Can Leica M Film Body be adapted to Digital?

A digital sensor grafted into a film camera makes no sense to me as long as I can still buy film. If a conversion cost $1500, which is what I would expect, that cost equates to a lot of rolls of film ... possibly ten thousand exposures or more and the cost of developing would be spread throughout that usage and not an up front fee as the conversion to digital would be.

How many people with old Ms would spend the $1500 and have more than ten thousand shutter acuations three years on ... very few I supect!
 
Leica said the reason they made the DMR a cropped sensor was because a sensor had to sit at the film plane (for obvious reasons) and sensors have borders, so they couldn't physically fit a full-frame sensor into the existing R8/R9. It's going to be the same situation with the M bodies.

With the DMR it was a simple matter to make a replacement focusing screen with crop lines, which could be left in place for film shooting too, or easily switched if the user preferred the original.

However, an M rangefinder would need a complete set of cropped frameline masks, which would have to be installed by a technician, and then the viewfinder would be wildly inaccurate with film. So a swappable digital back would not be practical.
 
Ben Z said:
Leica said the reason they made the DMR a cropped sensor was because a sensor had to sit at the film plane (for obvious reasons) and sensors have borders, so they couldn't physically fit a full-frame sensor into the existing R8/R9. It's going to be the same situation with the M bodies.
Click to expand...

I don't see why the front surface of the sensor couldn't rest against the film rails, on the R or the M. It shouldn't need to sit inside the aperture. That would place it too far forward.
 
Ben Z said:
However, an M rangefinder would need a complete set of cropped frameline masks, which would have to be installed by a technician, and then the viewfinder would be wildly inaccurate with film. So a swappable digital back would not be practical.
Click to expand...

That would sort of rule out the M2 or M3 for use with a digital back. However, the framelines of the M6/MP/M7 are a bit smaller. In fact, the 50mm frameline is notoriously undersized. So a sensor with about a 1:1.15 or so crop factor ought to be pretty accurate at distances over 2M or so. It would of course be oversize at minimum focus.
 
Rob-F said:
I don't see why the front surface of the sensor couldn't rest against the film rails, on the R or the M. It shouldn't need to sit inside the aperture. That would place it too far forward.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of glass layers (microlenses, IR/UV filter, AA filter) in front of the actual sensor surface - if you place it on the rail, the sensor would be about 2-5mm back...
 
sevo said:
There are a couple of glass layers (microlenses, IR/UV filter, AA filter) in front of the actual sensor surface - if you place it on the rail, the sensor would be about 2-5mm back...
Click to expand...

Then maybe the sensor itself could rest against the rails, and the microlens/filter layers could be a little smaller so as to fit inside the gate. I don't think they would need to have a margin around them. As there would be some crop factor, there should be plenty of room for that.
 
Idea!

Idea!

I find it a great idea, but i don´t think it will come up as a commercial product now, but in many years as technology would be easier on amateur technicians someone will carry out such a project.

By the way, that nex camera is telling that FF sensors in compact cams are just around the corner, plus excellent and large lcd screens, so it´s going to be the other way round.
Leica glasses are going to be used on compact, slim ff cameras and focused without mirrors and without rangefinders but with those large lcd screens!

Bye!
 
rxmd said:
Well, it's quite a stretch to say it would be "feasible" to fit a sensor plus electronics into a space designed for 125 µm worth of film thickness, or a battery, CPU, card reader plus electronics into the size of a 35mm roll.

Hybrid solutions for 35mm cameras were on the market, but they somehow didn't fly off the shelves and were cancelled. Maybe this is one of the things that more people like to talk about than would actually buy it.
Click to expand...

Granted getting a digital sensor into a Leica III or Zorki 5 (or any other bottom loader) would be a challenge, but most film cameras have a pressure plate to hold the film forward, and I imagine this being replaced with the sensor. As to size of CPU etc, the mobile phone market has shown just how possible this sort of miniturization would be.😉

However, for those Leica M owners (you lucky sods - most of us can only afford FSU models😛) you'd do just as well to buy an M8 or M9 and then you'd have 2 bodies - one for film (monochrome hopefully) and one for digital. And all those lovely lenses will fit both.😀
 
elmer3.5 said:
...By the way, that nex camera is telling that FF sensors in compact cams are just around the corner, plus excellent and large lcd screens, so it´s going to be the other way round.
Leica glasses are going to be used on compact, slim ff cameras and focused without mirrors and without rangefinders but with those large lcd screens!
Click to expand...

Yes indeed!

The Sony NEX says APS-C is now do'able...next size up is NEX-II 😀. Rectangular milling marks are already in place, and the lens mount is big enough, even bigger than the M-mount.

The NEX sensor plane is 18mm behind the front flange, 2mm less than M4/3 and 10mm less than M-mount. That means there is enough room for an adapter...if one gives up auto-focus......

Look at it another way...blasphemy, I know-I know...one can attempt to hollow out an M body and fit the whole NEX in it [except the battery/SD compartment]. What's below the RF is just metal anyway.

The donor M-body would simply be the lenses mount and RF...and the Leica retro style.😉
 
NO no no. 😱 The flange to sensor distance is determined by the lens, not the sensor. The sensor pixels needs to be at exactly the same distance from the flange as the film emulsion layer would have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom