Film to Digital Adapter

<p>Hey guys,<br>

So I have an old film SLR camera from the 70's. I love just about everything about this camera except for the high cost of developing film. Yes I can get it on photo CD, but I was wondering of there was some sort of CCD adapter that could turn her into a digital. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Doesn't exist, unless your film SLR is a late-model Leica R-- which, being from the 70s, it isn't.</p>

<p>Such an accessory back was proposed a few years ago by a company called siliconfilm.com. They had a website for several years, and they raised some capital, but no product ever appeared.</p>

 

<p>In a word, no.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In another word, Yes:). Bring your old film SLR to a closest camera store, it'll take those guys only a few minutes to return back to you a SLR that uses CCD for capturing. The fee is not too much either, usually between $700-$2000</p>

<p>Although it can go to $6000+, and in a year or so it will be worth half that. You'll spend far less by keeping it as a film SLR. I think the notion that film photography is expensive is an illusion; I've spent far more on digital photography than I ever did on film photography, and I did film photography for decades and digital photography only for several years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the notion that film photography is expensive is an illusion; I've spent far more on digital photography than I ever did on film photography,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, every photographer's experience is going to differ in this regard. Case in point, my first DSLR (in 2002) paid for itself with the first year's savings on film and processing.</p>

<p>But again, every photographer is going to a different cost-basis for that sort of thing.</p>

<p>Unfortunately those adapters never appeared. The cheapest option would be one of the older used DSLRs. Another option could be to shoot B&W film develop yourself and scan with a cheap flat bed scanner like a v300 or v500. The scans would be fine for small prints and web uploads.</p>

<p>... or buy a real film scanner and do all of your own negs. Bulk-load film is quite cheap, even now. Buy a 100' roll of your favorite film, and roll your own. Buy a tank and some chemicals. Basic darkroom equipment can be had practically for free. :-)</p>

<p><a href="../digital-camera-forum/008cxN">Silicon Film</a>. Another bit of vaporware from the WayBack Machine.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>Yes technically you could make adapters for old 35mm slr's.<br>

It would be handy and very useful.<br>

possibly would look like a winder " box" attached to a replacement back.<br>

but there is no chance it is going to happen.<br>

economics , business practices.<br>

you could also make a replacement, fuel injected, powerful, engine that would "just bolt in" a 1950 Ford or in a 1963 pontiac star chief. It might meet all emissions and mileage standards. but that is not going to happen eiter<br>

same reasons. ( there is a new aluminum Ford flathead V-8 being made)( car people are different)<br>

a retrofit part for a camera, appliance or automobile rarely happens.<br>

except we do have one, NEWER FILMS that work in old cameras.<br>

It wasn't planned that way, it just was a co-incidence.</p>

<p>I wish; but if it were ever going to have happened, it would have happened back when Silicon Film was trying to raise money.<br /> It certainly won't happen <em>now</em>, not for 35mm. Of course there are digital backs for some larger format cameras, but this is not a question on "saving on film," for sure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a retrofit part for a camera, appliance or automobile rarely happens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and how! Some of the earliest computers were supposed to be endlessly upgradeable with new cards, etc., but it never happened, at least not for very long.</p>

<p>Best advice is to buy a digital camera, even a nice used one like a Canon 20D or newer. You can shoot these on all manual mode to replicate your old film camera. I have a 25+ year old Nikon FM that looks new, would make for a cool digital mod, but it sits quietly in a case along with a Hasselblad 501C I bought new. High cost,,do you send film to a pro lab or a local mini lab ? I shoot all digital but miss shooting film. I did my best work with film, digital is too easy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a 25+ year old Nikon FM that looks new, would make for a cool digital mod, but it sits quietly in a case along with a Hasselblad 501C I bought new. High cost,,do you send film to a pro lab or a local mini lab ? I shoot all digital <strong>but miss shooting film</strong>. I did my best work with film, digital is too easy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why not use film again?</p>

<p>There isn't any because there isn't people willing to pay for such thing. I am quite sure that you don't want to pay for it. How much such a thing would cost? Approximately the same price as a DLSR. In the case of the Leica, the digi back for the R8 and R9 is about the same price as the M8/M9. In the case of medium format camera, the digi back cost about the same as a medium format digital only camera. So to convert your camera into a DSLR expect to pay about the same price as an DSLR of same quality (which John Tran already said that you can go to your nearest camera store and has it done).<br>

So if you are looking for such an adapter for reason of economy, it's simply not possibe. Making the whole DSLR is much more economical.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>digital is too easy."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That certainly raised my eyebrows.. <em><br /></em></p>

<p><em>Then why not use film again?</em><br>

Less & less people process it. Plus, why ? I can shoot a million digital shots & delete what I do not want. I've had a darkroom in my house, too much upkeep, espically if you do not print very much.<br>

<em>"digital is too easy."</em><br>

<em>That certainly raised my eyebrows..</em><br>

Yep, when a commerical shows a 3 year old downloading images from a camera to a computer, its easy. In reality the commerical was saying :"Its so easy a 3 year old can do it !" A 6 year old making a photo greeting card, "Its so easy a 6 year old can do it !"<br>

If you have decent photoshop skills, (is taught to 4th graders) makes it easier.<br>

Why do I say this ? when I shot a landscapes or a buildings with film, I metered the shot, I would bracket the shot some, of course different angles, lighting etc,,BUT every time I pressed the shutter, it was $1.00+ (med. format, film, processing, prints) . Now with my digital, its fair game, I can still meter a shot, but why be careful ? I can shoot the same frame over & over & over & over varying the settings until I get it correct. Delete the bad ones. Even more easy, I can put camera on auto ! If there is a person or piece of trash in the frame, why remove it before the shot, clone stamp covers a multitude of sins,,,</p>

<p>Gregory, I think you are describing the difference between a photographer and a hack. Not all (digital) photographers are hacks.</p>

<p>I don't think I am decscribing any particular group. I could easily use the same discussion 20 years ago on manual & auto 35mm cameras. Hey, I shoot 95% DIGITAL. Funny, shoot mine on manual, I need some type of challenge. By the way,,who are you calling a hack ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Less & less people process it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be pedantic (which I'm quite good at) that's <em>fewer</em> and <em>fewer</em> people.</p>

<p><em>Less & less people process it.</em><br>

<em>To be pedantic (which I'm quite good at) that's fewer and fewer people</em><br>

Yes you are correct,<br>

I saw where another respected photo.net member said::<br>

<em>"""When using highly automated digital cameras I found it too easy to simply keep clicking away until the right image popped out. With film, I take one - or maybe bracket - and then I move on - film costs money. Later it is intriguing to see how well I did""</em></p>

<p>@Steve: You wrote, "To be pedantic (which I'm quite good at)..." Hmmmm... I'm very lucky to have benefitted from educational opportunities available to very few people on either side of the Great Pond, and I could hammer people all day with linguistic corrections if that were my desire. However, my parents taught me that such a practice is not respectful of others. Just because we "can" doesn't mean we "should." (I apologize for the bluntness.)</p>

<p>Gregory, long ago I handed my 3-year-old a film camera and let him shoot a roll of film. He handed me back the film, and I had it processed. (The photos were not all that good, but they were interesting.) I'm not sure what the difference is. Now show me a 3-year-old who can either process a roll of film or do a good job of basic color, exposure and contrast manipulations in post, and I'll be VERY impressed! ;-)</p>

<p><em>exposure and contrast manipulations in post, and I'll be VERY impressed! ;-)</em><br>

Hey, that is what "auto" is for !</p>

<p> Who is this "Auto," and how is he going to help? ;-)</p>