My dream full-frame camera.

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,216
Like?
Re: My dream full-frame camera.
In reply to Mark B., 8 months ago

Mark B. wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Osssis wrote:

So basically you need that waporware electronic film and you are good to go! or a digital back for old slr.

The problem with digital is that you can't get that superior battery-life if you use sensor that needs power. Unless you can generate enough electricity with that advancing lever ;)!

Actually digital back for a slr would be still pretty plausible to make if you had a certain model that you could make it and sell bucket loads of them. The market is probably too niche though for any practical use as it would require everyone to have that specific camera or them to get it. You would have to make it so that the the backplate is switched and batteries & electronics are in a different compartment. Preferably under the camera in vertical grip. Medium format backs seem to be too deep and give you a good example on much that digital back could cost. See Nikon The Hawkeye II for example.

If the cost was decent I would most certainly want one for Minolta 9000 as it has AF and advancing lever!

The problem with a 'digital back' is that you can't get the sensor up to the focal plane, unless you have a sub-size sensor which protrudes into the film gate (as in the Leica DM-R) - which negates the OP's 'dream FF camera') - your Nikon Hawkeye had a tiny sensor. Even then, there is no room for an AA filter (these days people seem willing to do without, for better or worse) or an effective IR block filter to clear the shutter - a problem which plagued the earlier digital Leicas. Then, of course the camera will still bulge at the back, because it needs a PCB for the electronics. In the end you get a clumsy package which will cost a packet, for what? Something much less functional than just buying a modern digital camera. It should be noted that the Leica, M8, M9 and M are not simply old M series with sensors, they are completely re-engineered cameras with zero commonality with film M series (apart from the VF system) - that amount of R&D expenditure for the small sales volume means they have to sell for $6k +.

Seeing all these 'ideal camera' threads, I costed out once to see if one could make a viable business converting classic film SLRs. It just doesn't make sense.

-- hide signature --

Bob

It didn't even make sense in the early days of digital. Google 'silicon film'; there was a firm that explored a digital sensor drop-in that replaced film. It never panned out.

The "Silicon film' was always a non starter, not far off a con, but the early digital SLRs were precisely film SLRs with digital backs. The SLR usually needed some modification, though, like removal of the film gate and of course they were very expensive. I think the D1 was the first designed for digital SLR unless you count the Contax N, which was a film camera designed with a digital version in mind (actually, the first FF DSLR). And of course the original Canon 1D was very much a modified 1V.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
yuckNew
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow