Oh why won't/can't someone make a digital back for Nikon SP or F?

[TXForester]

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 guessing you haven't met an Olympus OM user? 😀 Ask us about Zuiko lenses.

 

[rxmd]

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.

Unfortunately, no.

An interchangeable backdoor doesn't buy you anything. There's still glass and a bevel around any sensor that is both larger than and in front of the sensor. This has to go somewhere. With a decently-sized sensor, that means it has to go where the film rails are. Enter the CNC mill. So much for your camera.

With the early Kodak DCS cameras it worked because the sensor was really small. One look at jsrockit's pictures will tell you why this interchangeable back idea is impossible with larger sensors.

Wishful thinking is strong on this topic. It's not a problem of price, it's simple mechanics: a chunk of metal in the way.

 

[VinceC]

I'd be happy to mill an old S3 to make it digital. I'm not that interested in a hybrid that can shoot film or digital. I'd be just fine for a digital modification. Milling a shutter create is not a signficant amount of work.

 

[rxmd]

I'd be happy to mill an old S3 to make it digital.

The target audience just shrunk again, from "a few wealthy owners of some classic cameras" to "a few wealthy owners of some classic cameras willing to irreversibly hack them".

 

[bensyverson]

Over 10 years ago, there was an idea called "eFilm" that was a small digital sensor that fit into some standard film cameras. It was too expensive, the resolution was terrible, and the FOV crop was extreme. Also, the whole thing may have been a scam.

These days, you could do the same thing much more effectively with a FF sensor. It would cost a few million USD to develop, but you could probably sell it for around $2000. Obviously you could make that back very quickly, as there are at least a few thousand people who would buy a device that would turn any old 35mm SLR or rangefinder into a FF digital body. The problem is explaining this to an investor in easy to understand terms.

Honestly, you may be able to do this via Kickstarter. A game project recently cleared $3.3 million USD, so you could raise the right amount of money. The biggest hurdle for the Kickstarter project would be getting accurate quotes from the professionals who would actually make it happen.

 

[sevo]

Over 10 years ago, there was an idea called "eFilm" that was a small digital sensor that fit into some standard film cameras. It was too expensive, the resolution was terrible, and the FOV crop was extreme. Also, the whole thing may have been a scam.

I already posted that further up. They had a version they did demo, but that it was a less than 1/2" CCD sensor of 1.3MP.

These days, you could do the same thing much more effectively with a FF sensor. It would cost a few million USD to develop, but you could probably sell it for around $2000.

No. FF is plain impossible without either a relay lens system (which would down the resolution below any cellphone available today) or machining away the film path, as the sensor has to be sunk deeper into the camera than the film to get its photoreceptive area into the focal plane.

It might be possible to do a APS-C version that needs no body or shutter modification. But even such a crop sensor could not be done by simply packaging a existing sensor - you'd have to wire it from behind, as the usual bezel sticks deep into the shutter. A rear wired chip would be very new - similar "three dimensional" chip designs have been done in some other fields, but probably not on chips that large and with that many components. So we are talking of a cutting edge process and design from scratch. Which is unlikely to pay off unless you can sell millions of it (which you won't even do if it costs only $200).

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Oh why won't/can't someone make a digital back for Nikon SP or F?
Vick

Because they'd first have to make a digital FRONT to go on it - dummy!🙄

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Can't you just stick an iphone camera into it and call it a day? Pop it in the RF window so no one will know. You could fool yourself into thinking you're shooting digital images with your iSP camera.
Kodak tried it, we know where they are.
Nikon made so few rangefinders that between a handful of folks in the world who happen to own most of them (just a little exaggeration) there still isn't enough interest or capital to invest in the thing.
That interchangeable digital back ship has sailed. If it were to be done, it would have been done on the Nikon F5, the camera with a serial port built into the back of the film chamber. Instead they released the D1.

Personally I'd love a full frame 36MP Pentax Spotmatic F, complete with match needle meter, no screen, just a little dial to control the basics. And I'd like it for the original price of the Spotmatic while we're at it. Not adjusted for inflation either.

Phil Forrest