Vickko
Veteran
Oh why won't/can't someone make a digital back for Nikon SP or F?
I suppose someone did - Pana GF1 and Amadeo adapter, with Leica adapter.
But I would prefer a back that goes directly on the SP.
Vick
I suppose someone did - Pana GF1 and Amadeo adapter, with Leica adapter.
But I would prefer a back that goes directly on the SP.
Vick
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Well , some of us have the same lament about our lovely film Leica Ms.....or our Barnack Leicas....or our old film OMs...or our....
The key would be for someone to make it at a reasonable price. I'd love to keep using old film cameras without having to use film.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Well, if they could provide one for the SP or F, they could do so for every 35mm camera - and vice versa. But there are significant focal plane issues to work around: The focal plane tends to be a few millimetres into the sensor depth, and there is quite a margin around every sensor. Even though many makers invested heavily into developing similar grafted backs in the early years of digital, nobody ever found a way to attach a FF sensor to a existing FP shutter camera system, all of them had to make do with relay lenses or crop sensors (and quite a few needed body modifications in addition to the above).
The best you could hope for would be a crop size sensor driven by some motor size electronics attachment and triggered via sync cable - such a hack wouldn't even be easily marketable if it were cheap. But the small volumes the makers have to expect would drive the price up way above a M8, which kills any chance of ever selling it.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I believe that is one good reason, plus with this new back the original design of your old film camera will be completely different and change one of the reasons you love using it...all that electronics have to fit somewhere and then there's a battery that's got to power this whole thing...it would totally change your beautiful old friend...:bang:
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
It would have to be incredibly large (35mm sized sensors and larger are very expensive to build though getting cheaper), incredibly thin, have a good battery, and the market would be about 20 people (all of which surely inhabit rff) so it would be ridiculously expensive.
Now, you could wait ten years for such a device to be available and then pay a lot of money for it, or you could go shoot a roll of film right now and get it back from your drug store in an hour...
Now, you could wait ten years for such a device to be available and then pay a lot of money for it, or you could go shoot a roll of film right now and get it back from your drug store in an hour...
sp9107sp
Well-known
tried
tried
someone tried in the 90's they had it working but never marketed it.
he is one i found on google
http://re35.net/
hmmm! will have to look into this when i have more time!
"Re-35 does not really exist"
tried
someone tried in the 90's they had it working but never marketed it.
he is one i found on google
http://re35.net/
hmmm! will have to look into this when i have more time!
"Re-35 does not really exist"
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Nope, that one was the 2011 April Fool's joke by a German web design company.
There actually was a company (Silicon Film Technologies) around some twelve years ago which sank some money into inventing something similar - but they burned up all their venture capital without getting any closer than demoing a rather underwhelming 1MP crop sensor which was not even up to contemporary compacts...
rbsinto
Well-known
Digital Sensors don't exist for film cameras because there isn't a large enough market to justify the R&D costs.
And besides, why re-invent the wheel when digital SLR & Rangefinder cameras already exist?
I suspect that there are probably a couple of examples of film camera digital sensor inserts kicking around that were put together by electronically-savvy tinkerers, but I don't expect that anything like this will become commercially available to the twelve people in the world who want them enough to pay a lot of money for a custom-built sensor.
And besides, why re-invent the wheel when digital SLR & Rangefinder cameras already exist?
I suspect that there are probably a couple of examples of film camera digital sensor inserts kicking around that were put together by electronically-savvy tinkerers, but I don't expect that anything like this will become commercially available to the twelve people in the world who want them enough to pay a lot of money for a custom-built sensor.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
You can do whatever you want with enough money.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
Mackinaw
Think Different
I've wondered for years why Nikon has never produced a digital back for the F. Yes it would be expensive, but if they produced a certain amount (10,000 units?) I suspect they'd would sell every one. I know that I'd seriously consider buying one.
Jim B.
Jim B.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
You could probably transfer the image some way backwards from the focal plane towards the sensor using a fiber optic plate as a transfer block. The angle of acceptance is probably pretty low, so for wideangles you'd need some microlens solution or live with the vignetting. You'd also have to figure out the interdependence between the size of the fibers and the resolution of the sensor. It would be a thick package, probably at least 2 centimeters, and it would be hideously expensive due to the custom technology involved.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
The problem isn't cost. The problem is that in order to fit the sensor into the space taken up by the film guide rails, you have to machine some extra space because the sensor is both bigger and thicker than a piece of film. That makes the operation complicated and non-reversible. This holds for the Nikon F just like for any other 35mm camera, which is why nobody is interested in it. Sevo basically pointed this out already.
The only cameras for which this would be feasible technically are those with interchangeable film backs, like the Rollei 3003 or the Contarex, and even then it would be a custom, low-volume solution.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Why does not someone upgrade the Epson R-D1s?
Spicy
Well-known
My physics knowledge is terrible, but doesn't it seem like you could make something like that work? At least at first, I'm sure people wouldn't REALLY care all that much if the results were mediocre.
I bet people would buy it if it weren't horrendously expensive, even it it was only like 4 megapixels. With time and development money, I'm sure it could be improved... Besides, the intended audience (film users) are almost by definition interested in complex, finicky, things that don't necessary produce optically perfect results. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. Surely a reasonably thin, low-quality, full-frame sensor could be manufactured without being INSANELY expensive. Yes, the 36mpx FF D800 sensor is probably a significant chunk of it's $3000 price tag, but how complex/expensive could it be to make something with the resolution of the D1 (5mpx)?
even if you were required to carry a small battery back (think iphone size) with a data cable, my guess is people would be willing to put up with it. it's not like people would be expecting 1000 images of RAW resolution. I'd bet that 100 5mpx files would be plenty, and people would probably be fine with 50.
edit:
if this was possible in 1991(?), just imagine what would be possible now. sure it might be a larger back, but if you want to compare sizes, look at an ipod nano and then try and find a computer made in the early 90s with the equivalent processor speed.
I bet people would buy it if it weren't horrendously expensive, even it it was only like 4 megapixels. With time and development money, I'm sure it could be improved... Besides, the intended audience (film users) are almost by definition interested in complex, finicky, things that don't necessary produce optically perfect results. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. Surely a reasonably thin, low-quality, full-frame sensor could be manufactured without being INSANELY expensive. Yes, the 36mpx FF D800 sensor is probably a significant chunk of it's $3000 price tag, but how complex/expensive could it be to make something with the resolution of the D1 (5mpx)?
even if you were required to carry a small battery back (think iphone size) with a data cable, my guess is people would be willing to put up with it. it's not like people would be expecting 1000 images of RAW resolution. I'd bet that 100 5mpx files would be plenty, and people would probably be fine with 50.
edit:
if this was possible in 1991(?), just imagine what would be possible now. sure it might be a larger back, but if you want to compare sizes, look at an ipod nano and then try and find a computer made in the early 90s with the equivalent processor speed.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Unfortunately, no. NPC spent many hundreds of thousands exploring this route, which works fine for Polaroids but NOT when you start enlarging. Dead pixels are as nought next to dead fibres.
To the OP: follow the money. Who is going to pay the price of a new DSLR for this? 'Cos it ain't gonna be cheaper than a Nikon N800.
Cheers,
R.
VinceC
Veteran
Also to amplify the OP: Nikon RF and F cameras already have interchangeable backs, so they are among the best suited cameras for a modified digital back. The flash sync socket could let the back know that the shutter has been tripped. There isn't much market, but market size would depend on price.