I keep a Picture of JFK in my office. When one of my senior engineers gave some "pushback", JFK came off the wall and gave him a talking to. Always worked to inspire.
aniMal
Well-known
Talking about engineering and JFK makes me think about Burt Rutan right away. Who would have thought he would be giving people astronaut status by now?
The more I think about all of this, the more certain I get that someone will be doing it sooner or later. The question is when new and easy to adapt techology meets the requirements. Right now it does with a little tweaking, but when sensors get even cheaper and thinner, someone will eventually make real digital film - that fits like a cartridge in all 35mm cameras.
But I would love to have it soon if I could choose!
The more I think about all of this, the more certain I get that someone will be doing it sooner or later. The question is when new and easy to adapt techology meets the requirements. Right now it does with a little tweaking, but when sensors get even cheaper and thinner, someone will eventually make real digital film - that fits like a cartridge in all 35mm cameras.
But I would love to have it soon if I could choose!
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
There is simply no sufficiently lucrative market for "digital film" or digital backs for 35mm film cameras. Folks buy film cameras in general these day ONLY because they want to dabble in film. Otherwise they just buy digital cameras. You can buy a new Nikon DSLR as cheaply as you could hope to buy a digital back for your Nikon F.
The only possible market you could have for such a product would be for owners of Leica M's and that because you can't buy a new Leica digital M as cheaply as you might be able to buy a back. But, how many M3 owners, for example, would really spend $1500 or $2,000 to cobble a rudimentary digital back to their M?
There is just no market for such a thing, so why would anyone develop it?
The only possible market you could have for such a product would be for owners of Leica M's and that because you can't buy a new Leica digital M as cheaply as you might be able to buy a back. But, how many M3 owners, for example, would really spend $1500 or $2,000 to cobble a rudimentary digital back to their M?
There is just no market for such a thing, so why would anyone develop it?
Everyone that would spend $1500-$2000 even for a (non-cobbled, non-rudimentary) professionally designed and manufactured back (if indeed it could be done that cheaply) would have the money to buy an RD1 or an M8, and also have a film M.
Investors would not fund such a product.
Investors would not fund such a product.
The original question was the project possible. The answer is Yes. There is no technical reason why this back cannot be created in a relatively cost efficient manner.
Whether investors would put money into it- well, they flushed tons of money down the toilet on the ".com" bubble and the "High-Speed Network" Bubble. Remember those fun days? Ciena, Tellabs, Nortel, Lucent, ... Certainly got a lot less for their money than a Digital Back for a 50 year old camera.
Whether investors would put money into it- well, they flushed tons of money down the toilet on the ".com" bubble and the "High-Speed Network" Bubble. Remember those fun days? Ciena, Tellabs, Nortel, Lucent, ... Certainly got a lot less for their money than a Digital Back for a 50 year old camera.
Oh yes, I said the same thing earlier in the thread. It's quite possible!
However the economy is a bit different today. The 'irrational exuberance' is long over.
However the economy is a bit different today. The 'irrational exuberance' is long over.
Oh yeah. And the real estate market... An investment for a lifetime... Glad we bought this place 15 years ago.
If only people had invested money into Digital Backs for 50 year old cameras instead! NRE equal to the price lost on one single home in this area.
I wonder what the NRE for the M9 was.
If only people had invested money into Digital Backs for 50 year old cameras instead! NRE equal to the price lost on one single home in this area.
I wonder what the NRE for the M9 was.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
For THIS market, the research is directed to the Legacy-M users only…if they had no interest in alternatives camera types. Estimated quantity: ~300,000.
If A user does not desire digital, then no sale to him.
If another user desires digital, then the choices are: M9; or used M8, RD1x or used RD1. Also considerations such as Leica or not, 1.33 or 1.5 crop-factor, super-wide handling (if used at all)...and what if ZMd or R6d is available soon.
From published mechanical drawings, I have long determined that a user DIY retrofit is unlikely…requires milling a ~2mm deep flat cavity (measured from top guide rail surface).
[For example: Dalsa offers a FF, 7.2u, 17 M-pixel CCD, with the CCD surface recessed 2mm behind glass.]
A user DIY (meaning self installation) is ideal but difficult just yet, and I did so say myself. The main problem is packaging [from possible parts]. But, I don’t give up easily.
The market research necessary is: how many potential customers remain after whittling down the 300,000 dead bodies…if a total user-DIY kit is offered?
I don’t assume NONE, despite many do.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Frankie said: "M2/3/4/6/7 users would. Their camera body [deemed obsolete in the new Leica paradigm] and beloved lenses are still top quality [in their eyes] and unaltered in any way. My idea of a dM-back simply gives them a choice…as Leica did not."
But then, he said: "From published mechanical drawings, I have long determined that a user DIY retrofit is unlikely…requires milling a ~2mm deep flat cavity (measured from top guide rail surface)."
It must not have been long ago that you determined it! Aren't you just blowing smoke?
But then, he said: "From published mechanical drawings, I have long determined that a user DIY retrofit is unlikely…requires milling a ~2mm deep flat cavity (measured from top guide rail surface)."
It must not have been long ago that you determined it! Aren't you just blowing smoke?
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The new Leica paradigm had not altered users' legacy M cameras and favourate lenses in any physical way.
The whole discussion is not about whether I can DIY, I can and did many DIY things...including hundreds of stereo plotters each costing more than a house in its time; because Leica could and did, but soon would not, leaving them no choice.
See http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1132755&postcount=10 for a simple example.
For the last 10 years, engineering drawings published by Dalsa and Kodak for all 35mm FF or larger CCD were never smaller than 24 x 36mm in dimension
; and none without some recess. I knew all that as part of my professional due diligence in large format digital aerial cameras, now reaching 196 M-pixels.My objective here is to enable legacy-M users to DIY and ideally also reversible...requiring firstly myself not to assume or insist no one are interested.
Last edited:
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
A further thought...
Naysayers don't have to argue or preach much. They can always ignore this and related threads...or boycott the product even if it became deliverable.
Meanwhile, I am, and others are willing to work at it, at no expenses to them.
A good faith discussion is not subjected to their approval.
Naysayers don't have to argue or preach much. They can always ignore this and related threads...or boycott the product even if it became deliverable.
Meanwhile, I am, and others are willing to work at it, at no expenses to them.
A good faith discussion is not subjected to their approval.
Well- on the bright side, depending on the refractive index of the cover glass, if the full-frame sensor sits farther from the focal plane than does film, FSU lenses will work with it.
I'd still buy one for $1,500. I'll just shim a set of lenses for the recessed digital back. I have more than enough duplicates. And I'll be able to collapse all of my Summicrons, Summars, Elmars, and the Nikkor 5cm f2 with it.
Too funny on the 194MPixel Aerial Camera. The first one I worked on was a 32-element Scanning array in 1981. Then upped to a 240 element scanning array in 1982. They were Mid-wave and Long-wave IR. Took four flight racks for the digital A/Ds and formatter. Sangamo Weston 28-track Digital Recorder. $120,000 for the tape recorder, and $1M for the digital electronics. In 1982 dollars.
It would not fit on an M3.
I'd still buy one for $1,500. I'll just shim a set of lenses for the recessed digital back. I have more than enough duplicates. And I'll be able to collapse all of my Summicrons, Summars, Elmars, and the Nikkor 5cm f2 with it.
Too funny on the 194MPixel Aerial Camera. The first one I worked on was a 32-element Scanning array in 1981. Then upped to a 240 element scanning array in 1982. They were Mid-wave and Long-wave IR. Took four flight racks for the digital A/Ds and formatter. Sangamo Weston 28-track Digital Recorder. $120,000 for the tape recorder, and $1M for the digital electronics. In 1982 dollars.
It would not fit on an M3.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Brian, you're just looking to start a high demand business shimming lenses so they'll work with the new back!
It would be SO easy! Solve the FSU registration problem once and for all.
Hey- maybe they were thinking full-frame digital back the whole time!
I need to download spec sheets on various sensors. Some of the "full-frame" are slightly less than 24x36, I recall one that was 23x35. If not, a 1.3x sensor would work.
Hey- maybe they were thinking full-frame digital back the whole time!
I need to download spec sheets on various sensors. Some of the "full-frame" are slightly less than 24x36, I recall one that was 23x35. If not, a 1.3x sensor would work.
Personally I think this sort of product would have great interest at the right price and capability. The question is, can such a product be built at a price point that makes sense? Since 1.5 and 1.3 crop factor cameras already exist, in the $1200-$2500 price range, the $7K price gap for such a product to the M9 isn't really relevant.
If there were a large number of customers for a 1.5 or 1.3 crop solution, prices of RD1s and M8s would be increasing. Prices on M8s may be subject to further drop as Leica catches up with M9 production, as more people dump their M8s.
If there were a large number of customers for a 1.5 or 1.3 crop solution, prices of RD1s and M8s would be increasing. Prices on M8s may be subject to further drop as Leica catches up with M9 production, as more people dump their M8s.
Looking at the M3 and Canon P- it's the film rails that need to be accommodated. There is plenty of clearance for the shutter curtains for the cover glass. The film is raised by the rails, away from the film mask and shutter. I wonder if the cover glass can be notched to accommodate the rails.
My optical engineer had an imaging fiber bundle made so that he could image onto a CCD over 1 foot away from the the optics. Anything is possible. The NPC Polaroid Back used an imaging bundle much the same way, just shorter distance.
My optical engineer had an imaging fiber bundle made so that he could image onto a CCD over 1 foot away from the the optics. Anything is possible. The NPC Polaroid Back used an imaging bundle much the same way, just shorter distance.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Typically, cover glass thickness is ~1mm. Leica M8 had to be thinner...ergo the infamous Ir problem. I had always wonder who did the design QA, if at all.
The Leica-M's shutter curtain to film plane distance [as defined by the top guide-rail surface] is <2.5mm, plenty of room even for the Dalsa 17 M-pixel FF sensor [only 2mm total recess].
DIY ideally is a little more than just non-Leica retrofit, or even specialists doing it. I know I can, and had done a few more challenging things in my career.
My ideal is end-user self-DIY...an operation not more complicated than swapping a Nikon F view finder, or installing a different viewing screen, or mounting a motor-drive complete with F-250 back... No special tools or machining should be required.
To dream the impossible dream...
The Leica-M's shutter curtain to film plane distance [as defined by the top guide-rail surface] is <2.5mm, plenty of room even for the Dalsa 17 M-pixel FF sensor [only 2mm total recess].
DIY ideally is a little more than just non-Leica retrofit, or even specialists doing it. I know I can, and had done a few more challenging things in my career.
My ideal is end-user self-DIY...an operation not more complicated than swapping a Nikon F view finder, or installing a different viewing screen, or mounting a motor-drive complete with F-250 back... No special tools or machining should be required.
To dream the impossible dream...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Any progress on the project?
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I have now ascertained the back half of the M chassis have a total thickness of almost 2mm, including the raised guide rails...and machinable.
I have also ordered a LTM to M adapter for use as a jig...for locating and fixing the M-body on the "table". You know, thread the dead body onto the gurney.
Meanwhile, a collection of engineering drawings from CCD manufacturers is accumulating. The go-no-go decision will still be Photokina 2010, if Zeiss still won't play the ZMd ball.
To prevent Thought Police raiding my hide out, I have stopped posting.
I have also ordered a LTM to M adapter for use as a jig...for locating and fixing the M-body on the "table". You know, thread the dead body onto the gurney.
Meanwhile, a collection of engineering drawings from CCD manufacturers is accumulating. The go-no-go decision will still be Photokina 2010, if Zeiss still won't play the ZMd ball.
To prevent Thought Police raiding my hide out, I have stopped posting.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Heck, all you need is a Dremel Tool and some superglue.