Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Digital Photography for Standard Cameras? 55

Posted by Cliff from the cool-hacks dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Photography for Standard Cameras? More

Digital Photography for Standard Cameras?

Comments Filter:

  • Digital cameras offer little control (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Twylite ( 234238 ) <twylite&crypt,co,za> on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @07:17AM (#3936146) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.
      • 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.
        • Given that a set of lenses can cost a few thousand, that increase in cost isn't as big a deal as it might at first seem. For serious photographers, however, you need to think of SLRs or equivalent. I'm happy enough in the "hobby" category with my "point and click" camera; mebbe one day I'll be bothered to spend the money and get a "proper" camera and re-learn real photography (I did some back at school many, many years ago).
        • Since the D-60 (around $2200 for the body) came out, the second hand market for the D-30 must be a little better than it used to be and even without using Genuine Fractals or SI Pro you can still output to fairly decent sizes from the dpi it captures...

          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).

          • I get my film developed to CD... The quality of the scans is _not_ enough for a gallery-quality print, but it's only $7. Then I can pick out the ones I want to scan at high quality easily and also can email them, post them on sites, etc. I'm not going to sit and scan a whole roll of film. This way works well for me and is relatively cost effective.
    • There are numerous ones available for medium-format cameras (read Hasselblad, etc.). They typically are VERY expensive, and require all sorts of support equipment. I believe one of the major problems is to sync the shutter and the CCD, thus resulting in the high costs.

      One can do a search for Hasselblad 555ELD and Kodak DCS Pro Digital backs.

      • Actually shutter sync isn't the problem. Just stop draining the CCD cells, open shutter, close shutter, then read off. This assumes you are putting a CCD chip behind a regular camera body in place of the film.

        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.

    • Nor am I terribly serious about photography, but my family and I do like our vacation slides. We used to use the Nikon FA for slides, and the FT2 for snapshots, but the latter has been waiting for a round tuit for too many years to get the light meter fixed. So the FA has been swapping between print and slide film, unconvenient at times.

      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)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
      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.
      • The main difference between the cameras in each series is the resolution.

        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)
        • What you are looking for is a digital camera body. These are pretty expensive but you can get close with the right digital camera. You will sacrafice the ability to change lenses so make sure you get a nice builtin lens. I have an Olympus C-2100 and I'm very happy with it. With a 128M smart media card it will take about 256 pictures. It offers four modes:
          • Point & Shoot (P)
            Camera controls everything.
          • Apeture Priority (A)
            You set apeture Camera sets everything else.
          • Shutter priority (S)
            You set shutter speed camera sets everything else
          • Manual (M)
            You set everything.
          • Scene (S-Prg)
            Camera set all by the type of scene you choose.

          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.
    • 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 [photo.net]

    • You can get a digital back for a good camera. Say for your Hasselblad or your Nikon.

      They start somewhere around $30,000.
    • You are mis-informed. There are plenty of cameras on market in SLR format that provide full optical aperature, focal and shutter control.

  • Digital camera backs (Score:3, Informative)

    by Captain Pedantic ( 531610 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @07:38AM (#3936209) Homepage
    I believe that what the poster is looking for is called a "digital camera back". Knowing that he should be able to find one [google.com] that is suitable for him.
    • Did you check the prices on those? They run $10,000 or more. For that you can find a digital camera that does what he needs. I believe he's looking for something a little more reasonable in price.

  • Obsolete concept (Score:5, Informative)

    by NeonSpirit ( 530024 ) <mjhodge@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @07:40AM (#3936216) Homepage
    There was a company called Silicon Film [siliconfilm.com] 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 [dpreview.com] 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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Diamon ( 13013 )
      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.
    • No, the main disadvantage was that they have never really produced it :)

      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)

    by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @07:50AM (#3936234)
    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 [wired.com] and Slashdot discussion thereof [slashdot.org].

    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 [siliconfilm.com] says it will be available soon (last updated Feb 14, 2002).

  • Digital camera backs (Score:5, Informative)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @08:28AM (#3936350) Homepage
    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:
    • To address the editors "comment", there is a market for these camera backs, but its not consumers. These, or Nikon D1X or Canon D30's are being increasingly used for photography in advertising.

    • Re:Digital camera backs (Score:2, Informative)

      by sskiles ( 78374 )
      Moderators, please mod up this parent.

      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/produc ts/cameras/dcsProBack645/features.jhtml

      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.
    • more like on par with $10,000 6 megapixel cameras. Have you priced them and their proprietary lens sets lately?
      • I'm not saying that they're on par with consumer cameras. In fact I say that they're not. Lots of people think that the pixel count is everything, so they'll smugly contend that their 800 dollar Fuji digital camera smokes a Nikon D1X. So, from a pixel count perspective the cameras seem equivalent but from a pixel quality standpoint there is a tremendous difference.
        • I work in digital imaging. A client came in today and was not satisfied with the quality of a print I turned out from the company LightJet [cymbolic.com]. I don't tweak out files unless people pay retouching fees, so I took what he gave me on a CD, and merely dumped it into the queue.

          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.

    • This isn't completely true. The Kodak DCS line is a line of digital cameras built on standard film camera bodies. It's not an interchangable back.

      There are interchangable backs for medium format cameras, but not 35mm.
      • Yep! I was about to say this. Kodak's DCS line are just digital cameras based in SLR bodies. This is not what Silcon Film has been vaporizing. Silicon Film is a cool concept, but I think not having the LCD is a disadvantage. LCD's are great for seeing if you need to snap another pic quick because you screwed up the framing and cut someone's head off.

  • I'd buy one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dschuetz ( 10924 ) <.gro.tensad. .ta. .divad.> on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @08:34AM (#3936376)
    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.

  • You can control all those things, I've played with some of them.
    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)

    by jilles ( 20976 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @09:32AM (#3936634) Homepage
    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.
  • Two years ago, my boyfriend bought me a very nice digital camera for xmas. I used it a lot for year (sometimes driving him crazy, I'm afraid, with my "just hold on a minute because I want to get a picture of this" shenanigans) but eventually I discovered that I wanted more control than I was able to get with the digital camera. So this year for xmas, I bought myself a very nice rather high-end 35mm camera, and I'm really getting better at "photography." While the digital camera was really good for learning about framing and composition and such, I'm really not sure that I could have made this next step without a 35mm camera (and the experience with different kinds of film and lenses). I also discovered that scanning and photoshopping prints was an amazing process that really taught me about the "digital darkroom." Now I want a great digital camera very badly but I'm discovering that none of them match the film speeds and lenses available with the 35mm (except at the >$2000 level, which is a little out of my range right now, but considering how much I spent on the 35mm camera...). At any rate, I'd love a digital back for my "better" 35mm so I can use my lenses, but only if it also simulates ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 film. I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to pay, but I think it'd be a lot if it really did simulate the "analog experience."
    • There are probably better forms for discussing this DP review [dpreview.com] for example. However what I and a number of others have done is to learn with 35mm film to a certain extent, which entails expendature on lens, tripods, flash etc. Then the movement to a Digital SLR, whilst expensive, makes use of previous investments.

      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.

    • Going full SLR digital is also out of my price range for now. I'd really like to. I want to go back into profesional photography. Being able to capture perfect color ballance is a must as far as I'm concerned. With a digital camera that can capture color ballance off a white card this becomes easy. Color ballance was one area I found frustrating using regular film. The problem is it really requires using different films for differnt light sources and adjusting the color setting when making prints. Needing the different films causes one to need multiple film backs or camera bodies which raises costs. Sure you can use filters to reballance things but that is only a half measure and complicates the printing process. Also usually you can't control what the guy in the photo lab sets the color wheels on the enlarger to unless you go to a custom lab and that costs $$$. It is about $8,000-10,000 for the EOS camera setup I want to start out with. Going film only drops the price by a $1,000.
      • If you're looking to shoot many subjects effeceintly, let me tell you how to connect a barcode reader to the Canon EOS. It allows you to identify the Subject, Order Prints, and Keep Groups together. Its wireless, portable, and weighs 2oz.

        If you're shooting weddings - you won't really need it.

        AIK

  • Sure, if you have $10000+ (Score:3, Informative)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @12:00PM (#3937667)
    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 [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)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @12:16PM (#3937794)
    A quick search turned up these makers of digital backs for cameras that take interchangable backs:

  • scanning film is still the best (Score:4, Offtopic)

    by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @12:46PM (#3938017)
    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.

    • I should also mention that scanning negs is VERY time consuming.

      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.

      • Send your film to a proper lab and you won't get the scratches and finger prints. Also have them put the negatives in proper archival quality sleeves. If you see finger prints on the negatives when they come to you complain loudly as that is damage. When printing it is nearly impossible to remove a fingerprint with out washing the negative. Whenever you get a negative wet the emulsion surface softens and is much more easily dammaged. Blow off dust with a clean air supply, never use your finger, and only use a very soft brush as a last resort. Also control dust in you film handling area. I'd strongly reccomend getting something like a HEPE filter from Target or Walmart and run it all the time in your film handling area. When handling the negatives, only touch the edges and never touch the surfaces. Clenliness is also a must. When I was working in the studio I would wash my hands a few times over the day to remove finger oils. We didn't use goves because of dust from the fibers. We'd also dust the counter a few times using a dust magnet type cloth. Usually between each set of negatives we worked with. The sequence was clean the light box area, find and dust off the negative storage box, then clean the hands and finally bring out the negatives and/or slides. Following those rules we only had to touch up one negative in two years. Either the film came scratched or the photo lab scratched it, we don't know which but when I unpacked it at the light box it was already scratched. We never had problems with dust specs.
        • you'll ALWAYS get scratches. I'm talking about the ones that show up simply due to putting the film thru a process. just can't be avoided.

          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, based on the digital back prices quoted above, this is still mucho cheaper than any digital option. I figure I can shoot a couple of thousand rolls of film and still be ahead.
      • actually, no.

        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)

    by acomj ( 20611 ) on Tuesday July 23, 2002 @02:03PM (#3938626) Homepage
    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
  • 1.) differing focal lengths
    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).
  • Hmmm, this is one of those, "Why didn't I think of that" moments. I think it's a great idea, and I'm surprised there aren't swarms of them flooding store shelves yet. Digital cameras are great, but they lack the personality of a standard camera, in the same way that a live music performance is usually better then the snazzy, mixed CD. This type of camera could be a solution. I hope someday they will be available to the general public (at a reasonable price). But what would you name it?

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close