Since Kev T asked for comments on his inaugural post and I will oblige. Thanks for taking the time, I'm much obliged.
Premise 2 - with few exceptions, digital camera sensors are incompatible aesthetically with existing 35 mm format lenses. Whether or not technical incompatibilities exist is highly dependent on the lens, the digital sensor and the how the original analog signal (photons) is modified (filtered) by the camera hardware and software during analog-to-digital conversion. In the context of Kev T's post, I choose to assume there are no technical issues when lenses designed for 35 mm film are used with digital cameras.
As my camera is the Kodak SLR/n, I have a little experience with using 35mm lenses with its full 35mm format frame sensor... The main problem is wide-angle lenses (both primes & zooms) at the outer edge of the image frame... depending on the particular lens, softness or vignette, or even a combination of both... but this is not new, and occurs even with cropped frame sensors.
Kev T's proposal is flawed for in two ways. These flaws are exist because his ideas are ahead of their time.
Wow! I've called many things in my live, but never been accused of being forward looking! 😛
Because a technically competent, affordable 24 x 36 mm sensor is not available... Kodak currently makes such an Interline CCD sensor with 11Mp, Dalsa likewise also have an 11Mp 'True Frame' CCD, and of course Fill Fcatory of Belgium made the 14Mp Cmos for Kodak's ill-fated SLR/n. One must find a new favorite lens or change how they compose their photographs. I am more interested in using the lenses I now own and enjoy rather than adopting to a different format. The reason why I chose the Kodak SLR/n despite having to work harder during post.
Replacing the reflex finder from a high-quality DSLR with a Leica or Zeiss Icon - like rangefinder would be welcomed by RF photographers, but a this would not make the camera significantly lighter or less expensive. But i did not mention price points in my post, except maybe mentioning that I think the Epson was overpriced. The Nikon D200 body (I am not familiar with other DSLRs) is an example of a digital camera constructed to provide a long productive life span. Adapting Nikon's S3 rangefinder to a D200 platform will not decrease cost. Putting an analog-to-digital converter in a S3 body will not be cheap. Advanced engineering, high quality components and manufacturing excellence is expensive. I think Kev T's statement suggestion that a digital S3 "has the potential to sell by the millions..." is unrealistic. You're probably right, that dS3s won't fly out the window sale-wise, but I still think it is a viable business idea for Nikon to consider, especially if they are willing to take it beyond the low production item that it is now positioned in their minds. imagine the gleeful Nikon marketing exec pull one these out of his bag to a Canon marketing exec, " Hey you don't have one of these, do you?" 😀
But I see no point in using the existing sensor technologies (Canon's 24 X 36 mm sensor excluded of course) in a M-type RF camera. See my above reply on the various sensors made by Kodak, Dalsa, and Fill-Factory/Cypress... Also Sony is rumored to have a FF sensor waiting for the right platform. In their own Alpha DSLRs perhaps?
Nikon and Canon (and others) benefit when consumers acquire new lenses for a new format. They reward their shareholders when photographers buy a new camera body every two or three years. At the same time, there are a lot of high quality 35 mm format lenses in the world. A decade from now a 35 mm format analog-to-digital converter will be a practical alternate to film. Someone will sell a RF camera much like Kev T describes because the lenses exist and a profit can be made.
I welcome Kev T to RFF and applaud him for being ahead of the times. Someday light digitization will be completely compatible with the 35 mm lenses we RFFers love. Someday a digital finder will be superior in every way to optical finders. Until then film RF cameras will be be used by those who enjoy them for what they do and how they do it.
