Why Digital OM-1 or FM3a?

I'm ok with not being a real photographer if looking at an LCD makes you a fake one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just because an LCD screen that can display the image is on a camera does not mean you have to use it. Immediate playback can be disabled in the setup. I do this to conserve battery life and to speed operation.

If I'm testing a lens, or under difficult shooting conditions, I will enable it.

The DSLR that I use for my projects does not have a display. It is essentially a Nikon F4 made into a full-frame digital, a Nikon E3 circa 1997. It works with the SB-29 macrolight, something the D series will not do.
 
As far as the "real Photographers" comment, a professional photographer will use the tools to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. That is why Polaroid backs for Hassie's and other professional cameras were available. It is essentially "chimping" using film. You get immediate feedback.
 
In photography as in life, if you got [the shot], you got it, if you didn't, you didn't.

Chimping via Polaroid or LCD or whatever, are all after the fact. It is nice to know, but still too late.

Testing artificial lighting [effect] or static compositions before-the-fact is a little different...you can still do something.

Personally, I found chimping a deterrent, rather than help in getting a good picture. Arms-length only LCD composition is even worse...us aging yuppies need serious diopter to focus that close...my perfect infinity vision [post laser surgery] will require a +4 diopter to focus at 10" or 1/4m. Yet, I have observed even DSLR users compose a picture arms-length!!!

I chimed in because of the EVF discussions. Other than ground glass viewing in large format cameras, EVF is the most direct. You see what the sensor sees, and one day pixel for pixel.

All SLR or RF cameras are merely approximations, in time or space.
 
Silicon Film

Silicon Film

would have been great is this one got off the ground.
My recollection is the firm did produce some protoypes but could not get financial traction and ended up going bankrupt.

http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00Pq7H

Maybe someone still owns the intellectual property on this and with technology updates can now come up with a financially viable product

I recall seeing a press release not too long ago about "painting" a surface with photosensitive material making any flexible material into a potential "digital film" material
 
I've "chimped" the shot while setting shims in lenses. Outside, using the lens. "Damnit, focus is off". Took the 90/2 Summicron out of the mount, adjusted the shim with copper tape, put it back together. At least all of the shots following were better!
 
PentHassyKon said:
would have been great is this one got off the ground.
My recollection is the firm did produce some protoypes but could not get financial traction and ended up going bankrupt.

http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00Pq7H

Maybe someone still owns the intellectual property on this and with technology updates can now come up with a financially viable product

I recall seeing a press release not too long ago about "painting" a surface with photosensitive material making any flexible material into a potential "digital film" material
Click to expand...

The "silicone film" form factor, not unlike the olde 110 or other cartridge films, was indeed the best way to package a digital retrofit.

Elsewhere, I had posted lengthy discussions of retrofit packaging, from Leica-M to Nikon F, all roughly along the same line: put the battery in the film cartridge chamber, pack essential electronics on the back of the CCD chip, and place other circuitry and SD cards in the film take-up spool space now not needed...all connected via robust flexible circuit "board".

I have a collection of cutaway imagery of digital cameras: from D3X to M8, also R-D1, G1, EP-2... They all indicate the LCD take up about 10mm of depth, the other electronics could be as thin as match books, with the SONY NEX the thinest...total depth from lens flange excluding the LCD is only about 25mm. Add the shim depth [10mm] of an M-mount adapter will make the whole works ~35mm, the same thickness of an M-body.

[I have the know how in accurate photogrammetric measurement, using known dimensions such as lens mounts as control.]

My pursuit in retrofitting a film-M continues. My interest in Nikons are also high [because I own 8 of them, from F to FM3A, every member of the mechanical branch of the family].
 
Frankie said:
The "silicone film" form factor, not unlike the olde 110 or other cartridge films, was indeed the best way to package a digital retrofit.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Nobody has ever been able to produce as much as a working prototype. There are already some basic technical problems that people in such discussions always talk about as easily solvable, but that seem to have been a little harder, such as insufficient space between film rails and pressure plate, dust, insufficient battery capacity, no standard placement of the sprockets, shutter and film chamber, or no way to signal the shutter release to the in-body module without either specific modifications to the camera body, running a cable from the flash socket into the camera, or some sensor circuitry that needs to be always on.

Personally, I see that as a "hic Rhodos, hic salta" type of thing. If someone talks about how doable it is, fine, let him do it and make a prototype. Otherwise it's like the guy at the bar and the 50lb trout he caught last Sunday. People always like to hear nice stories. The digital insert for film cameras is such a nice story, but nothing else.

IMHO the best package for retrofits is that taken by the Leica DMR or by the earlier Kodak DCS cameras: swap the back of the camera out for one with sensor, circuitry and battery. Unlike the Silicon Film idea, people have actually been building, selling and using such backs. That design is, of course, camera-specific and raises some ergonomics issues because of its thickness and size. It also has not had success on the market; people simply didn't want those hybrid digital backs.
 
Last edited:
Frankie said:
In photography as in life, if you got [the shot], you got it, if you didn't, you didn't.

Chimping via Polaroid or LCD or whatever, are all after the fact. It is nice to know, but still too late.

Testing artificial lighting [effect] or static compositions before-the-fact is a little different...you can still do something.
Click to expand...

That is the key....not all of us are taking action shots. If it is a once in a life time opportunity or action, we don't chimp. However, if it is a static object, why not?
 
Well, some camera companies (Olympus, Nikon and Minolta come into mind) produced manual focus cameras, all through AF era, and even some more into digital age. There always was some need for traditionalist camera. It never was commercial success. Nikon made much more money on p&s cameras than on FM3A. Still FM3A was produced.
So why today we have no manual focus dslr from one of leading camera makers?
 
I'll speak to the OM-1. With a late model screen the VF is wonderful. Compared to even the best VFs I've seen in dSLRs it's like 3D iMax vs. a television.

A top-notch VF makes composition easier and in my case, that instills more confidence in the image making process.

That and a number of the OM lenses are jewels -- as EOS users have discovered. Used copies used to languish on eeekbay and dealer shelves until EOS -> OM adapters showed up and some comparison tests were posted to the Web and the buying frenzy began.

Finally, Maitani-sama admired Leica rangefinders and wanted to create an SLR with similar qualities, especially portability. When the OM-1 hit the market, it was a revelation and started a paradigm shift toward smaller cameras that continue today. Micro 4/3 anyone?

my two lux worth/ScottGee1
 
I don't understand how Nikon could make money on FMxx. Past year 1985 AF slrs outsold FMxx 1000:1, not to mention p&s cameras. To me looks like they lost money on every FMxx sold - but still produced them as a flagship models, traditionalist cameras, as a "buy-in" into Nikon for purists among us (and for photography students all around the world... when start working those students tend to affect camera buying habits of others).
 
Igor.Burshteyn said:
So why today we have no manual focus dslr from one of leading camera makers?
Click to expand...

Because it is illogical? The advantage of manual SLRs was that they were essentially battery independent. A "manual DSLR" would lack that feature, and failures to the (by now well-matured) electronic shutter and AF system are (or could be) rare compared to sensor related mayhem as well. There is not really a rational reason for choosing a hypothetical Nikon DM over a D3 (other than size and weight, but then a D90 or D5000 would prevail), while there still are applications where a FM might be less likely to fail than a F3, F4, F6 or D3.

Sevo
 
rxmd said:
IMHO the best package for retrofits is that taken by the Leica DMR or by the earlier Kodak DCS cameras: swap the back of the camera out for one with sensor, circuitry and battery. Unlike the Silicon Film idea, people have actually been building, selling and using such backs. That design is, of course, camera-specific and raises some ergonomics issues because of its thickness and size. It also has not had success on the market; people simply didn't want those hybrid digital backs.
Click to expand...

I suspect that an F36 sized digital back could be done these days. The DCS 100, 200, 400, and NC2000 series were profitable enough for Kodak in the 90s. They did sell them, we bought them. I still have an operational DCS200, 18 years old.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I suspect that an F36 sized digital back could be done these days. The DCS 100, 200, 400, and NC2000 series were profitable enough for Kodak in the 90s. They did sell them, we bought them. I still have an operational DCS200, 18 years old.
Click to expand...

Brian,

You and I had long agreed elsewhere that the Nikon F36, or even plain Nikon F removable backs are ideal starting points in such experiment. I have a mint black-paint Nikon F that I would not hesitate to place on the table when a working concept/prototype is complete.

A major CCD manufacturer who knows me had confirmed that making a ~1mm thin frame encasing the sensor is doable...resulting in a smaller 22 x 34mm sensor or a 1.06X crop. They are the one who custom-made the 11,200 x 11,712 7.2u monolithic chip for the newest Zeiss RMK-DX...

Such a chip could be used in a Leica M, an OM or an FM or F36 equally well. As would a common CPU in a slim circuit board. When SONY announced the NEX, all it says to me was a MSRP $600 APS-C CCD+CPU is doable...ignoring the added values of the body and lens.

In photography, the two variables had always been f-stop and shutter speed. In digital photography, add the ISO settings [on the underexposure side].

WB settings in fine or special increments are nice within the range of 3200~6000 degree-K, but entirely optional if a B/W only digital implementation is desired...as you have so expressed often.

While everyone is entitled to his positive or negative opinion, I simply think of JFK and the moon.
 
Yeah but doing so would mean a certain fall in DSLR sales, if everyone starts using granny's Contarex and uncle's Leicaflex with a digital back for less than 1000€/$...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom