Leica LTM Who wants a digital Barnack?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Brian Sweeney said:
SO: once an imaging array can be equipped with a purely electronic shutter integrated into the sensor, you can pick up some size reduction. Until that happens, I do not see how to jam everything required into a Barnack. I'm amazed that Leica jammed so much stuff into the M8 and M9.
Click to expand...

Even of you get rid of the shutter you won't win much in thickness - the lens register is a constant, and unless you get the array of sensor plus logic board down to the thickness of a film and pressure plate, digital Leicas will always be thicker than film Leicas.
 
I don't know what a "barnack" is, but I have a Leica IIC that loads exposes and advances 35mm film, don't know why I'd want it to be a computer accessory, too. ;)
 
MC JC86 said:
I don't know what a "barnack" is, but I have a Leica IIC that loads exposes and advances 35mm film, don't know why I'd want it to be a computer accessory, too. ;)
Click to expand...

Short answer: Oscar Barnack created the Leica camera, prototype in 1913. First production model in 1924. All Leica cameras through the IIIg are based on Barnack's original design, and are generally very similar in appearance. Enthusiasts and collectors generally refer to thread-mount Leica cameras (LTM) as "Barnacks" or "Barnack cameras".

History lesson:

Oscar Barnack was working for Ernst Leitz optical at the turn of the 20th century; he was also an amateur photographer.

He is generally credited with "inventing" practical "miniature" photography (35mm as opposed to bulky box or folding-plate cameras).

The first "Leica" camera of 1913, the UR Leica, was originally built as an exposure-tester for 35mm cinema film, so that cinematographers could shoot a few frames of cine film at various apertures and quickly process it to confirm how they should set their cine cameras, rather than risk blowing a whole reel of cine-film due to incorrect exposure. ( Or so the official legend goes.)
 
Lol. Thanks, the winking emoticon was intended to indicate a (stupid/silly) joke. I know who Oskar Barracks is. And the attached Leica mythos.

Edit: who Oskar Barnack was. Tihank you Android autocorrect
 
Last edited:
rxmd said:
First and foremost, it's a different business model. Leica is not like Nikon and Canon, Leica is like Alpa and Gandolfi.

Rolls Royce won't produce a Silver Shopper just because VW sells some low-end models. The last time Leica tried to make a medium-end camera compatible with their high-end models, it came around and bit them in the rear, because it cannibalized their sale of the latter. They got rid of that business model for good and let the medium-end stuff be handled by Panasonic.



Above the M9 is the S2, the closest Leica has in cameras for a professional market.

Anyway, basically you have a company that sells the smallest full frame 35mm digital camera in the world, a high-end product for $7000. You propose that they produce an even smaller version of it for $4000, after all they can save on the display which you don't need. However, what makes the M9 expensive is not the display (displays are a dime a dozen, there's a high-res display in every better telephone and $500 compact camera). What makes it expensive, apart from the full frame sensor, is the aggregated development cost, spread out across a relatively low number of units, of cramming this sensor into a workable camera package with a small form factor - the only way of making cameras cheaper is selling more of them.

So, proposing that they build a new one that's even smaller for half the money for what is even a more minuscule photographic niche than what's already targeted by the M9 is not realistic. You propose to make it a medium-end camera, but where's the "medium" aspect? No display, netting you $50 or so per camera? A lower-resolution sensor that nets you basically not much more (because what makes sensors expensive is the area, not the pixel count? And how many man-years of German engineers do you have to put into a new full frame camera? If you save $50 on the display and then sell 2000 pieces, how many engineers does it buy you? Does it earn you more than you lose by the dropping dollar? A back-of-the-envelope calculation will show that there is no way to recoup the development cost. And doing all that for something that cannibalizes your sales of an existing camera that is on a good way to recouping its development costs and nets you an extra $3000 more per unit?

It might be done at 1.3x crop, but then you guys will all be up in arms and nobody will buy it. So it's a lose-lose proposition either way.

In other words, it's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


I am proposing nothing because I am not arrogant to think that I know anything. Let alone what is good for leica. This thread is simply for discussion. It is our entertainment thread, so to speak.

So, carry on.:):):)
 
I have a digital Barnack. It's a IIIf and an Epson scanner. Works well for me and much easier to stuff in my pocket than my M8. Anyway, there've been those YouTube vids floating around on RFF of the frankenleica'd Barnack shells stuff with digital guts. Given that there are plenty of shells out there that have been parted out, perhaps, Dave or someone else from RFF will be intrepid enough to attempt a similar conversion. Me? I'm all thumbs and not an the least bit mechanically or engineering-inclined.
 
I would like to see digital backs for 35mm SLRs/RF with removeable backs - Nikon, Olympus OM, Pentax ect.

I can get a digital back for my 1969 Hassleblad 500C. Why not one for my OM-1? For that matter, why not for my Nikon SP or my Contax IIa? This is far easier to do than to put one in a Barnack body.

And for a litle more you could do cameras like the Spotmactic that the backs didn't come off (except for the special MD models).
 
aoresteen said:
I would like to see digital backs for 35mm SLRs/RF with removeable backs - Nikon, Olympus OM, Pentax ect.

I can get a digital back for my 1969 Hassleblad 500C. Why not one for my OM-1? For that matter, why not for my Nikon SP or my Contax IIa? This is far easier to do than to put one in a Barnack body.

And for a litle more you could do cameras like the Spotmactic that the backs didn't come off (except for the special MD models).
Click to expand...

How many are they going to sell of each model? And how do they get the camera to 'talk to' the back?

This is a semi-custom job, like Polaroid backs for 35mm but MUCH more complex.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
How many are they going to sell of each model? And how do they get the camera to 'talk to' the back?

This is a semi-custom job, like Polaroid backs for 35mm but MUCH more complex.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I gave this some thought at one point. In principle you could use the bulb flash contact (in those older bodies that still had them)to activate the sensor, so it knows that you are about to trip the shutter and take a picture. I figured that you could strip the guts from a sony nex and fashion it into a back. It would still be kind of bulking out, so you might want to eliminate the lcd (you could reconnect it with a cable to adjust settings etc.). A number of issues then crop up, like the fact that camera will most likely go into error mode because it senses that the shutter and lcd are missing, which means that you would also need hack and reprogram the firmware (a whole project unto it self). The other practical issue is that when you (if you can even find room in the body) position the sensor at the focus point of the film plane, then the IR/AA filter that protects the sensor is too fat and will get in the way of shutter travel. This may be overcome-able with some thinner filter and use of an IR filter on the lens etc. but it is not straightforward.

I agree with the sentiment that it is more trouble than it is worth. It would also most likely interfere with the sleek lines that attracted you to the body you are converting in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
How many are they going to sell of each model? And how do they get the camera to 'talk to' the back?

This is a semi-custom job, like Polaroid backs for 35mm but MUCH more complex.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

The same way they talk to a Hasselblad 500C - through the shutter x-sync.

To start, make them for a Nikon F3/4/5, Olmpus OM (same back for the OM-1,2,3,4), Canon F1n, Contax RTS I/II/III, Pentax MX/K-1000, and a Leicaflex R6/6/7/8

If you enginerred the sensor so it floated on the film guide rails, you could set up a service where you could punch an opening in the 35mm camera back with the correct size opening and then it's a drop in instalation. My guess is you would have to use an SDHC memory card rather than a CF type. The battery would go where the film cart went and a remote power supply should be an option. Heck you could convert a Canon P, 7, Voightlander Bessa if you wanted to.

A D3 type sensor would be perfect. Surley the back could be sold for $2,000 installed.

I would expect that quite a few repair shops woud set up conversion services and business would be good.

Would I buy one? For my Olympus OM bodies I absolutely would.

Now Nikon, Canon, Olympus Leica would not like it at all as they would rather sell you a new DSLR and glass.

Would there be teething problems? Sure but over time they would work out the problems.

And if my Olympus OM-1 body died, no worries, just pop off the back and put it on another body.
 
aoresteen said:
The same way they talk to a Hasselblad 500C - through the shutter x-sync.
Click to expand...

Not a new idea. People have discussed this a fair bit obviously, just google it here or on Photo.net or pretty much anywhere. Huw Finney ran a few threads on that, he tried to build a full-frame digital back for a Leica M2 and the project died a few years ago.

Anyway, to cut it short, with the solution you propose you get all sorts of user interface quirks. One is having to set ISO on the back and camera separately. Another is that you have to communicate the selected shutter speed to the back somehow, otherwise you run into all sorts of consequences and conflicts (options range between having the shutter sit around idle behind a closed shutter gathering noise, having to tell the back manually if you take longer exposures than the flash sync time, or having the sensor switch itself off every time the frame goes black for any reason).

To start, make them for a Nikon F3/4/5, Olmpus OM (same back for the OM-1,2,3,4), Canon F1n, Contax RTS I/II/III, Pentax MX/K-1000, and a Leicaflex R5/6/7/8
Click to expand...

Think about how many you could sell of each, how much an engineer costs, and how you want to keep your $2000-for-a-full-frame-back promise.

For one of your proposed cameras someone already offered an interchangeable digital back. It had an 1.3x crop sensor, sold for much more than $2000, didn't exactly sell like hotcakes, was discontinued, and is now a prized, expensive collectors' item.

In the end, this idea belongs firmly in fantasy land. If it was all that easy and that much of a winning proposition, someone would be offering this by now.
 
rxmd said:
.....
In the end, this idea belongs firmly in fantasy land. If it was all that easy and that much of a winning proposition, someone would be offering this by now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But for years I wished that Nikon would bring back the SP in black. Throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's I was told it would never happen. Yet in 2005 Nikon did just that and I now have one with the fantastic 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor lens. Fantasy fullfilled.

I'm still hopping that someday the price of FF sensors will drop enough to make it feaseable for 35mm SLRs

Hasselblad has solved all the issues that you state with their back for the 500 series cameras. The same can be done for 35mm SLRs. It's just a matter of time and money.

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/digital-backs/cfv-50.aspx
 
I agree with Dave lackey that it could be done, but it may not be economically feasible. In the 1970's Leica decided to make a less expensive rangefinder camera, to occupy the market niche under the M4/M5 level. The resulting Leitz/Minolta CL sold so well that it seriously cut into the M body sales. Leica quit making rangefinder cameras for a couple of years, until demand dictated that production be resumed with the M4-2.

We all know that bit of history. I'm reviewing it here to point out that Leica learned its lesson from that experience: no more lower-priced rangefinders. That, I believe, must be the reason they don't make a small X1 sized rangefinderless body with an M mount, or an LTM mount, and focus confirmation on the LCD panel.

A company that makes loudspeakers can make a lower-priced smaller model without fear of putting themselves out of business. They can make a smaller amplifier, or a small entry-level TV, and make money, not lose it. But I think Leica remains convinced that they must not introduce a lower cost alternative to the M9. The X1 doesn't compete with the M9, because it is a sufficiently different camera. You can get an X1 if you like, but you will still want an M9, because the X1 can't do the job of the M9.

That, I think, is why we don't see ideas like a digital Barnack, as desirable as they are, come into being.
 
aoresteen said:
Perhaps. But for years I wished that Nikon would bring back the SP in black. Throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's I was told it would never happen. Yet in 2005 Nikon did just that and I now have one with the fantastic 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor lens. Fantasy fullfilled.

I'm still hopping that someday the price of FF sensors will drop enough to make it feaseable for 35mm SLRs

Hasselblad has solved all the issues that you state with their back for the 500 series cameras. The same can be done for 35mm SLRs. It's just a matter of time and money.

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/digital-backs/cfv-50.aspx
Click to expand...

Basically this is what kodak was doing with their DCS Pro line of cameras. They were taking off the shelf Nikon 35 cameras and converting them to house a digital back. They gave up because they could not compete with Canons and Nikons that were designed from scratch to be digital. Now Kodak only sells the sensors to Hasselblad and Leica and some others. The modular form factor of the Hasselblad makes it ideal to interchange film with digital. Until they have shrunk the technology to the size of a 35mm film canister any 35mm to digital conversion is going to be an unwieldily bulky monstrosity. You could end up waiting another 30 years.
 
CNNY said:
Basically this is what kodak was doing with their DCS Pro line of cameras. They were taking off the shelf Nikon 35 cameras and converting them to house a digital back. They gave up because they could not compete with Canons and Nikons that were designed from scratch to be digital. Now Kodak only sells the sensors to Hasselblad and Leica and some others. The modular form factor of the Hasselblad makes it ideal to interchange film with digital. Until they have shrunk the technology to the size of a 35mm film canister any 35mm to digital conversion is going to be an unwieldily bulky monstrosity. You could end up waiting another 30 years.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But Kodak was funding the cost of the converted camera upfront and the buyer had to buy the whole kit. In this case that cost is borne directly by the buyer who already has the basic SLR (a sunk cost) and it doesn't compete with say a digital OM-1 'cause it doesn't exist.

It would have to be a 3rd party effort for sure. My bet is that in 5 years we will have this option for some mechanical film 35mm SLRs.
 
aoresteen said:
Agreed. But Kodak was funding the cost of the converted camera upfront and the buyer had to buy the whole kit. In this case that cost is borne directly by the buyer who already has the basic SLR (a sunk cost) and it doesn't compete with say a digital OM-1 'cause it doesn't exist.

It would have to be a 3rd party effort for sure. My bet is that in 5 years we will have this option for some mechanical film 35mm SLRs.
Click to expand...

Dear Tony,

Would you like to go further and suggest which ones?

My suspicion is that true classics like the Nikon F and Canon F1 are probably too primitive for most people's taste, and that after that, there are too many different models.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom