crazy Frankenstein idea?

[laptoprob]

What problems would I run into if I tried to get some not-too-expensive digital camera apart and get the image sensor into the film plane of one of my rangefinders? Or to make a lens mount flange on the digi at 28,8mm distance? Could I use my RF glass on a digital body then? 😀
Not too expensive probably means some point-and-shoot. Using a RF lens instead of the built-in lens means the image sensor should do AE exposure, at aperture priority. Does that kind of camera use a lens shutter anyway or is it some way of electronic or digital timing system?

 

[boarini2003]

Would be amazing if you pulled something like that off. I don't know the slightest bit about those kinds of things, but it sure would be amazing to see something like that done!

 

[Socke]

At least your 50mm would turn into a 300mm tele and it might be hard to focus that 🙂

 

[wyk_penguin]

P&Ss have a lens shutter (unless you have those webcam type things). But successful attempts have been made to put RF glass on SLR.

 

[RML]

P&Ss have a lens shutter (unless you have those webcam type things). But successful attempts have been made to put RF glass on SLR.

Leica R glass can be stuck on a Canon with an adapter. No need to hack the camera body for that. 🙂

 

[laptoprob]

I guess sticking a RF lens on an 'extended' (28.8 registry) camera would be the best option. If the lens could be taken off without damaging the shutter. And if the sensor would be big enough not to exaggerate the crop factor too much. A 300mm FOV would not be very useful indeed.
I will ask the guys at my camera shop about digi shutters.

 

[lubitel]

Best option would probably be to take the sensor from Canon D5, since its full frame and use it in your Zorki. 😀

 

[vicmortelmans]

I like the idea of mounting a digital sensor in the rangefinder camera!! But indeed, the 50mm becoming 300mm is not ideal.

Just a wild idea: what happens if you mount the digital sensor *not* in the original film plane, but closer to the lens and put a close-up lens in front of the 50mm...
(actually, you don't 'close-up' the subject, but the film!)

Wouldn't there be a certain configuration (sensor position vs. close-up lens diopter value) where the lens projects a smaller image *in focus* on the sensor?

Let me know if you succeed! 😀


Groeten,

Vic

 

[laptoprob]

On second or third thought I guess sensor size and with that cost will be the main problem. Huw Finney at Pnet is still building with a (I think) full size sensor in an M2. With sensor size comes the problem of light hitting the sensor other than a 90 degree angle. And with that the problem of using RF glass.

Back to square one (read: film) I think...

 

[fgianni]

I like the idea of mounting a digital sensor in the rangefinder camera!! But indeed, the 50mm becoming 300mm is not ideal.

Just a wild idea: what happens if you mount the digital sensor *not* in the original film plane, but closer to the lens and put a close-up lens in front of the 50mm...
(actually, you don't 'close-up' the subject, but the film!)

Wouldn't there be a certain configuration (sensor position vs. close-up lens diopter value) where the lens projects a smaller image *in focus* on the sensor?

Let me know if you succeed! 😀


Groeten,

Vic

Essentially you are creating a lens with a shorter focal lenght

 

[fgianni]

Back to square one (read: film) I think...

Or an RD-1, all problems are already solved (except for the focal lenght multiplier which anyway is only 1.5 instead of 6 or so)

 

[wyk_penguin]

I like the idea of mounting a digital sensor in the rangefinder camera!! But indeed, the 50mm becoming 300mm is not ideal.

Just a wild idea: what happens if you mount the digital sensor *not* in the original film plane, but closer to the lens and put a close-up lens in front of the 50mm...
(actually, you don't 'close-up' the subject, but the film!)

Wouldn't there be a certain configuration (sensor position vs. close-up lens diopter value) where the lens projects a smaller image *in focus* on the sensor?

Let me know if you succeed! 😀


Groeten,

Vic

Considering that I can do macro with extension tubes, moving the lens closer to the film/sensor will most probably make you loose close focus or loose the ability to focus on anything all together. Any Physics teachers here? I remember that a lens can only form real images beyond/on its focus?

 

[laptoprob]

I remember from my shutter burning test that the difference between infinity and close focus is about 3mm for a 50mm lens. At infinity the lens is closer to the camera. With extension tubes the lens gets even further away. All this is relative to the flange-to-film distance. If you would make the f-t-f distance smaller, the lens gets closer too and the projected image gets smaller. That is why a modern digi P&S is small and a large format camera is big.

Now how can I make good use of this? Maybe if I come across a partially wrecked digital toy I will give it a try.

 

[Socke]

I think the best aproach would be to start with an old Canon D30 or Nikon D1. The 1:1.5 or 1:1.6 sensors are much better suited for usual 135 glas then the much smaller sensors from digital P&Ss.

 

[Scarpia]

Laptoprob, how would you power the sensor and install a storage card? Quite an engineering feat as a DIY project.
Kurt M.

 

[bmattock]

Some links worth a look:

http://www.camerahacker.com/

http://camerahacks.10.forumer.com/index.php

http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/tech/scanner.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/01/diy_build_a_sca.php

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wiskerke/html/diy.html

I also had a link (but have since lost it, sorry) to a fellow who had grafted an SLR zoom lens onto his PnS digicam and it worked fine. He used it as a webcam to look out the window at his bird feeder, as I recall.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Ooh, and check this out!

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=55011

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[pshinkaw]

There is an online magazoine called Makezine:

http://www.makezine.com/

One of their projects is a DIY hack of a CVS single use digital camera to make it re-usable and downloadable. Given that this project has explored the "hows" of accesing the camera's electronics, perhaps the camera's innards could be implanted into a film rangefinder camera of your choice.

Thje CVS camera costs approximately $20 US.

-Paul

 

[laptoprob]

Disposable digital... never heard of! Thanks for all the links guys. I will keep you posted if I get to any development.

 

[Hamster]

I once have the idea of jamming a spotmatic pentaprism in a old FED 1, prentaprism mounted 90 degrees off the normal way directly behind the lens and digital sensor on top of the bottom plate touching the viewfinder end of the pentaprism, that should compensate for some of the difference in format, unfortunately I never had the chance to do preiminary tests.