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?
Are you talking digital SLRs or digital P&S's? With a digital SLR you should pretty much be getting almost the same level of control as with a good ol' film camera.
With that respect I've heard Canon D-60 is really good.
--AP
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.
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