S
Socke
Guest
Vince, we're talking old cameras, new cameras with adapted framelines are no problem in my opinion. Rangefinders less than SLRs where the viewfinders size depends on the sensor.
what we need is a digital solution for analog cameras.
- Thread starter gustav[] pEña
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 31
- Views: Views 2K
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
VinceC said:
I'd want full frame because I want to use my lenses as is, if the film replacement has CCD sensor smaller than full frame, wouldn't it render all my wide angle lenses to be "standard" ? and my standard lenses to be "telephoto"?
For example (pardon me using an SLR), my OM Zuiko 24mm wide angle becomes 48mm when I use it on my E-300 DSLR which uses the 4/3rd system, which has a 1:2 CCD-size ratio.
anselwannab
Well-known
You cheap *******s !!! 
Everyone wants something for free. IF and when e-film came out, it would be more expensive than an M8. Why do all that work, and then cut yourself out of the money you'd get for the camera body and all the lenses you'd sell? How many RD-1's and M8s have sold?
You can make a camera new now that has the right "old/ananlog" qualities ala the FM3a. Since Mr. K has made FD, F and M42 mount cameras on spec before, the best bet is for him to take the RD-1 body and convert it back to SLR form.
Here's how to divide the cheap-skates from the true beleivers. Assuming you are into Nikon SLRs, the question is: If Nikon made an FM3aD, would you buy it, at $2300+ bucks.
Those of you who say 'no', are cheap-skates and dreamers, and those of you who would say yes, I want your job, or at least your salary.
In their day the Leica 35mm cameras were revolutionary, out of the box, radical departures from the past. Why is it that Leica-philes today don't have the same attitude or bravery to break from the past and pursue the optimal in image quality and control, damn the legacy costs?
I think the best we can hope for with older film cameras is a better, faster film scanner. More Dmax, auto film handling and such. Not much hope here though.
Mark
Everyone wants something for free. IF and when e-film came out, it would be more expensive than an M8. Why do all that work, and then cut yourself out of the money you'd get for the camera body and all the lenses you'd sell? How many RD-1's and M8s have sold?
You can make a camera new now that has the right "old/ananlog" qualities ala the FM3a. Since Mr. K has made FD, F and M42 mount cameras on spec before, the best bet is for him to take the RD-1 body and convert it back to SLR form.
Here's how to divide the cheap-skates from the true beleivers. Assuming you are into Nikon SLRs, the question is: If Nikon made an FM3aD, would you buy it, at $2300+ bucks.
Those of you who say 'no', are cheap-skates and dreamers, and those of you who would say yes, I want your job, or at least your salary.
In their day the Leica 35mm cameras were revolutionary, out of the box, radical departures from the past. Why is it that Leica-philes today don't have the same attitude or bravery to break from the past and pursue the optimal in image quality and control, damn the legacy costs?
I think the best we can hope for with older film cameras is a better, faster film scanner. More Dmax, auto film handling and such. Not much hope here though.
Mark
VinceC
Veteran
>> If Nikon made an FM3aD, would you buy it, at $2300+ bucks. <<
A whole lot of people buy the Nikon D200 -- very close in usability -- for $1,800.
I keep using 50-year-old cameras because I just like them and their design and simplicity. That's why I spent $2,300 on an S3-2000 to augment my half-century old cameras, and I'd spend about that much on a digital camera this is compatible with my Nikon RF system. I'm just not interested in DSLRs but will probably have to settle for one at some point.
Big price barrier between a $2,500 functional camera and a $5,000 functional camera. I don't have Leitz lenses and am not thrilled with Leica design versus Nikon RF design, so I'm in no hurry to get a Leica M8 and lens adapter, though I suppose that's antoher option several years down the road.
A whole lot of people buy the Nikon D200 -- very close in usability -- for $1,800.
I keep using 50-year-old cameras because I just like them and their design and simplicity. That's why I spent $2,300 on an S3-2000 to augment my half-century old cameras, and I'd spend about that much on a digital camera this is compatible with my Nikon RF system. I'm just not interested in DSLRs but will probably have to settle for one at some point.
Big price barrier between a $2,500 functional camera and a $5,000 functional camera. I don't have Leitz lenses and am not thrilled with Leica design versus Nikon RF design, so I'm in no hurry to get a Leica M8 and lens adapter, though I suppose that's antoher option several years down the road.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
I like the fact that dedicated scanning, whether done with a Noritsu Koki QSS-29,
Nikon Coolscan V ED or KM Scan Dual IV is my link or interface, between the analog
world of film cameras and lenses from the 60's and 70's and the computer. I really don't feel the need for anything more.
A friend in Jerusalem, originally from LA, with Canon 350 & 400 D's, greatly admires me and the 'path' I chose, so to speak. I was supposed to buy his 350D... for far too much money. It did not feel right in my hands, with menus
and sub-menus. I had difficulty in negotiating the thumb and index finger coordination, required for shifting around the selective, autofocus points.
And, you know, it's a funny thing: it took me no time to get the hang of the Kiev/Contax 'grip,' so that I'm not blocking the right RF window
I'm with ElrodCod above: We really do NOT need any more of a digital solution
for analog cameras, than we already have. Solution? What's the problem?
Cheers, mike ;-)
Nikon Coolscan V ED or KM Scan Dual IV is my link or interface, between the analog
world of film cameras and lenses from the 60's and 70's and the computer. I really don't feel the need for anything more.
A friend in Jerusalem, originally from LA, with Canon 350 & 400 D's, greatly admires me and the 'path' I chose, so to speak. I was supposed to buy his 350D... for far too much money. It did not feel right in my hands, with menus
and sub-menus. I had difficulty in negotiating the thumb and index finger coordination, required for shifting around the selective, autofocus points.
And, you know, it's a funny thing: it took me no time to get the hang of the Kiev/Contax 'grip,' so that I'm not blocking the right RF window
I'm with ElrodCod above: We really do NOT need any more of a digital solution
for analog cameras, than we already have. Solution? What's the problem?
Cheers, mike ;-)
Last edited:
TEZillman
Well-known
I just don't get it. Why would you want to convert a film camera to a digital camera? Has anyone converted their turntable to play CDs? Has anyone converted their VCR to play DVDs? or a little closer to home, has anyone converted manual focus lenses to autofocus? A film camera is a film camera. If you want an image from film for digital use, just scan it or have someone else scan it.
We live in an exciting age. Technology is exploding around us and the possibilities seem endless. Even so that doesn't mean that you can't sit down and listen to an LP. Don't convert it to a CD. Enjoy it for what it is. Just because there are new things coming out daily, it doesn't mean you can't have fun with "old" technology.
Go out and take some photos with your film camera. You can still buy a roll of film and have it developed and printed for under $5, or if you want to buy pro film and have pro processing done , it will cost you $15.00.
Take some slides. Show them in a dark room on a screen with a projector. A 36 exposure roll of Provia and a Fuji mailer only cost about $10 at the most. You can buy a projector and a screen at a thrift shop for less than $30.
Enjoy a digital camera for what it is. Make some nice photos with one. Try using an old one with only 2 megapixels. Life is way too short to get hung up in this kind of stuff.
We live in an exciting age. Technology is exploding around us and the possibilities seem endless. Even so that doesn't mean that you can't sit down and listen to an LP. Don't convert it to a CD. Enjoy it for what it is. Just because there are new things coming out daily, it doesn't mean you can't have fun with "old" technology.
Go out and take some photos with your film camera. You can still buy a roll of film and have it developed and printed for under $5, or if you want to buy pro film and have pro processing done , it will cost you $15.00.
Take some slides. Show them in a dark room on a screen with a projector. A 36 exposure roll of Provia and a Fuji mailer only cost about $10 at the most. You can buy a projector and a screen at a thrift shop for less than $30.
Enjoy a digital camera for what it is. Make some nice photos with one. Try using an old one with only 2 megapixels. Life is way too short to get hung up in this kind of stuff.
peterc
Heretic
I have to agree with Tom on this.
A Frankencamera is not the way to go. The old cameras work very well with their intended write-once/read-many storage medium. Adding a sensor is just going to introduce you to a whole range of nastiness (dust, precise placement of the sensor, reconciling digital vs. film ISO to name a few). And then there's the "full frame" thing. The laws of physics are against this being viable option (particularly if you want to create a universal sensor).
Digicams are pretty much a dime a dozen. I picked up a used 4MP Nikon a couple of weeks ago for CDN$6. The zoom is broken so it works as a fixed lens (38mm equivalent) P&S.
Scout around the junk shops or ask your local photo shop for a still working but unsellable (low megapixel or cosmetic damage) digicam.
You can get them cheap, they're essentially disposable and give excellent results without all the headaches turning Canonettes into digicams would entail.
Peter
A Frankencamera is not the way to go. The old cameras work very well with their intended write-once/read-many storage medium. Adding a sensor is just going to introduce you to a whole range of nastiness (dust, precise placement of the sensor, reconciling digital vs. film ISO to name a few). And then there's the "full frame" thing. The laws of physics are against this being viable option (particularly if you want to create a universal sensor).
Digicams are pretty much a dime a dozen. I picked up a used 4MP Nikon a couple of weeks ago for CDN$6. The zoom is broken so it works as a fixed lens (38mm equivalent) P&S.
Scout around the junk shops or ask your local photo shop for a still working but unsellable (low megapixel or cosmetic damage) digicam.
You can get them cheap, they're essentially disposable and give excellent results without all the headaches turning Canonettes into digicams would entail.
Peter
VinceC
Veteran
>>I just don't get it. Why would you want to convert a film camera to a digital camera?<<
I really like taking pictures with my existing RF cameras. I also really like digital workflow and PhotoShop, and am not a big fan of the constant expense of film. I was a very accomplished wet darkroom printer 15 and 20 years ago, but I do everything on my computer now (and don't miss the chemical smells). I use the system mentioned above -- get my film processed and scanned direct to CD without any prints made. Then I work with digital files and print as needed. I use my old cameras to take lots of pictures of family and friends, and mostly I just email those around.
I really like taking pictures with my existing RF cameras. I also really like digital workflow and PhotoShop, and am not a big fan of the constant expense of film. I was a very accomplished wet darkroom printer 15 and 20 years ago, but I do everything on my computer now (and don't miss the chemical smells). I use the system mentioned above -- get my film processed and scanned direct to CD without any prints made. Then I work with digital files and print as needed. I use my old cameras to take lots of pictures of family and friends, and mostly I just email those around.
MadMan2k
Well-known
40oz said:
Spending more time "chimping", trying to conquer the menu system of the camera, and worrying about histograms, dynamic range and battery life while out shooting than actually taking pictures, maybe?
amateriat
We're all light!
Bingo. (In my case, a Minolta DiMage 5400 film scanner.)mike goldberg said:
This has been my "digital interface" method for close to nine years, and relatively little in the digital-capture world has moved me to do things differently (other than being given a 2MP Olympus digicam by someone who couldn't figure out how to use the thing). This is truly what works for me. When I find something which I think works better (on terms other than mere expediency), I'll take it. I'm in no hurry, though.
- Barrett
Ororaro
Well-known
Digital solution for analog camera? Why are you so inclined to speak chinese while you're typing in english??
Why not just say "Scanner"?
Besides, I have no clue what is analog camera. Do you mean "film" by any chance?
Why not just say "Scanner"?
Besides, I have no clue what is analog camera. Do you mean "film" by any chance?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
mike goldberg said:
I'll tell you what the problem is.
First of all, just to be clear, I use film, I have put in more than 500 frames into my Nikon Coolscan scanner this year so far. And I am happy as a clam if I can be assured that I still can do this 20 years from now.
But here we are in 2007 and the market is swarmed with cameras that are made with standards that are getting lower and lower. Now, I don't know about you, but like VinceC has pointed out, I like to use my 1.7 lens that is attached to an old rangefinder whose feel and operation I happen to like a lot (Leica people, start nodding in approval now
)But... you said, film is still available now.
Correct, but for how much longer? before the film makers are squeezed out of the mainstream? Some people like us appreciate film enough to keep using it, but most people do not, and they are growing in numbers.
So what are our choices when film becomes extinct or too expensive to get in the long run?
1. Stop shooting film, goodbye cool hi-quality classic cameras
2. I'm loaded, I can hire a labful of experts to manufacture my own films
3. Use some kind of 1-to-1 replacement to film
To those who said that it'll never come to this, I'll say this: If you're right, I am happy, but if you're wrong... none of us will be happy.
I am not talking about converting our film cameras into digital, what I'm talking about is a 1-to-1 film replacement. That means NOTHING in the old camera are compromized.
Will it be one universal device? most likely not, but I can live with a few devices that will work with some of the most popular classics out there.