AE-1 Program Digital

<p>Here are a few shots. Found this on Rockwell's site. Could this be a dream come true. An FD mount digital? <br>

<a href="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050131_large.jpg">http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050131_large.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050130_large.jpg">http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050130_large.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050132_large.jpg">http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050132_large.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050129_large.jpg">http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2883/2101/32206050129_large.jpg</a></p>

<p>It does look like some kind of spy shots of a prototype. A hacked up looking thing. Whats with the film advance and rewind levers? Curious.</p>

<p>Absolutely bizarre. A "FD Zoom lens" but indicated as a 10mm prime on the front, and a 5mm(?) prime in green on the side. If it really is only 10 or 5mm focal length, the image sensor might be pretty small, so real FD lenses would become very telephoto. Viewfinder appears to have gone, so no longer an SLR and thus not much of a dream camera...if it's not just a joke anyway, which is my feeling!</p>

<p>For me its a joke,but a good home made work.</p>

<p>That mongrel lens also has no release button, suggesting it's been fixed in. Or aperture ring for that matter.... The Japanese on the card in front doesn't help the mystery...the heading is "Caring for the brightening box", whatever that is.</p>

<p>well, the lens reads 10mm where it read 70-210 before being photoshopped....</p>

<p>Right Vladimir, the lens is the give away here. Says 10mm on the front and 8mm on the side.</p>

<p>I think the more important question is - Louis what were you doing on Voldemort's, sorry Rockwell's site? :-)</p>

<p>people want eiher a new fd ( a or t series) camera, either film or digital that they will dream anything.</p>

<p>people want eiher a new fd ( a or t series) camera, either film or digital that they will dream anything.<br>

of course I dream about a source for panatomic-x</p>

<p>OK if you can't see the joke in this I'll let you dream a while but I see something cobbled up and photoshopped together.</p>

<p>LOL. Reminds me, few years ago, someone posted an article about a new autofocus Speed Graphic on the graflex.org site. It was an April 1 joke.</p>

<p>OK, so a Canon R&D secret has finally been leaked. The surprise here is not the AE-1PD Mark I, but the world's smallest 10mm incredo-wide lens for the 24 x 36mm format. Must have a liquid element (does that make it an "L" lens?) to achieve good performance in such a small size. That property may explain the "zoom" terminology. Perhaps the liquid zooms around in the lens. It was obviously difficult to make it all fit, because the name ring screws directly into the outer focusing ring. They had to leave out the front barrel pieces to make it work. Or maybe edge obstruction was an insurmountable problem.</p>

<p>Obviously this is a prototype, since in the first picture the green focal length identifier reads 50mm, and in the second, only 5mm (or 8mm--hard to read). Canon must have borrowed the barrel from a 50/1.8, then later decided to alter the indication, but weren't yet sure what the actual focal length was to be.</p>

<p>I suspect the "brightening box" is an electronic amplifier in the body that enhances the effective brightness of the image coming from the sensor, without generating the noise one currently sees from high ISO settings on digital bodies. One might assume that such an amplifier would be susceptible to excessive light intensity, electrostatic discharge and who knows what other dangers, necessitating special care instructions.</p>

<p>I can see Ken Rockwell's attraction to this unit. He enjoys using old equipment, telling his readers how much better and more fun it is to use than modern gear, which we in this forum have known all along. Though he doesn't seem to understand the original intent of the F-1, or the climate in which it was developed, he especially likes the AE-1P, so this would be a natural to him for digital utility shooting. Leaving the advance lever in place allows him to pretend he's shooting "RealRaw."*</p>

<p>I first assumed that whomever faked this Photoshopped the name ring onto the 50mm barrel, but there is a "patch" in the lower right quadrant, so now I wonder whether the perpetrator really cut up both a 50mm and a 70-210.</p>

<p>*When the advance lever is operated, the camera's voice synthesizer says, "I hate the F-1!" Seriously, no disrespect intended for Ken. He says a lot of things tongue-in-cheek and I'm only doing the same.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Louis what were you doing on Voldemort's, sorry Rockwell's site?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>HA, HA. cute. Unlike some, I have no problem with Rockwell. It's cameratainment. He is often right and insightful and often off base and silly. But he does get his hands on some interesting gear, he does promote film and classic film cameras. I don't hang on his words or see him as an expert but he does remind me of photographer friends I have. Self important, creative, opinionated, gadget-loving, politically incorrect, goofy....in other words....human. There are plenty of dry-as-toast "serious" photo sites around to offset his. </p>

<p>But to answer your question I was following a thread in another forum here:<br>

<a href="../off-topic-forum/00WLSb?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00WLSb?unified_p=1</a><br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>Fun but to me this imaginary hybrid would throw out the baby with bathwater - if there were an option for digital capture on a modified 35mm FD body, the things I personally would absolutely not want to sacrifice in the bargain are the original optical viewfinder and interchangeable focus screens (or even just the good old split-prism screen).</p>

<p>It's a very good exercise ! Not perfect or funtional 100 porcent , but works !!!</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Canon will never go back to FD lenses.</p>

<p>If one really wants to use FD lenses on a digital camera then Micro four thirds is the answer. Be prepared for 2x crop factor and the need for an adapter to put FD lens on the new camera, the need for EVF if you don't care for arms length viewing and shooting, manual focus only, probably aperture preferred mode only and a host of other hurdles but FD lens use is possible. I shoot occasionally with Olympus Evolt 500 with adapters for Nikon, Leica R, and Pentax thread glass with similar caveats as above. If I am to use a mirrorless camera then I want FF or 1.5 crop factor and I want a rangefinder/ viewfinder. Yes the Leica M8 and M9 i$ out of my league (retired serious amateur).</p>

<p>My guess is the guy basically hollowed out a AE-1P body and shoved something inside it with maybe a connection to the AE-1P shutter button.<br>

But it doesn't use and FD lens I'll be the lens shown is nothing but a shell with the compact cameras lens inside it.</p>

 

<p>Louis,</p>

<p>You're killing me with this post and the responses just keep getting better and better! </p>

<p>Everyone knows that the the new Canon FD digital (20+ megapixels) is going to be based upon the T90 and is going to replace their current offerings of EOS cameras! A year from now EF lenses will be selling for peanuts and the value of our FD lenses is going to shoot through the roof. Take my word for it! Oh yeah, I also have it from a reliable source that the new FD digital is going to have a full frame sensor and will be bundled with the FDn 50/f1.4 for $US1650.</p>

<p>"I got mine at Adorama".</p>

<p>I invested some thought this afternoon while doing something else mindless, and I decided to build an FD digital body. If this guy can do it, so can I. Like Stuart says, I'm going to base it on the T90. So far I have accomplished everything except the design and execution. That is to say, I have named it. Its name will evoke the FD shooter's most sought-after features, digital capture and autofocus (yes, using FD lenses): It will be called the <strong>Digital Auto Focus T90</strong>, or...</p>

<p>the <strong>DAFT90.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Get yours at Adorama.</p>

<p>I've wondered if a digital "cassette" could be built for use in 35mm film cameras. The circuitry and power supply would be inside a structure shaped (and retained) like a film cassette, with its image sensor extending outward across the film plane and held in place by the camera's pressure plate. The widget I'm visualizing would require no modifications to the camera at all! You could even make it with a couple switch-selectable ISO settings, perhaps even a very high ISO value for available light use beyond film's capability? Of course that would also be well beyond a film camera's metering range in all likelihood...<br /> For maximum points, design it so the film rewind crank could be used to recharge it at least partially...it's fun to think about over a morning cuppa java!</p>

<p>Phonyshopped and way too obviously done. It's clear that the person doing the shooping doesn't understand camera design.</p>

<p>MORE PICTURES :</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMOF-nu5c</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the videos, Jack. Regardless of it's source, even if it's a one off by a hobbyist, with some serious skills, stuffing a point and shoot into the body cavity, and hooking it up to the shutter release and flash hot shoe, it's a neat curiosity.<br>

The overriding question I have and and sure, everybody else, is about the lens and the lens mount. The $64K question is...<strong>is this an FD mount that will accept FD lenses directly</strong>? Even with a tiny sensor that would be very neat. The videos seem to avoid this area.<br>

To continue with my curiosity, <strong>who</strong> is making this and <strong>why</strong>?<br>

If some real answers along these lines could be addressed, you might see some of the skepticism melt into real interest. </p>