Amazing! This guy turned a Konica S3 into a digital rangefinder.

Merlijn53 said:
People do this for fun. It's happening all the time. Because it's easy. Just show people what they want to see.
But it's just my first reaction when I see something that looks too good to be true. If it was this easy, someone would have done this commercially. There have been attemps the last 15 years and you still find them on the internet and nobody really succeeded.
Frank
Click to expand...

1 - who said it was easy to build this camera? It seems the person who did it put a tremendous amount of time and effort into it.

2 - as stated before, it's far easier to create a one-off frankencamera than to create a viable production model and sell it at a profit.

3 - Who cares if "people do this for fun"? or if it is "happening all the time"? I mean, really, it's a lark ... the project of a motivated individual who did it for himself and provided the website to amuse other people. Even if he just made a mock up, it's a neat effort. Why do YOU care whether it's a fake or not? Are you going to commission him to make you one if it's for real?

Sheesh.

G
 
Godfrey said:
1 - who said it was easy to build this camera? It seems the person who did it put a tremendous amount of time and effort into it.

2 - as stated before, it's far easier to create a one-off frankencamera than to create a viable production model and sell it at a profit.

3 - Who cares if "people do this for fun"? or if it is "happening all the time"? I mean, really, it's a lark ... the project of a motivated individual who did it for himself and provided the website to amuse other people. Even if he just made a mock up, it's a neat effort. Why do YOU care whether it's a fake or not? Are you going to commission him to make you one if it's for real?

Sheesh.

G
Click to expand...
1. It's not easy to build a camera like that, it is easy to fool people on the internet.
2 I did not say what was easier
3.I don't care. I just said it is very easy to create a hoax on the internet and that I think it's fun to see people reacting to it and believing your story.
Just throwing it in the discussion 🙂 it may still be true.
 
Just to put the project in context, (that is additional to the specification, design and manufacture of the camera in itself), the author is a student of Engineering, and it seems that this is his chosen student project, funded (as he states) by the Arkwright Scholarship Trust.

So, it is neither a hoax, nor a proposal for any particular commercial application, nor saying 'you've got to do this that or the other' for any particular model of subject camera. I enjoyed reading it, on its own merits 🙂.




Named after the innovative engineer
Sir Richard Arkwright, the ‘father’ of
the factory system, the Arkwright
Scholarships Trust runs one of the
most prestigious Award Schemes in the
country.
 
Last edited:
citizen99 said:
Just to put the project in context, (that is additional to the specification, design and manufacture of the camera in itself), the author is a student of Engineering, and it seems that this is his chosen student project, funded (as he states) by the Arkwright Scholarship Trust.

So, it is neither a hoax, nor a proposal for any particular commercial application, nor saying 'you've got to do this that or the other' for any particular model of subject camera. I enjoyed reading it, on its own merits 🙂.




Named after the innovative engineer
Sir Richard Arkwright, the ‘father’ of
the factory system, the Arkwright
Scholarships Trust runs one of the
most prestigious Award Schemes in the
country.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Applicants for this scholarship are in year 11 or 12 at school, i.e. around 16 years of age only!
 
citizen99 said:
Just to put the project in context, (that is additional to the specification, design and manufacture of the camera in itself), the author is a student of Engineering, and it seems that this is his chosen student project, funded (as he states) by the Arkwright Scholarship Trust.

So, it is neither a hoax, nor a proposal for any particular commercial application, nor saying 'you've got to do this that or the other' for any particular model of subject camera. I enjoyed reading it, on its own merits 🙂.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Calling it a possible hoax is, IMO, rather disingenuous.

G
 
citizen99 said:
Just to put the project in context, (that is additional to the specification, design and manufacture of the camera in itself), the author is a student of Engineering, and it seems that this is his chosen student project, funded (as he states) by the Arkwright Scholarship Trust.

So, it is neither a hoax, nor a proposal for any particular commercial application, nor saying 'you've got to do this that or the other' for any particular model of subject camera. I enjoyed reading it, on its own merits 🙂.




Named after the innovative engineer
Sir Richard Arkwright, the ‘father’ of
the factory system, the Arkwright
Scholarships Trust runs one of the
most prestigious Award Schemes in the
country.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what the guy says.
 
Darthfeeble said:
Seems the Doubting Thomas' have missed one point on why it wasn't done long ago. 3D printers. The machine work to make this happen would have been incredible.
Click to expand...

Let's not make it worse than it is. For me it's 60% chance it's a hoax, 40% it's not. I'm absolutely sure it is possible with a 3d printer. My doubt is about putting the 2 cameras together and making it work.
We all want to believe this. But just look at the world today and see what happens when people start believing (don't want to start a political discussion 🙂
Frank
 
Let's imagine someone has figured out conversion process up to stage when it needs just investor. What is the market? It depends on price, right? But mainly we are speaking about buffs who keep, fondle and use their film cameras. How many of us would convert their beloved M or whatever it is into digital? You name it. $100? Impossible, taking into account complexity (which is there and isn't going away as long as we aren't speaking about chain reaction, like spreading of minilabs or audio disks or...). $1000? Now how many would part with their grand to have chance to make picture with camera they can already use for the price of film? Conversion is custom process, nothing like factory made thing which you can get replaced by shop as long as you spot problem or feel it's there. I have feeling they in most cases will not be as problem-free as mass-made electronics. Another group of conversion enthusiasts step back. For remaining crowd price should rise to keep job profitable. Then another group says they will get used digital M because it's just little more expensive and is supported by relatively large company (compared to conversion shops).

Would I like to use converted Konica III? I'm not that sure. What's sure it would loose its wonderful smell, gain plastic buttons getting in the way and wouldn't run without Li-Ion battery which will get obsolete pretty fast (and need to be substituted). No, thanks. I'm OK with plastic digital bodies, I don't need simulated feeling of retro styled digital cameras nor I need swapping modern engine into old car. I prefer simple dish, either this or that, together they don't necessary taste better - to me, anyway.
 
Merlijn53 said:
My doubt is about putting the 2 cameras together and making it work.
Click to expand...

People make all sorts or rebuilds, conversions and customizations to cameras, bikes, cars and what not. As long as someone has some knowledge on principles, has tools and resources, it's quite possible to make such conversion. It's possible to land on the moon. This is no question. Question is if it's possible today to make it commercially viable product.
 
As an owner of a NEX camera, tinkerer with film RFs and general browser of the internet, I have no doubt this is real. The NEXi are designed around a very simple modular plan. They are ideal donors.

How much would it cost?

$300 for the cheapest a?000 camera
$100 (guess) for the 3D printed part mass produced (less if it can be molded)
1 hr skilled labour to disassemble the Sony
1 hr to modify the fixed-lens rangefinder
2 hours to assemble
1 hour CLA and testing

It depends what those skilled labour hours are worth, but I'm going for a retail price of $2000 plus the cost of the $50 donor camera.

So, who would pay $2000+ for the offspring of a $50 and a $300 camera?

What could be sold is the 3D printed back with a list of instructions.
 
Hi there, I'm the author of the blog and the creator of the camera, all of your interest is greatly appreciated and I wrote a little update on my blog which may clear up some of these problems, feel free to ask anything else

Ollie
 
OliverBaker said:
Hi there, I'm the author of the blog and the creator of the camera, all of your interest is greatly appreciated and I wrote a little update on my blog which may clear up some of these problems, feel free to ask anything else

Ollie
Click to expand...
Thanks for writing the update at what must be a busy time, I wish you all the best.
 
OliverBaker said:
Hi there, I'm the author of the blog and the creator of the camera, all of your interest is greatly appreciated and I wrote a little update on my blog which may clear up some of these problems, feel free to ask anything else

Ollie
Click to expand...

Hi Oliver, kudos to you for showing up here. Just want to note, you did a great project. As one from those who mentioned soldering, I can assure you that I didn't mean your personal soldering skills (as someone who has tried to solder tiny wires couple of times I realize it's art on its own where I'm far from even novice). I were meaning small batch production where labor (including soldering) would require precision work to keep cameras as trouble-free as possible. For personal project - to make working camera - this isn't critical as you always could pop it open and restore connection.

I have feeling people here discussed your S3D through prism of eventual commercialization which could explain elevated criticism.

I just realized another nice touch of attachable digital module - it is very easy to remove it for sensor cleaning which isn't possible without disassembling compact camera with non-removable lens. One could argue it allows more dust inside than closed design camera, but for that you have sealing between module and body, as I imagine.
 
OliverBaker said:
Hi there, I'm the author of the blog and the creator of the camera, all of your interest is greatly appreciated and I wrote a little update on my blog which may clear up some of these problems, feel free to ask anything else

Ollie
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. Congratulations on your camera project and your place at Oxford 🙂
 
Oliver

Thank you for participating here. Your project is so much fun and simply genius!.... Well done sir! 🙂
Good luck with a long and industrious Career at Uni and Beyond!
Hope you keep us updated with any similar ventures.

Cheers!
 
Great job, Oliver!

I wonder about using a monochrome sensor for a similar conversion. Without the bayer filter and anti-aliasing, the sensor might be just thin enough to fit the pressure plate of a fed2 - zorki4 type back. If not, a slight sensor-sized bump on the back should not be too intrusive. A screen is helpful, but not really required : just like film, one would check exposure after the fact, and learn to compensate. Also, without the colour, processing would be reduced to a simple dump of light values.

The question is where to source the elements one can't build oneself : a full-frame monochrome sensor, a film can sized battery, a processor and card slot that can be fitted into film-can size shape.

A project like this could induce leica to bring the monochrom back to a 'reasonable' price. Both the sensor and the processing should be simpler to make than a full colour sensor-processor, but I guess the problem will be scale of production. And I see there is at least one firm that scrapes bayer filters off sensors for canons and nikons, so monochrome sensors mustn't be easy to get by.

When, o when can I start doing this to my fed2?

Cheers
 
Even though I am not one of those who is clamoring for a "digital FM2", "digital OM-1" etc., I have to say I am really impressed by Oliver's work. Just read his update. I see a bright future ahead for him. And quite possibly some clever engineering for the rest of us to enjoy (who knows what he will design further down the road...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom