Digital Photography for Standard Cameras? 55
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?
Digital cameras offer little control (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
With that respect I've heard Canon D-60 is really good.
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:1)
-marius
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:1)
*thwap*
-marius
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:2, Informative)
You can review shots before you print using a film SLR, but it's not very convenient. (for example, just have films developed but not printed, which is usually quite cheap for negs, and use a film-scanner - the difference in price between a film SLR and digital SLR plus memory will buy a reasonable scanner and a lot of film - depends what you're after really).
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:1)
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:2, Informative)
One can do a search for Hasselblad 555ELD and Kodak DCS Pro Digital backs.
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:1)
I do remember seeing a writeup on a film canister shaped device that went in place of the regular 35mm film cartridge. It had a toung off of it that housed the CCD chip and positioned it in the regular film plane area. Main issue I see with it is the film plane area varies from camera to camera.
proper place for digital camera (Score:2)
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.
Olympus C-x000 series (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Oh, BTW... (Score:2)
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)
Re:Oh, BTW... (Score:1)
The upside to this camera is the lens which is higher quality then you find in most Digital cameras and the 10x optical zoom which is plenty. The downsides are the 2.1 megapixels and the size which is a bit big to lug around. I bought this because I like to take pictures at the Race Track so the 10x Optical Zoom and Shutter priority modes are required. YMMV you can test drive this camera at CompUSA. I found this to be the best compromise between my fully manual Minolta SR-101 SLR and the Canon D-60 which is $$$$$ expensive.
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:3, Informative)
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 [photo.net]
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:1)
They start somewhere around $30,000.
Re:Digital cameras offer little control (Score:1)
Digital camera backs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:1)
Obsolete concept (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obsolete concept (Score:2)
Silicon Film was one of the most infamous "vaporware" products... They presented their product every year (since 1998) on big photo-shows, including PMAs, but have never delivered the real product.
See, for example, Wired lists:
Vaporware 2000 [wired.com]
Vaporware 2001 [wired.com]
Vaporware (Score:5, Informative)
See also: Wired Story [wired.com] and Slashdot discussion thereof [slashdot.org].
They're still at it. Their Web Site [siliconfilm.com] says it will be available soon (last updated Feb 14, 2002).
Digital camera backs (Score:5, Informative)
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:
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:1)
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:2, Informative)
I had been browsing at 4 and the only comments I had seen were vaporware, digital lacks control, and obsolete concept. In the consumer market that may be the case, but in the professional market it is a different story. I have been looking into the Kodak DCS Pro Back 645 which is designed for the Mamiya and Contax 645 camera bodies. Take a look at
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/produ
This is not vaporware, an obsolete concept, nor does it lack control since it could be used with any of the existing lenses, extenders, bellows, etc. that are made for these cameras. It would seem the correct answer for the question posed is "Yes, it is possible to turn a standard camera into a digital camera and performance is good (ISO 100-400, 36 bit color, 16 megapixel sensor, etc.)." The only caveats are that it is made for professional high end equipment and it costs more than your car.
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:2)
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:1)
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:1)
So I did step two, which is to sit down with the client and tweak the file out to his specs, since he was willing to pay *now* for the 'expert eye'. I asked just out of curiosity about what he used, and he said a "4 MP Fuji"...acting as if the amount of megapixels was all that mattered.
It comes down to the quality of the CCD itself, which is why a 6 MP Nikon D100 costs 2300, and a consumer 6 MP camera costs maybe half that.
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:2)
There are interchangable backs for medium format cameras, but not 35mm.
Re:Digital camera backs (Score:2)
I'd buy one... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Camera information (Score:2)
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.
different format (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I'm moving backward: digital - analog (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm moving backward: digital - analog (Score:1)
I know of one person sarted on digital, progessing throgh point and shoot to SLR, and then purchased a medium format film camera as his confidence and ability has dramaticaly improved.
Also, no matter what you may have heard digital SLR's cannot produce large prints to the same quality as a 35mm frame.
Re:I'm moving backward: digital - analog (Score:2)
Re:I'm moving backward: digital - analog (Score:1)
If you're shooting weddings - you won't really need it.
AIK
Sure, if you have $10000+ (Score:3, Informative)
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 [horsemanusa.com]. 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 (Score:5, Informative)
scanning film is still the best (Score:4, Offtopic)
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.
Re:scanning film is still the best (Score:2)
you can only scan a strip of 6 at a time (unless you use a very expensive slide feeder).
and negs still get scratched and you need to pshop them (rubber stamp tool, etc) to remove the fingerprints and dust and scratches.
and the cost. its low but not zero. $2 for cheapie film and $2 for 'develop only, no prints' (what you have to tell the idiot labs that don't normally 'process only' since 99% of the people out there want prints).
oh, and you have to wait 20minutes or an hour to get the negs back.
finally, for you animal rights freaks out there, film uses animal 'stuff' (I think) in making the film. pure vegans (of which I'm definitely not) will never like using film.
Proper film handling is still a must. (Score:2)
Re:Proper film handling is still a must. (Score:2)
the cheap labs botch it up badly, but even the best labs don't do a 'scan quality' perfect job.
for blowups at poster size, you'll still need to clean things up digitally.
And still cheaper (Score:1)
Re:And still cheaper (Score:2)
I bought a used D1 body for $2.4k on ebay. I'm going to use the rest of my flash and lenses so lets not figure them into the cost.
calculation: how much film/processing would I need to buy to equal the buyback cost of the camera?
lets assume $4/roll for materials and develop-only. that means $2.4k / $4 = 600 rolls.
when I shoot amateur gigs (company parties, etc) its not unsual for me to shoot 10 rolls. yes, really. so how long will it take me to shoot 600 rolls? well, 60 gigs. (is my math still ok so far?)
that doesn't count practice shots, and when learning photog, its a good idea to shoot a lot of test frames and learn your equipment before important gigs. so lets assume that half of that is practice shots.
that's only 30 shoots, then. that's somewhere between 1 and 2 yrs for me, at my level. if you're a pro, you probably shoot at least 1 gig per week, probably a whole lot more. so that's less than a year.
oh, yes, gig != gigabyte. I'm using the other definition of gig.
Mostly for medium format cameras (Score:5, Informative)
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
There are several technical challanges (Score:1)
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).
Digital-Standard? No, maybe not..... (Score:1)