Digital Back for 35mm film cameras

[tommarcus]

If I recall correctly, this was a rehash of the scam from years ago when an exactly similar system was announced, but never produced.

 

 

the item the OP here linked to on b and h, was an actual product, it even had a review about 2 years ago on the film photography project website.

 

But the product i mentioned was an actual camera, digital from the get go, but used a wierd oddball memory cartridge shaped like a 35mm canister

[ben_hutcherson]

the item the OP here linked to on b and h, was an actual product, it even had a review about 2 years ago on the film photography project website.

 

But the product i mentioned was an actual camera, digital from the get go, but used a wierd oddball memory cartridge shaped like a 35mm canister

 

The one I remember was a Yashica Electro looking body that had "cartridges" that would fit into it.

 

Best as I could tell at the time, it was just a conventional low-end digicam. The "cartridges" essentially programmed the camera to give a specific type of output(B&W, high saturation color, muted color, funky instagram filter color). It was no more a film camera than a Fuji XT100, but was inferior in every single way to a even a $100 digicam.

[tommarcus]

The one I remember was a Yashica Electro looking body that had "cartridges" that would fit into it.

 

Best as I could tell at the time, it was just a conventional low-end digicam. The "cartridges" essentially programmed the camera to give a specific type of output(B&W, high saturation color, muted color, funky instagram filter color). It was no more a film camera than a Fuji XT100, but was inferior in every single way to a even a $100 digicam.

 

It might be the one im thinking of, but this was in the last 18 months that i saw that company web site. Just a go fund me thing i believe, with a rather nice product photo, nice video. It did seem wierd to have a special memory module when a cheapo one can be bought for nothing at walmart these days, and not have all the expense of specialized shapes....

[ben_hutcherson]

If you want a digital lomo look, just buy a digital camera from the early 2000s or late 1990s at a thriftstore for a few bucks.

 

Here's a thoroughly uninspiring photo taken out my front door earlier this evening in reply to this comment using a digital camera from 1999 in all its 2.1mp glory.

 

 

To be fair, this wasn't a CHEAP digital camera in 1999-it's a Nikon D1 and using a lens that's now considered dated but was sort of premium at least in the early 2000s-a 12-24mm f/4(DX).

 

I picked this up and it had a card in it already(I have several D1s, but this is the one I know works well, it's set up the way I like, and it's what I use anytime I want to show an example photo from a D1). I had a 2gb card in it, which of course was huge for that size camera. It threw me off initially since I forgot that the bracketed number on the top LCD shows how many shots taken(like a film camera), not how many remaining on the card. With smaller cards, there's a small "REM" and under that the estimated remaining. Mine showed FL there, and I had to consult the back small LCD to that it was reporting over 500 RAW files remaining. Given that RAW files are about 4mb each for this camera, I suppose that's about right.

 

In any case, the biggest handicaps with using this today are the fairly limited dynamic range and the poor low light sensitivity of CCDs(plus the weird color banding at highlights). It's easy to forget that you don't have 1-2 stops of highlight recovery like on a modern camera, so you really do need to expose to the right and pull the shadows up in post. Nikon made you have to pull out the manual to figure out how to even get it to output a RAW file(it's enabled via a cryptic custom function using the same screwy system as the F5 and F100) but they do really help you. I'd guess that at the time, Nikon figured that between the cost of memory cards and the intended market for the D1(PJ) there was no real need to have RAW as a setting that would confuse people and also need special software to even work with. I have to give both Apple and Adobe credit for the fact that macOS displays a thumbnail, and both the current version of Apple Photos and the latest Adobe Lightroom Classic(which I think updated a few days ago) can import and edit these files and pretty much every other obscure DSLR RAW(including Kodak and Fuji DSLRs) I can throw at them.

Edited July 3, 2020 by ben_hutcherson

[BeBu Lamar]

Instead of digital back I shot this with my Nikon F3 and the Iphone 11. It has the narrow DOF of the 135mm f/2.8 shot at f/2.8.

[neild1]

Hi guys, I'm newly signed on but I've been here before, years ago.

I believe this is a fantastic idea (and thanks go to the man himself for posting a comment here too: thanks!). I agree with others that the quality is not there yet, but how about this:

 

I have a digital back for a Hasselblad 500C, a 39Mp unit which has not electronic connection to the fully mechanical camera, it just accepts a pulse of focused light from the camera and processes it. The exposure is determined by the camera, not by the digital computer in the digital back. Could the same idea be done here? It doesn't matter the size of the sensor, though 35mm full frame would be good, but utilise the camera's focal plane shutter to control the light, not the electronics. Would be best to put the battery where the film used to go, but so what if this is not possible.

Anyway, that's my suggestion. I know it can work this way because my Hasselblad unit works like this. If anyone also thinks this kind of thing can work, please make a comment here. Cheers.

[q.g._de_bakker]

It could work, yes.

The thing is that your Hasselblad V fit digital back will not fit on a Rollei, Bronica or Mamiya. Or even another Hasselblad, the H series.

Not very many different mounts in MF, so it made sense to offer versions for a couple of them.

35 mm cameras' dimensions vary even within brand, from model to model, and a digital back made to fit, say, a Nikon F3 may not fit a single one of the many other Nikon film cameras. So what to do?

Then there are Canons, Pentaxes, Minoltas, et cetera.

So what niche to aim at, how many camera owners will be left wanting? Not viable, economically.

It is not new, this idea. It has been abandoned, for good reasons, before.