Why NOT modular?

[Trius]

OK, I admit to two caveats for this thread:

1. I'm very film-oriented and am waiting for the "perfect" dRF which may never be produced, and probably not by Leica since I consider price to be part of the consideration for judging "perfection"
2. This should be in a "Genearl dRF" forum, which doesn't exist ... so I put it here

I just finished reading Kirk Tuck's thoughts on the new Mamiya DL28, which costs about $15K with 80mm lens and Leaf 28MP back. One statement that caught my eye was:

Still a bit more money than a Canon 1DS mk3 or a Nikon D3x but maybe a much better investment in the long run. How could that be? Well, for starters the sensor industry isn’t standing still but none of the 35mm SLR style bodies are currently upgradable. That means a big breakthrough in sensor technology demands the purchase of yet another body. With the Mamiya system it means trading in the back and keeping the camera you know. It means being able to buy a back up body at a much lower price. And while DSLR’s keep improving so do the MFDC’s.​

I know that a modular/upgradeable back for a DSLR or DRF has been discussed before (maybe here) and some stated it was not really feasible.

BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHY ... :bang: I mean why technically ... what are the real, solid engineering reasons it "can't" be done. 35mm film bodies have long had interchangeable backs --- standard, Recordata (which had to have appropriate electrical contacts AFAIK), 250 exposure, Polaroid, etc. -- so what gives? The only difference I see is size of the body. All the rest seems to be marketing and bottom-line stuff, designed to suck money out of photographers. Fair enough, but don't try to fool me ... "Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me again and ..." aw heck, I can't say it nearly as well as W did.

 

[dirojas]

I am curious about this as well, I´d love to have a digital back for my Leica III.😀😀.

First is: can it be done from a technical point of view?, and then all the economic, marketing, and other reasons why it has not been done yet. I am interested.

 

[ferider]

Earl,

assume for a moment it's possible:

then you are looking at a body / back combo continuously updated with the most recent sensor technology. Which means the things that remain unchanged, are finder, shutter, and body shell. Maybe some basic body electronics for metering, shutter control, etc. But basically, what remains unchanged is real cheap, compared to what you upgrade.

For example, pick a Hasselblad 500 series body, and the most modern back. In that combo, only few percent of the investment is in the body, most would go into the back.

So when you upgrade, why not the entire camera, in particular if building it "as a whole", without supporting upgrades, makes building it cheaper ?

When you upgrade a PC, you typically replace the entire thing, not just components, right ? Because the box is real cheap compared to what you upgrade.

Not marketing, but basic value consideration, when offering new digital technology, I believe.

Roland.

 

[bmattock]

Leica has the Modul R, is that not what you are talking about?

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/02/leica-module-r-discontinued.html

As mentioned in the link above, it has been discontinued, but the idea was as you said.

The first Kodak digital SLR cameras were bolt-on backs for the Nikon and Canon pro film SLRs of the time, although Kodak did not intend for customers to do the bolting and unbolting themselves.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index.htm

So the idea has been tried, it just seems not to have really taken off.

EDIT: And there are all kinds of interchangeable digital backs for various medium format SLR cameras. Leaf, Aptus, Kodak, etc, etc.

 

[Trius]

Roland: I understand your argument regarding cost/value, but I don't necessarily buy it. Think about this: In the product development cycle, manufacturers build as many reusable components/modules as possible. I know this because when I worked at Xerox in the late 90s-early 2000s that was one of the big initiatives to help drive down development costs and be more competitive. I think the same is true with current manufacturers. Canon has enjoyed a large sales advantage over Nikon in the digital market for awhile, but now that Nikon is "back", you can bet Canon will look for any advantage.

And what about the next tier of players -- Pentax, Olympus, Fuji (OK, rebadged Nikon bodies), etc.? A new/interchangeable back could still make them a nice profit, and since the rest of the body would be inherently cheaper to manufacture, their net revenue would be enhanced, especially if the upgradability feature gained them increased market share, which I believe it would.

As for the size/thickness, I don't think that's a huge issue. Obese Canons and Nikons fly off the shelves, so an RF format camera with a slightly thicker body and repositioned VF would still be smaller than the oversized beasts. Are we forgetting the size advantage of micro 4/3s so soon? 😛 It's the elimination of the mirror that has lit the fires of some of us, not the sensor size. Scaling up a mirror-less camera like m4/3s, but with a larger sensor would not be that difficult.

As I stated in my OP, I wanted engineering reasons, not marketing. Nor financial. With the prices Canon, Nikon & Leica get for their "pro" bodies, the financial rationale means squat to me.

 

[ferider]

The difference between engineering and academia is that engineering includes cost & value in the design. 🙂 🙂

Technically, everything is possible. I'm an optimist, of course.

 

[monochromejrnl]

are you proposing that the modular back be user replaceable the way a MF digital back can be easily mounted by the user on a MF body?

 

[Trius]

Roland: I prefer to be an optimist too. Let's form a support group. 😀

Ken: Yes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Size. There's a LOT of electronic plumbing in a digital camera.

Design it as a unit (M8) it's still bigger than film (M7).

Design it as a module and it's a lot bigger than film or digi.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Trius]

Roger:

How much is "a lot"?

According to Moore's law, stuff keeps getting smaller. Why are Canon and Nikon not "obeying" this? How can they all make P&S (or, point and push, as Bill so aptly puts it) so small? It's not just the sensor size ...

 

[dirojas]

The examples from Kodak are from the beginning of digital photography. I would like to see the same idea done with today technology. Maybe a modular digital back for camera systems, like the Leica M for example. There is the space for the film roll at the sides of the sensor for electronics, the sensor module itself can thicker removing the back plate, and the bottom plate could be changed if more space is needed (like the M winder). I think it does not sound like sciece fiction on the technical side, at least for me (but I am not at the electronics field).

I think the idea was discarded when digital imaging was at a different development stage as today. My feeling is that now it would not be discarded as easy as they were. Costs of the expensive components are going down, and there is still a huge amount of film cameras and lenses on the closet because their owners went digital.

 

[bmattock]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02091903siliconfilmagain.asp

http://photo.net/digital-camera-shopping-forum/008cxN

http://www.sitmark.com/Portfolio/SiliconFilmOverview.pdf

Well, I suspect that the time has simply come and gone. No one wants to convert their old film cameras, they want a nice new point and shoot or, if they were enthusiasts, they want a digital SLR - and probably already have one.

It might have worked, if the technology had cooperated at the right point in time, before the market was awash with cheap digital cameras. I just don't think it will ever happen.

 

[Trius]

Bill: Good points (haven't grokked all the links yet), but my suspicion is that the technology is here now, and there is still a substantial market for such a kit. BTW, I'm not suggesting a digital back for an old film SLR. Oh, I suppose I would take a digital back for my OM if you forced me too , but really I was thinking of a completely new body.

When I held the Evolt 300, I thought Hmmm, not a bad body size and feel ... a tad larger than I had in mind, but close. Now we have m4/3 body(ies) which are much smaller, so somewhere in between I think there is a sweet spot ... I think.

 

[Trius]

Summary: First, I'm pleased that this thread didn't generate the flame-fest as it might have in the past... thanks to all!

Second, my conclusion is that it is technically possible, but the product management and marketing people don't think it's worth it, viable, etc. I personally think they're wrong, that they have a failure of imagination or market research. But whatever. I guess if I live right, in my next incarnation I will own or direct a camera manufacturer that will do it up right. :angel:

 

[emraphoto]

when leica started talking the "upgradeable" m8 a while back i made the jump to the m8 without hesitation. i was enamored with the thought of it...

i honestly believe that it is a far more intricate bit of gobbly gook than we are assuming it to be. i presume that sensor changes will also go hand in hand with hardware changes within the camera body... to make a body with the "room" to accommodate yet undesigned hardware would be quite an accomplishment. video in dslr's has only just begun (shudder) and to commit to a long term body design/dimension now would be premature to say the least. megapixel counts will continue to rise and the hardware and software within the cameras must grow, change, develop to accommodate the side effects of said growth.
i (one mans opinion) also think the sensor size we are striving for now is not where the big guns have their sites set. today we are on the cusp of affordable "full frame" dslr's... in the coming years i believe that size will become challenged if not surpassed. a commitment to a body design for an extended period of time might not be a wise step.
one might also argue the role of design in the marketability of products. apple, one example, has shown how effective attention to innovative design can be when placing a product in a very competitive market. i don't think this lesson was lost on anyone in the camera business.
would i like to see it happen? rest assured.
do i believe it will happen? gotta say no...

 

[Nando]

I've never owned a digital camera the lasted more than 5 years. Mind you, most of them were simple point-and-shoots. Still, this left an impression that digital cameras were just expensive disposable cameras. I do not like the idea of these things filling up landfill sites.

Leica really captured my imagination with the DMR. Finally, a camera that could use both film and digital. The digital back could be later changed for an upgraded one. I'm disappointed that it didn't take off. When I first heard that the M8 was going to be an "upgradeable" digital camera, I really considered buying one. Then reality struck when I saw what the upgrades were really like. The M-body is perfection to me. An M-body with truly upgradeable digital guts is what I want in a digital body.

I don't have any confidence in camera manufacturers to come out with an upgradable small-format digital camera. Why would they want to? They have it pretty good. If someone wants to upgrade to a new sensor. They buy a new camera. If someone needs to get a digital camera repaired, they can't or the repair costs more than the camera is worth. So they buy a new camera. The camera bodies are now consumables.

However, I must commend Leica for even considering the idea of an upgradeable camera.