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.

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.

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

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