Diy Digital Rf - Is It Possible?

Bugleone said:
40oz,

"....what's the real hold-up here?..."

OK,..like i mentioned above, to use the sensor/guts of a P&S digicam is not a practical feasability becaus of the nature/architecture of digicams,......the sensor is usually incorporated inot the circuit board (or it's modern encapsulated equivalent) and anyway, is minute in size being smaller than the fingernail on a childs little finger. If you did put the circuit with sensor into, say a FED or similar, then yo would be stuck for lenses since the shortest leica/L39 lenses would be much too long in focal length,...if you incorporated the original lens from the digicam then it would be 'difficult' to retain rangefinder focussing,..and, anyway, why bother,..just keep the digicam...

Taking an obsolete/discontinued DSLR and removing the sensor, electronics and back screen to fit into the FED is a mch more realistic and interesting project which must be at least potentially feasible since Epson have already done it with the RD-1,..in effect.

One of the biggest hurdles is how to re-wind the shutter and re-tension the main spring,...in the RD-1, Epson basically ducked the issue by keeping the lever wind. Incorporating a suitable electric micro motor and power suply is problematic as i found when trying to build my high speed 'Kiev' hybrid....there is no room at the top of the camera which means if has to be at the bottom and there has to be a drive shaft up thru the camera.

If such a project is going to cost as much, or nearly as much, as a M8 then there is no point,...hoever, if you are going to use 'good junk' such as a pentax dslr and a FED or similar then for much less than half the cost of a seconhand RD-1 you could potentially have a camera with better features,...AND,...a smack in the eye for the Jap camera industry since not all of us want a black plastic blob with 29 auto-focus points and 200 menu options.........
Click to expand...

OK, see, that's why I asked what the hold-up was.

Step 1: Do it with what you have. Worry less about how perfect or ideal it is, just get it done as a hack job.

Step 2: Try and do it using what you've learned so far.

Step 3: Go to Step 1.

Why drop the winding lever? It sets the shutter. It's useful.

Why worry about the sensor? I'd think you'd be thrilled to get ANY image from a disassembled P&S stuffed into a FED. I didn't realize you were just looking for a ready-made project that would give you an M9 for less than an M8.

So, ask yourself why an M8 or 9 or RD-1 costs what they do. It's not because people are mean.

See, I was looking at it as a project to do for the sake of doing. Not as a replacement for something I didn't have. I've already got a replacement for an M9. it's called a camera and a film scanner.
 
Last edited:
Been thinking on how to do a quick hack, and looked at an old Video Camera- the RCA CKC020. This uses a 2/3 inch CCD. Outputs Video. Dirt cheap these days, mine was $650 in 1984. Other Video cameras have removable lenses. Might be a good quick hack to place the CCD and look at it on a Video monitor. Would be useful for collimating lenses.
 
Nice to see so many comments.
Bill P: Thanks for pointing out the related thread.
Frankie: Interesting notes. As far as I'm concerned, the simpler, the better. I'd happily sacrifice a bunch of features on most of my cameras.
40 oz: If I had already assembled the prototype, I would have been more than proud to post my results and share the info. But since it was just an idea based on curiosity, and given my lack of technical expertise, I thought it might be relevant to ask for the opinion of experienced people.
When I find a suitable P&S digital throwaway, I'll try building the prototype. If it works, I'll see if the same can be done using the innards of a DSLR. Old Canon EOS bodies are approaching the £100 mark on the 2nd hand market, but of course my aim is to keep expenses as low as possible. Otherwise, I guess it won't be worth the effort.
 
I seem to recall that someone (here?) was working on a DIY prototype a while back involving a Leica body or similar. Maybe I saw this on Photo.Net, but the amount of work was fairly involved. I believe the project did achieve some level of success/completion.
 
RFH said:
Nice to see so many comments.
Bill P: Thanks for pointing out the related thread.
Frankie: Interesting notes. As far as I'm concerned, the simpler, the better. I'd happily sacrifice a bunch of features on most of my cameras.
40 oz: If I had already assembled the prototype, I would have been more than proud to post my results and share the info. But since it was just an idea based on curiosity, and given my lack of technical expertise, I thought it might be relevant to ask for the opinion of experienced people.
When I find a suitable P&S digital throwaway, I'll try building the prototype. If it works, I'll see if the same can be done using the innards of a DSLR. Old Canon EOS bodies are approaching the £100 mark on the 2nd hand market, but of course my aim is to keep expenses as low as possible. Otherwise, I guess it won't be worth the effort.
Click to expand...

I apologize if my replies were less than enthusiastic. I often think of using one of my Kiev's for an experiment.

My theory:
A) buy cheapest keychain digiacm from Walgreens/Target and gut it carefully without breaking any wires.

B) Mount the sensor and guts on the Kiev backpiece, and tape the controls to the outside.

C) Use the Kiev shutter, and at the same time press the camera's shutter button with my other thumb.

D) Read camera's memory card to see what I got.

I haven't done so yet because I don't have exrta cash. Arguably it's beer money, so my excuse is lame IMHO. Since I have a film scanner, I can't see it as better than film + scanner, so I have zero motication. But it's be a cool enough toy, even if the sensor was smaller than a postage stamp. Step Two would be buy an old DSLR for cheap and repeat as best as I can.

The key reason there are plenty of DSLR bodies but very few DRF bodies on the market is that digital sensors are effectively in a hole. Even with the DSLR design there are tons of posts regarding vignetting people didn't see with the same lens on film bodies. As much as some of us like to slam DSLR users as fools with a larger bank balance than brain capacity, the savvy DSLR users notice the very real drawbacks to digital sensors and wide angle lenses.

Considering how close the rear of the lens sits on a RF body - especially with wide lenses - the vignetting issue would be far worse. And given how many people heartily endorse the RF body strength in wide angle work, a digital sensor that increases vignetting as the lens gets wider negates the motivation to develop a digital RF IMHO. Technology isn't there to match what is possible with film.

The very strength of rf bodies is the fact that the lens is very close to the film. I doubt the real need for a digital rf given the availability of very capable film scanners. I would get behind an effort to lobby for better scanners long before I'd get behind a movement for another digital RF body.

I'm not a Luddite - computers are my bread and butter. But I'm not blind. I seriously don't see the advantage of a digital RF body. I can get C41 film developed and scanned within an hour, usually with a free CD of scans from Walgreens with a coupon. I still get my negatives, and I also get prints and a CD of scans. I can always rescan the film at my leisure. And for traditional B&W I develop and scan on my own time. I'm not under deadline pressure and I am able to get the best of both worlds - digital images but based on the film of my choice without dealing with sensor vignetting and my negatives aren't bound to the gamut of the camera body.

One thing people repeatly forget is that the color gamut of a DSLR is severely limited. I took a few pictures of a mall in Seward Alaska, featuring a bright yellow curved wall. The drugstore prints showed it adequately, but the drugstore scans showed it as a pale washed-out yellow. I scanned the negatives myself at 8-bit color, and got pretty much the same pale yellow. I rescanned at 16-bit color, and got a much more accurate brilliant yellow and all the other colors were still realistic and accurate. Someone taking that picture with a standard DSLR would have captured a very pale simulacrum of the actual scene, given the standard color gamut of a DSLR is 8-bit color. To adjust the DSLR image to show the brilliant wall as it exists would skew the other colors towards the unrealistic.

Digital sucks (to be eloquent lol) because it can only draw from a set pallete of colors. People forget that film isn't limited to a particular gamut. There are top and bottom cutoffs, but anything inbetween get captured as close to reality as the film can get. the subtle gradations between colors are all there because there is no limit to what can be captured within the range the film can deal with. It's a pure combination of red, green, and blue layers sensitive to subtle variations that will never make their way into digital sensors.

Digital is a stairway compared to a an analog ramp. Anyone attesting to the superiority of digital anything is demonstrating an ignorance of the very real difference of the two capture mechanisms (probalby better called "capture sciences.") I won't argue the time-to-press advantages for pro shooters, but I would argue the convenience factor for non-pros. As long as places like Walgreens offer one hour photo processing, there is no real digital convenience advantage. There is a one hour lag, but after the first hour, the advantage evaporates.

I guess the real reason I've never bothered to mount a cheap digicam sensor in a Kiev is I saw it as a step backwards. Cool enough, but I'd rather take pinhole photographs with 110 film cart and cardboard than digicam shots though a hacked Kiev.

But I still think a cheap digicam mounted in an FSU would be a fun toy and worth doing. Just try not to wreck a nicely functioning FSU body in the endeavor. They're nice cameras to use and I'd hate to see a single working model destroyed.

I encourage palying with technology. That's how breakthroughs are made. I'm not inherently anti-digital. I just feel like I'm the only one sometimes to acknowledge that hype does not equal reality. Film is a mture technology. Why would ANYONE think a new tech like digital photography would trump a mature technology in the space of a few years? One needs to look at the *facts* rather than marketing materials. Nobody at Canon would argue my points. No camera engineer at Nikon would dispute what I'm saying. But plenty of Pop Photo subscribers (and most of their columnists) would argue the point. Folks at leica would agree, and shake their heads at the folks who insist that Leica provide a digital RF option for them to spend their money on.

I'm not saying the curent DRF options are wastes of money, but they defeat the main strengths of the RF design - very little to zero vignetting with wides, highly acurate focussing for the highest resolution images on a rather small piece of film. Since a digital sensor uses at least three sensor pixels for each image pixel, you are giving away resolution for digital trendiness. They take nice pitcures, but a digital RF is hardly state of the art. It's a huge step back using an inferior format in a body that *could* deliver a superior image using film.

That's my story and i'm sticking to it :)
 
Last edited:
It did occur to me that if one could develop an RF body with a ground glass in place of the film, with a digital sensor/scanner to image the image on the ground glass, one might have something. Obviously a scanner-type arrangement would bring us back to the "hold still for an *honest* minute" photography, but what's wrong with that?

The other alternative would be a digicam equivalent with fixed focus mounted in a lump behind the ground glass, taking an image of the image projected on the glass. This *could* get around the vignetting issue. The angle from the corner of the glass to the corner of a sensor would be less than the angle from the lens to a sensor if the ground glass wasn't there. Without turning a short lens into a long lens. Whatever was mounted would project an image. The digital sensor would capture the ground glass image the same whether it was a long tele or a short wide.

Now, assuming you start with a tiny cheap P&S sensor, results would be less than ideal at first. But the larger the sensor the better the results. The advantage I see is lens-independence. As long as the sensor is large enough and designed to minimize vignetting, it doesn't matter what lens you mount. Telephoto or wide, you get what is projected on the ground glass. So any software vignette-correction would apply to EVERY image, not lens-dependent. A far simpler job of auto-correction than the current designs. Wide lenses would vignette as on film, but no need to correct for that kind of vignetting. Merely correct for whatever vigneting is similar for wides, teles, and normals. Society already makes allowances for "natural" vignetting of wides, why change that?

If anyone thinks I should patent that idea, let me know. Or run with it and make me happy by making a mint off my idea :D I'm not going to come after you, I'd derive more pleasure by knowing someone else got rich :)

Let me be clear - I'm not in favor of technology for technolgy's sake. I'm in favor of technology that represents an actual leap forward. And even the most modern DSLR doesn't impress me except as an incremental step towards a real improvement.

Perhaps my view is a result of long-term involvement with technology. Unlike the general populace, I've been knee-deep in computers and what they can do for almost three decades. And I see so much waste and meaningless "progress" it boggles my mind. Why do people have to say "I'm sorry, the computer is being slow" when they could do on paper what we need faster? At that point the labor-saving device is slowing progress. Who authorized that?!? Who designed a system that holds up commerce when it "needs to think" ? A high school girl using an adding machine or gear-cranked till could ring out my return in seconds, but when I have to wait for a computer to figure out what is going on, I get a little irritated.

And here I whine on an internet board to people on 7 continents :)
 
Last edited:
And RFH, I think it's a good idea. Please don't take my comments as discouragement. I look forward to seeing your results, whatever they are. Please post shots of your finger in the way if that's all you got - that's still cool :)
 
It's always good to be encouraged. I were not extremely busy with other things these days, I'd get right to it. I also need to get to know my newly purchased Ricoh GX100.

I'm not expecting something the quality of an factory-made DRF for a few bucks and a bit of labour. That would be unrealistic. I already have all the cameras I need (the M6 being the backbone of my collection), so I'm considering this purely out of curiosity.

I have a technical question: Being that the control boards are connected, will they operate without each other, i.e. will the PCB work if the flash assembly and the AF lens are not present, or does the PCB depend on electronic feedback from all parts of the circuit? Put simply: Will the camera stop working if you disconnect the flash circuit cable from the PCB, or will the software freeze up because the default circuit is incomplete?

An answer to this would help narrow down the crucial components. On my list so far are:

PCB
CCD assembly
Shutter circuit
Battery
LCD (optional)
 
Without any wish to put you down or be unkind,...you are going at this from a pointless angle. Trying to put a P&S inside a RF predisposes that neither will be able to work. Yo draw an analogy,..you want to make a ship in a bottle but think it will be too complicated so you are now looking at putting a bottle inside a bottle.......
 
It is my experience that cameras don't depend on the flash circuit to function. In other words, if the flash is burnt out or the capacitor is unable to charge or whatever, the camear still functions. And if you retain the controls, you can always shut off the flash as soon as you turn the thing on.

The autofocus on P&S cameras is an assist. In other words, I doubt it needs to confirm focus prior to the shutter firing. On many P&S's, the autofocus is lockable, i.e. hold down the shutter button halfway and then recompose, and the camera will still take a picture. I'm pretty sure the "taking a picture" function is not normally dependent on feedback from autofocus. And a fair number of P&S models have a manual focus mode, which like the "no flash" mode, makes this a moot point in practice.

If you get one of the cheap keychain cameras, they are fixed focus anyway, without a flash. Of course they have a fingernail sensor but on the upside have very little in the way of electronics and when gutted might very well fit entirely where the pressure plate used to be. If you use a Kiev or other removable back body for this hack, one could buy a "parts" body off ebay for dirt just to drill or cut out access for the few controls. Use electrical tape for light sealing, and have your own digital back :)

The biggest issue I see is really minor - a bit of soldering to move the shutter trip to a more convenient position for the other hand on the camera. I still see it as a "1, 2, 3, press both shutters" type of arrangement. But once you have *that* working, the rest is a matter of refinement and extension of budget.

I wondered since the beginning of digital photography why it was so hard to bring a basic camera to market using a film body and a digital back. But at the end of the day what you have is what Kodak was making at the start - a DSLR and a film SLR in one package, for roughly the price of both. What Kodak did to Nikon bodies in the 90's is what you want to do to RF bodies today. They proved it is viable and even desirable, but they also proved the cost is kind of prohibitive. Now that the cost of a used DSLR is reasonable (~$250US for an old Canon, for ex.), it's more feasible, as long as one is tolerant of vignetting and a cropped frame.

Of course there is the little matter of duplicated controls once one mounts an entire DSLR inside a body that has no ability to telelgraph ISO. But because all the sensor and electronics need to know is what ISO the shot is exposed for, the only controls you really need access to are available ISOs and shutter.

FYI: regarding issues with cutting wiring, keep in mind that embedding processing (which is what the brains of a camera are termed) usually avoids any kind of error processing for non-critical systems like autofocus or flash control. The only issues that raise a red flag are usually realted directly to the fundamental task - taking a picture. So as long as the shutter signal is clear and the access to memory is available, it *should* work.
 
Last edited:
It'd be better if you could get your hands on a medium format back -- They already work with shutter mechanisms on large format cameras, so all you'd need in theory is a PC sync cable (the ones that trigger a flash) to get the sensor active. Mount the sensor to the back of your camera, shim it to the proper distance, and I think you should be rocking and rolling. Mind you, it destroys the form factor of the camera, but who cares! You've got your very own digital RF.
 
Frankie said:
I have been think about a universal digital conversion kit since 2000 when I saw the first digital aerial camera in ISPRS Congress in Amsterdam. Those cameras starts at $1.5 million++.

I had soon built a 16Mp Hasselblad for aerial experimentation and help built and implemented stereo display software for another, a couple of years later...a dual 22Mp unit.

I had posted "think-aloud" pieces in RFF a few times but always stomped on by the expert...

Bottom lines:
  • A sensor of FF or larger size is available from Kodak or Dalsa...they don't care what you do with it.
  • A buffering-and-writing-to-memory-card software system is very simple.
  • A CCD is nominally ISO 100, with latitude on the under exposure side by about 4 stops...12 bits, sound familiar?
  • A battery and memory card hardware is cheap...ask any OEM supplier at CES.
  • An iPhone app can be written for post-exposure reviewing or chimping.
I had even offered the bodies of my many F2s and a Leica as surgery subjects.

When you look at various cut-away pictures...from R-D1 to D3X...the sensor package is only~5mm thick and could well fit into the space now occupied by the pressure plate. A multi-layer circuit board can be made to fit into the take-up spool cavity. A battery fits well into the film cartridge cavity...cutting a hole somewhere to fit a mini USB plug for the iPhone is easy.....

Best of all, the frame format, film cartridge size and required cavities are always available and long standardized...no?

So I won't have 52 spot matrix metering...bracket then; I will only have ISO 100~1600 sensitivity range...good enough; I don't have instant chimping...I don't care, there is no live-view in an M9 either; I will have vignetting...I don't use extreme wide angle lens, only a CV 40/1.4 [or use a couple of the extra bits to even it out]; I could only shoot Raw and post-process at a computer...so what, SD cards are cheap.

All Leica did in the M9 was to guarantee a large order of the previous-generation leftover Kodak 6.8 micron chip...likely cut down from the standard 22Mp offering. The micro lens layer was nano- optical engineering long after the fact...which I will skip. The RF is a 50 year old design since the M3...all it does is to focus the subject within the depth-of-field tolerance onto the CCD [film] plane, you never know if it didn't anyway.

Of course, such a digital retrofit unit will be look-down upon by the latest-tech mafia... But then, I had the personal experience of retrofitting over 400 analogue Leica/Zeiss/Kern/Jena stereo plotters, world-wide, for digital mapping and stalled the sales program of their new analytical plotter offerings for 5 years at $250k++ each...and then truncate their product live-cycle all together via an all digital system now commonly known as "softcopy photogrammetry".

Imagine the same now happens to struggling Solms. The pricing of an M9 is begging for someone to take a chapter from this history book.
Click to expand...

I had since bought a late serial number M2 on eBay...cost $800...and started to think seriously...

[I had also found the instructions of how to disassemble the M2 down to the chassis...]

A month ago, I won an eBay auction on an RD-1...first hand learning in how that camera works started in earnest.

[So far no surgeries...if the idea didn't work, I have a nice M2 and a RD-1 to use on my CV 40/1.4 and CV 25/4P. :)]

The M body is perfect for conversion because:
  1. The removable back, once removed, should provide enough room to fit the "sensor package"...including a piggy back PCB and a data-port, mini USB or whatever plug to link up to an iPhone app for chimping.
  2. A neat enough package will generate interest in the Leica market...especially if the retro-fit can be reversed or removable.
[Besides, critic cannot argue my M2d body is flimsy, the shutter no good, the RF patch flares or the RF easily knocked out of alignment... Leica did all of it. :D In my stereo-plotter retro-fit days, even Leica-Heerbrugg could not criticize for the equivalent reasons...they built the original instrument mechanics which was not modified.]

The Epson RD-1 uses an EP-F80 battery [3.7v 1500mAh] that almost fit within the film cartridge space... I am sure a shorter one can be found.

I have also bought a couple of micro-SD readers...8 Gb HC is cheap AND small...fits right over the film transport, or easily within the take-up spool cavity. A clip-on plastic pillow-block is simple enough to make [I have a Unimat lathe/milling machine.]

The M2 body is 33mm thick [not counting the back which sticks out another 2mm]. The M-mount flange to film plane distance is specified at 28mm (27.95mm)...

If I want to keep the M profile, I will have 7mm thickness limit for the sensor/PCB package. If I emulate the Epson out-rigger style [as used to mount the LCD], I mighty have ~10mm.

[The Epson total body thickness is 39mm [as is the M8/9], and would have 11mm to house both the sensor package and LCD. But the RD-1 M-mount protrudes another 3mm, making the net thickness ~14mm.]

The next task: figure out how to fit the package within a space of 45mm wide x 90mm long x 7~10mm deep. Imagine a digital M2/3/4/6/7...

This Md-Package is basically a dedicated micro computer mother board, with a CCD as the only input, no monitoring except a plug, and output only to the SD card RAW...

Cosina manufactured the RD-1 for a MSRP of ~$3500. It would have been decent business if they earn $1000 each piece. That $1000 earnings must also cover CCD, design/development or outsourced PCB...plus manufacturing tooling/labour cost.

KISS.

The first function to support is RAW+daylight only. No JPEG-H or N, straight capture and record onto the micro-SD. Let PhotoShop or whatever is your favourite do the post-processing.

The Nikon D3S sports a CCD with ISO 200~12,800. A good 2 stops better than the M9 ISO 200~3,200...2-bits worth of headroom for pixel-vignetting correction. [Lens vignetting might be variable, but pixel vignetting pattern is constant...regardless of lens mounted.]

I never thought I would hit Leica again, 20 years later...sorry Solms.
 
Last edited:
Why not make an adapter for M-Mount to 4/3rds Digital which has the RF and VF built into the adapter. You could start with a dead LTM camera, transplant the RF pickup and VF/RF. Make it into the lens adapter. There is enough room in the micro 4/3rds adapters to house the RF pickup.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Why not make an adapter for M-Mount to 4/3rds Digital which has the RF and VF built into the adapter. You could start with a dead LTM camera, transplant the RF pickup and VF/RF. Make it into the lens adapter. There is enough room in the micro 4/3rds adapters to house the RF pickup.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. The M to M4/3 adapter will have a nominal net thickness of 8mm... Please expand the thoughts some more.

However, I do believe the next generation EVF will have grains finer than ground glass and perfectly acceptable. The market window might be limited.

On the other hand, the M2/3/4/6/7 is dead-ended and the Md-retrofit will have hundreds of thousands of M-bodies as a market. I used to call the 5000+ analogue stereo plotter retrofit business "chasing after dead bodies"...perfectly good instruments (that many were still paying off mortgages equivalent of a good house) that Leica and others abandoned in the false pretense that digital mapping cannot be done except buying the new analytical plotter [proven not true...].

I was not the first attempting retro-fitting...Leica offered the same at $100k per seat, 2 seats in one site minimum.

My claim to fame was to have developed an encoding kit that works on most makes/models and easy to install, plus a CAD-based software system that even Intergraph could not argue...opening up that market to the detriment of Leica (Wild-Heerbrugg), Zeiss Oberkochen, Zeiss Jena, Kern, Santoni...

Collectively, they sold one fewer instrument for every plotter we had retrofitted over 3 years (gross income for them was 450 x $250k+), interest cost alone of the analytical plotter development was enough to make them cry [Leica had announced they spent $32 million in it...at a time that interest was ~10%].

If I managed to offer the Md-retrofit package at $1000, would M owners eventually buy some? They would already have super-wide lenses with anti-vignetting, color temperature correction, skylight, fluorescent... filters. AND why would they want JPEG when memory cards are now so cheap?

I also have eyes on the Nikon F, F2..., FM, market. making a jig to cut a 45 x 90mm opening cannot be that tough.
 

Attachments

  • RD1_CUTAWAY package.jpg
    RD1_CUTAWAY package.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
If you get do a Digital back for the M3 or M2 camera for $1000, I'd buy one "in a heart beat". I paid that much to upgrade my Zenith 241 to an 80386, almost 20 years ago.

As for an LTM to micro-4/3rds, 8mm should be more than enough to accommodate the required swing of the RF pickup. The idea would be to put the VF/RF on top and back far enough to be used over the top of the camera. I've seen this done on a 1950s interchangeable lens RF, where the viewfinder went with the speciific lens. Takes the concept of Summaron with Eyes one step farther.
 
Last edited:
Well, Frankie, you are laying it out pretty good here. If there is a viable market for such a thing (which I doubt), then some company with the R&D money, equipment and manpower will be all over it and beat you to market! :)

I'm not sure, though, if there are really many folks who want to spend a grand making their old camera a limited functionality digital camera.
 
I would start with trying to couple a rangefinder (from original Fed?) with M to micro 4/3 adapter. They are quite thin, but maybe there is a workaround? Another thought: to buy a Panasonic Lumix 20mm F1.7 lens and make a dedicated rangefinder attachment that screws into the filter ring? Trouble is, I myself actually don't want a digital rangefinder:)
 
you dont happen to be from hamilton and had a relative with the same initials as you... my m3 as RFH labelled on it and the bag says RF hughes hamilton, canada
sorry for being off topic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom