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?

Comments

Digital cameras offer little control

[Twylite]

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.

Re:Digital cameras offer little control

[RussGarrett]

With a good digital SLR, such as the EOS D-60 or the Nikon D1-X you can control at least all the settings available on a top-of-the range film SLR - such as ISO number, shutter speed, spot focus area, and so on. However, the digital bodies can be up to twice the price of the equivalent SLR, some as much as $7,000 or $8,000.

A digital SLR can certainly produce pictures equivalent to those produced by a film SLR, but they have the advantage that you can review the shots to see what you want to print before printing them.

Re:Digital cameras offer little control

[b_pretender]

Coolpix 885. $400.

I've been very happy with this camera. It offers *complete* control over things such as ISO, focus, f-stop, shutterspeed, Noise reduction, etc. in addition to many nice P&S settings.

My only complaint is that low-light pictures turn out reddish no matter how I adjust the settings. If you want a manual focus that you adjust by rotating a lens barrel, then you won't get that either. However, the compact body of the coolpix 885 makes up for a lack of manual focus barrel and you are still able to selectively focus in pictures such as: this macro shot

Digital camera backs

[Captain Pedantic]

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.

Obsolete concept

[NeonSpirit]

There was a company called Silicon Film which produced this. The disadvantage was that each unit was unique to the camera, i.e. no swaping between Nikon and Canon or even within Canon between models. DP review has an article from September last year that operations have been suspended.

With the cost of Digital SLR's comming down people seem to be opting for a new camera body to match thier lens collection.

Re:Obsolete concept

[Diamon]

Eek, not only that but it appears Silicon Film's (e) film was only rated at ISO 100 and was only suitable for 8"x10" prints or smaller. Talk about the worst of both worlds.

Vaporware

[Col. Klink (retired)]

The stories that you've been hearing have been vaporware. In fact, "digital film" has made Wired's Top 10 Vaporware lists twice.

See also: Wired Story and Slashdot discussion thereof.

6. Silicon Film's electronic film system: Last year, Silicon Film Technologies made our list for failing to deliver its intriguing "digital film" system, which purported to turn an ordinary camera into a digital one. The digital film, one year later, is still not available, to the chagrin of many readers.

They're still at it. Their Web Site says it will be available soon (last updated Feb 14, 2002).

Digital camera backs

[eXtro]

They're available, but they're very expensive. Kodak has the DCS line, which is an expensive option for expensive camera bodies, such as the Nikon F5 or medium/large format cameras. The Nikon F5 model has 6 million pixels which on the face of it is on par with a ~$1000.00 point and shoot digital camera.

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:

• DCS 760 experience
• DCS 760 review
• Kodak's information

I'd buy one...

[dschuetz]

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.

Olympus C-x000 series

[Andy Dodd]

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.

different format

[jilles]

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.

Sure, if you have $10000+

[shoppa]

The item you are looking for is known as a "digital back", and indeed it is a detector that sits on the film plane.

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.

Digital back makers

[shoppa]

A quick search turned up these makers of digital backs for cameras that take interchangable backs:

• Better Light. Prices range from $10000 to $20000.
• Fuji Film. See this distributor's page on one model. Prices run from $13000 up.
• Kodak Digital Camera backs. $12000 to $25000 range.
• Leaf digital backs. $10000 to $25000.
• Megavision. $25000.
• Phase One. $12000-$25000.

scanning film is still the best

[TheGratefulNet]

while I own a nikon d1 digital body and use it 99% of the time, for real critical things (like weddings) I still opt for film.

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.

Mostly for medium format cameras

[acomj]

If you have a medium format camera with interchangeable backs, they sell digital versions.

Medium format cameras (6x6 ,6x7 etc) are much more expensive than 35 mm ones but were designed to take different backs. The larger size negative means more megapixels.

However those backs are very expensive.

As cameras become more computer like they seem to also to be coming more disposable