but they lack the personality of a standard camera, in the same way that a live music performance is usually better then the snazzy, mixed CD. This type of camera could be a solution. I hope someday they will be available to the general public (at a reasonable price). But what would you name it?
"Life exists in the universe only because the carbon atom possesses certain exceptional properties." -James Jeans