Digicam into a different body

[Ash]

so that I didn't hijack the thread on the Arsenal factory, I've started this one.


Has anyone got any tips?

This is my starting point http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/m39var1/ - i'm trying to go in the other direction, and place a digital camera electronics into an old body, so that I can use interchangeable lenses.

I basically want to place this camera http://www.aiptek.com.tw/english/product/dv/dv3500.htm into a body. It's been laying around and the sensor is easily accessible, but the body will need to be broken to place this into something different.

I'd really like to place it into a small rangefinder body, but is it worth using a M42-mount or my old/broken Minolta MD body?


Has anyone got a small broken old rangefinder m39 body? I expect I'd end up giving it a M42 mount, its just I don't want an SLR type, but M42 lenses and MD lenses are laying around in my collection, and M39 are not!



anyone got any more links, or tips?

Any idea how far the lens should be mounted from a sensor. I think it measured something like 37mm roughly when moving the lense back and forth in and out of focus.


Any help asap would be really appreciated. This is my project til the end of the week (if I can get it done before the UK RFF meet - so I can use it!)



Plan
Gut a body
Hook up the shutter release to shutter button (or not, depending on effort!)
Clear one side for battery compartment
clear other side for MMC/SD slot
Cut a section of the back for the LCD screen
Cut a section for all controls, and maybe shutter


If I used a rangefinder body, it SHOULD be possible to focus it as usual, and see it on LCD focused as well, but if I use a SLR body I would need to lock up the mirror and the pentaprism is redundant.



What do you all think?

 

[40oz]

I'd say buy a cheap POS digicam, such as this: http://www.target.com/gp/detail.htm...784879-0492612?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B000FO0C54

As you dissect it, measure the distance from the rear of the lens and the front of the CCD. I might start with a cheap SLR, like a K1000, and you should have room for the entire origianl digicam minus the casing and original lens. You need to find some way to extend the wiring for the shutter and other controls, but this should be basic soldering. You can mount the CCD assembly on the film door, and shim it up some way using glass slides (to keep the CCD parallel to the film plane).

Once you have that working, and can rebuild it reliably, I would try a Canonet or Electro or some other fairly reliable yet cheap auto-exposure rangefinder. You won't have to gut a body if your donor cam is small enough. In fact, you would make more problems gutting than not, inviting light leaks. Once you have it working with your cheapo, you have enough knowledge to make it work with your slightly less cheap digicam.

One issue to think about is how the digicam works. A cheap one has a constant ISO, aperture, and fixed focus, with variable shutter speeds. So when mounted in a camera with variable shutter and aperture, you need to find the appropriate settings to get a decent exposure.

I see no reason the entire electronics package contained in a cheapo digicam shouldn't work half-assed in a different body, but what has been gained when you cram a low-resolution sensor into a high-quality camera? 35mm film in a Canonet will shame all but the highest quality digitals (and even then I'll argue the point), so unless you have access to a high-quality sensor cursed with a poor-quality lens, there won't be any gain other than sheer "neat-factor." Not that there is anything wrong with that lol.

 

[Ash]

Heh, yea I'm halfway there.

I've experienced the thumbnail-sized sensor problem, but removing a glass piece from olf binoculars I've reversed some of the magnification.

basically fixing a the lens to the front of the old digicam has worked using cardboard, so now I'm gonna draw up plans for when I can get hold of a camera body.

 

[nikola]

cool... i'm thinking about that kind of project for some time.... even found some sony 2mpx with broken lens for 10$, and already have fed3b (too small?)...

 

[Ash]

The sensor I'm using is a 4mp I think.

When I was trying to work out dimensions of this kinda thing I slapped my head and realised that the whole back cover with most old cams can be removed. That means the whole circuit board etc can be mounted to either the original back, or another cut the right size. A window can be cut to fit the LCD, and drilled holes for buttons maybe?

in this way the whole back can be removed and the battery pack can remain in the film-cassette area. Using a connector, the sensor is mounted either side of the film plane/shutters and the sensor can be detached from the main circuit boards if necessary - to avoid being knocked out of place.

With a new back to the camera, a latch can be created for the batteries.

Thats how I see it in my mind. Its suddenly become a lot more effort!

 

[laptoprob]

That first link is excellent, Ash! I will go hunting for a camera suitable for grafting a M39 mount onto. Now just figute out suitable models that perform well...

 

[kbg32]

There is someone on pnet building a digital M in an M2 body.

 

[ZorkiKat]

As in the Arsenal thread, one point of discussion was the size of the sensor. The sensors found in digicams aren't very big. Many use sensors which can fit on the average thumbnail. Using a smaller sensor would mean something like a 3X to 4X "crop factor". A 50mm normal lens may just end up working like a 150 to 200mm lens. 🙂

 

[Ash]

Zorkikat, I've countered that by using pieces from a binocular eyepiece. It reverses quite a lot of magnification (that is, if you want to use it that way, otherwise this is a very cheap way of creating tele-telephoto images)

voyeur, much?

 

[vicmortelmans]

As in the Arsenal thread, one point of discussion was the size of the sensor. The sensors found in digicams aren't very big. Many use sensors which can fit on the average thumbnail. Using a smaller sensor would mean something like a 3X to 4X "crop factor". A 50mm normal lens may just end up working like a 150 to 200mm lens. 🙂

Isn't that the problem Ash solves by putting the binoculars lens element between the actual (film) camera lens and the sensor?

Generally, the solution is to

1. implement either in front or behind the film camera lens a converting lens (e.g. a close-up adaptor filter lens)
2. move the sensor closer to the film camera lens than the normal distance to the film would be

It's basically a kind of macro-setup, but this time not for catching tiny subjects on large film, but for catching large subjects on tiny sensors.

 

[RML]

Huw Finney is doing the thing with an M2, but his project is a bit more elaborate

 

[ZorkiKat]

Isn't that the problem Ash solves by putting the binoculars lens element between the actual (film) camera lens and the sensor?

Generally, the solution is to

1. implement either in front or behind the film camera lens a converting lens (e.g. a close-up adaptor filter lens)
2. move the sensor closer to the film camera lens than the normal distance to the film would be

It's basically a kind of macro-setup, but this time not for catching tiny subjects on large film, but for catching large subjects on tiny sensors.

But wouldn't the use of additional corrective optical elements between the objective lens and the sensor degrade the optical qualities of the lens? Wouldn't that defeat the main reason for building a digicam which would accept LTM 39 or M42 lenses- that is, to be able to continue enjoying and appreciating these lenses for their intrinsic qualities on a different media? 🙂

One reason why I shifted to Canon digital (started with a Nikon-bodied Fuji DSLR) was the ease of adapting old M42 lenses. It took only a flange adapter to do that, since the focal register of EOS Canon was shorter than M42. Nikon on the other hand required a corrective element on the flange adapter so that the adapted lens will focus to infinity. As it is, an M42 adapted on a Nikon body won't focus to infinity since the M42 focal register is about as long as that of Nikon's. The optical element in the adapter affected the image focused on the sensor. It effectively cancelled out everything which was desireable in the adapted M42 lens. 🙂

Jay