Why No Nikon digital back for film bodies -Leica Can?

[josh a.]

Doesn't seem strange that Leica, with the help of Kodak, is going to

introduce a 10 megapixal digital back for their most recent film

cameras, but big companies like Nikon hasn't.

 

According to Leica, they want to expand digital to their loyal film

users. At least for the R users. AND, all Leica lens will work with

the back, even the older ones that have been 3 cammed.

 

Personally I would rather invest in a back, to fit the F5 or F100,

with the option of switching it to a film back when I wanted to.

Just image the possibilites. As Technology advances, you can get a

new back. A company like Nikon could even develop one for sports

photography, just switch backs. OR, it would be as good to have one

for True B&W.............just imagine.

 

But i guess that's only reality at Leica...Too bad. That's a really

inovative idea

[abbie_benson]

Now That would be a good idea! Changable backs...."Build the better mouse trap idea"

 

Abbie

[jimvanson]

How do you say vapourware! And if we do see it what will it cost?

[markci]

<i>

But i guess that's only reality at Leica...

</i>

<p>

You seem to be having a little trouble with the concept of reality.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

It's not reality yet. I wish them well, and I am eager to see how it plays out. As digital photography loomed, many of us wished for 'digital film' so we could swap back and forth. There has been a lot of hype / vaporware in this area.

 

But wait: Kodak has been doing this with Nikon bodies in their DCS series. It has been reported here (but I have no way of verifying the details) that with something like a Kodak DCS420, you can remove the digital back (off the N90s base body), re-install the 'film' back and have a film camera. N90s bodies and DCS420 bodies are both trading for about $350 used, so you can mess with it yourself if you're so inclined.

 

With all the DSLR shooters getting 'anal' about dust on the sensors just from changing lenses, it seems like exposing that whole sensor to 'the world' as you swap it is asking for trouble.

[chuck]

Leica is very good at using the cache of its name to pass off sour ideas that no one else can get away with. In any case, many Leica user I know would suck leica lemons and still call them sweet.

[sam_portera]

Uhh because they SELL digital cameras. Why would they want to compete with themselves along with everyone else. Leica's digital back I think might have been a good idea if the back were affordable. $1900 for a R9 body and $4500 for the back = $6400 plus or minus a grand or two. Why would anyone do this when they can purchase a EOS digital body and get an adapter for their R lenses. I would like to see more hybrid systems like the Hasselblad H1.

 

Chuck, as a Leica user I resemble that remark!

[Jerry_]

Nikon may be waiting to see what 'pitfalls' the digital-changeable back might involve. (i.e., will a warranty cover a 'dropped' back? Ehhhh!)

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, apparently the open digital sensor is much easier to clean than a fixed sensor in an SLR. See Michael Reichmann's comments on the matter. He seems to find it a significant advantage of the medium format (Kodak) back that he uses with Contax 645.

[henk]

I think the Chinese or Taiwanese engineers will probably come up with a OEM back for some of the A-brand slr's given some time to assimilate the technology involved. Till then im enjoying film as much as possible ;)

 

Greetings,

[scott_warn]

I think it will happen someday, digital backs are common for the larger formats and someone will do the same for 35mm, once the cost drops enough. Dust could be a probem, but in a removable back it would be much easier to clean.

 

In a somewhat related story, I heard on the news yesterday that Kodak has announced that they will not be spending any more money on researching new films, Kodak plans to become an all digital manufacturer. I wonder if that supposed supplier of digital backs for everyone might not be Kodak. I don't know how much stock to place on this story, the all news radios station who made the announcement during their stock report is notorious for rushing stories onto the airwaves and getting stuff wrong.

 

I like the idea of a seperate digital back. For one thing, why replace the whole camera when a new, higher mp, sensor hits the market? Just go out and buy a new, higher, mp back. Also think about the flexability this would allow, B&W only backs at extreme high resolutions, Infared backs that work better than film, Ultraviolet Backs, etc. Who knows, maybe in 10 or 20 years we will all be able to go to the corner drug store and buy a new back for 10 bucks in that famous yellow box. Gee, I hope that they make one for the F2, it would extend the life of my favorite camera into forever.

[ShunCheung]

I see a lot of disadvantage in Leica's hybrid approach.

<P>

<BL>

<LI>

The viewfinder is designed for a full 35mm frame. Therefore, the metering area, AF (and spot meter) point locations are designed for the full frame. If the digital sensor is smaller than full frame, as in Leica's case, the camera will be metering the wrong area and the AF point could even be outside of the actual sensor area. (Leica doesn't have the AF point problem since they don't have AF.)

<LI>

Control and connectivity such as white balancing, USB2,etc. are all better integrated into dedicated DSLR body.

<LE>

<P>

I'll take a dedicated DSLR over a hybrid any day. I think there are good reasons that Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympuc, Pentax, etc. all only make dedicated DSLRs. At least among people I know, once they switch to digital, they hardly use film any more. (I am one of the exceptions, mainly because I don't have a high-end DSLR.)

<P>

The real question is why Leica uses the hybrid approach when nobody else does in small format?

[jimvanson]

<i>Kodak plans to become an all digital manufacturer...</i><p>Thats not true! Kodak will continue to manufacture conventional/traditional media. They continue to cut back in the <i>R&D</i> of those traditional medias

[tcb.photo]

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with some of what Josh said here. Too me it looks like a good idea, with far reaching possibilities. I would even buy another F100, or maybe a F5, just for the convenience of the interchangeable back, or backs (assuming they would be forth comming). Once in place, it would seems a simpler task for the R&D departments to upgrade, and make "pro grade digital" less expensive in the long run.

 

HOWEVER, There are two things that Josh is overlokking. First the initial cost of Leica's back. I talked to a guy from Adorama, thinking I would start picking up some Leica R stuff in hopes of this new back. He told me to expect to pay $4000 to $5000 for the back, that's what they were told. Why, because start up costs and R&D costs would be high on the "newer" technology. Plus, it's Leica R mount, and that isn't the most popular system. Plus, it's from Leica. I love Leica, but when was anything from Leica "inexpensive"

 

Second, as history tells us, there will probably be a lot of "bugs" initially. Look at the 14n, from Kodak as a example. It took a while to work out those bugs, and that delayed introduction of the body. There are many who still dislike it.

 

You can't draw a parallel to the DCS 420, different technology levels. Like comparing a model A to a new Corvette.

 

Finally, I must say I do like the idea. I'd love to see Nikon do it. It offers a world of posiblities we can only begin to imagine. But the Japanese camera makers won't do it until they see it is something that "lights the market up". If Leica could bring the back out for #2500 to $3000, and it works...the SLR world might take a change. If Leica were to triple their sales of the R series with the introduction. Then Japan would take notice. Until then it's easier to continue as it is. Much of the R&D is done, and they don't need to "retool" and start up new production lines, so to speak. Not to mention Nikons commitment to the their new lens mount (the DX in particular). You wouldn't need it if you had a full frame interchageable digital back. That would be lots of money wasted in R&D. That's why it will surprise me if they bring out a full frame DSLR, they have already developed too many "DX" pro lens. But time will tell.

 

As for preferring to own a seperate DSLR, Canon or Nikon, that's always a opinion. I certainly respect it. But I don't agree with it.

A lot of people might find it more afforadable to own one sytem, and allot would prefer it. I would

[avery_homes]

Well, I'm not a digital kind of guy. I doubt they would ever make anything for my F2AS. But I do have an opinion on this topic.

 

For once I think the "boy" has hit the mark, and he wasn't even rude in doing it -by his normal standards at least.

 

Here's my "peeve" about this conversation. Are we too assume that digital can replicate all the different film type characteristics? Not at current levels, at least not that I've come upon in Popular photography.

 

As Shun stated: "I'll take a dedicated DSLR over a hybrid any day.....At least among people I know, once they switch to digital, they hardly use film any more. (I am one of the exceptions, mainly because I don't have a high-end DSLR.)"

 

Well Shun, forgive me, but why is it right for a camera company to to design equipment based on what you and your friends like only? You need only read this list and others to see many damm good photographers still like film, as well as digital. Maybe you don't mean it like this, but your statment sounds a bit selfcentered. I don't like to be critical, and frankly it won't matter a hill of beans to me either way. But I don't like these self centered attitiudes very much. Think of you "brother" photographers, who this technology could help get into digital photography. Your too good a person to think of only what you like and not what can help others as well. Doesn't make sense to me why Nikon couldn't do both. Anything Leica Can do , they certainly can also, and better I'd say

 

I'm sorry if I offended anyone. But we should always look at what others prefer also, and try to accomidate them as well

[ShunCheung]

Avery, where does this "self centered" stuff come from? I have no access to any marketing research to know what the general preference is, but based on people I know, most people simply switch to digita and stop using film altogether. Therefore, there is not much of a market for any hybrid camera.

 

And for those small number of people who use both as in my case, IMO your are much better off with separate bodies. Just taking the vulnerable digital sensor out, potentially getting dust all over it, and storing it is enough of a nighemere. We are much better off having the sensor protected inside a solid camera body.

 

A lot of people here in the Nikon Forum still prefer MF mechanical cameras. Most of them probably won't be going digital any time soon. Even though Kodak has made the first move to get out of the film business, film will still be available for quite a while.

[tcb.photo]

Listen guys,

 

Before this becomes a name calling "blood lust" thread, take a minute and then step back and look at the question from this view point.

 

Forget Leica!! If Nikon were introducing a digital full frame 10 megapixal back to fit their 3 top film cameras (F5,F100 &N80). Then lets say it were to cost $ 3,000.00 (if leica will sell their for $400 Nikon could sell theirs for $3000-$3500). What that means is you could buy a used F100 (around $700), and the back. So for around $4000 total You could shot whatever you wanted, when ever you wanted. No worry about lens compatibility, becasue the F100 will accommodate the AIs lens. If you never wanted to shoot film, you won't have to, but it would still be cheaper than the Canon Pro grade full frame Digital. AND, you could upgrade to the newer back without scrapping the entire camera. Think about it, even if Nikon developed a "new must have it" body, you could keep the F100 as a 10 megapixal full frame backup. and you could upgrade the back also. WOULD any of us still object to it? Rationally?

 

So When it came time for upgrades, just buy a new back. Best of all, Nikon could develop new bodies, with less R&D and production costs, that would work with both Film and digital, for anyone who wanted to shoot both. Or just shoot which eve you prefer

 

Shun's views on the protected sensor are valid, and thus would require a certain amount of care. Many of us have two bodies, and thus if you felt you needed a "digital only SLR", you could easily have one.

 

Shun, in honesty wouldn't you rather have a Digial F5, or F100, that you could upgrade if you wanted to, that cost $3000 less than Canons Top DSLR? I'd much rather spend an extra $3000 to $4000 on something upgradeable, then spend $7000.00 for "the current level of technology"

 

 

BTW,I think there are allot of people who still shoot both.

[ShunCheung]

Rob, I think I had already pointed this out. Leica's digital back for the R8 and R9 is not full 35mm frame; had it been full frame it would have cost a lot more. Hence your entire cost analysis and comparison to the EOS 1Ds is incorrect.

[tcb.photo]

Shun, your right I just noticed that. "Sensor: 3876 x 2584 Pixels (10 MPixel) CCD-Chip, active sensor area 26.4 x 17.6 mm, focal length extension factor 1.37", interesting I assumed it was because it was a 10 megapixal.

 

But as I said forget Leica. I still think it would be a great option. I also have to agree with Avery in that if Leica can do it, Nikon certainly could and cheaper. With their expertise, there is no reason Nikon couldn't do it full frame.

 

Rob

[ilkka_nissila]

The motivation for the digital back in people's minds is that Nikon is pricing certain features such as proper autofocus quite reasonably in their film bodies but the price for it goes sky high when you look at the digital bodies (D1x). Similar to the price of TTL spot meter in Hasselblad 6x6 bodies. The fallacy here is to assume that Nikon wouldn't price the F100+digital back combination higher than a native digital body. They would. And the upgrade back (with a new sensor) would still be as high as a native body with that sensor. Because pricing is based on how desirable certain features are ... nothing to do with production cost.

[scott_warn]

Take it easy guys, lets think about the long term view. Digital is evolving at an incredible rate. Think about what was offered only 10 years ago versus what is currently offered. 10 years ago 1 mp was super expensive, only the news agencies could afford it. Today 1 mp digitals are almost a giveaway promotional item. The same thing will happen to today's high end digitals. In as little as 3 years I expect that full frame, 10 + mp cameras will be under 1500.00 and may actually be available for under 500.00. Within 10 years I expect that we sill see 10+ mp digital P & S cameras under 100.00.

 

Once the manufacture of full frame sensors hits a large enough volume, someone is going to say, lets start making interchangeable backs. One thing that interchangable backs can offer that would be hard to duplicate is a wide variation of sensors. You could have super high speed versions for low light, B & W versions offering a wider grayscale such as 2000 or 3000 levels, infared versions, ultraviolet, etc. The only roadblock to this happening is the communication between the back and the camera, I don't know how much is required, but if the back only needs to know when the shutter is tripped that could be done through the flash sync circuit. It is even possible that we may someday see standardization of the backs themselves, sorta like the way that APS was developed.

 

I paid over 800.00 USD for 16 mb of ram memory back in the early 90's, today chips that small aren't even offered and you can buy 256 mb for under 100.00 USD. We are going to see that same thing happen to digital sensors, first the mp count will expand to some limit, determined by what is ultimately needed, and then prices will start dropping fast.

 

As for the film versus digital debate, long term, film will only be available in the art market. Kodak will continue to make film for the interim but I expect that in the next 10 or 20 years they will get out of the film business completely. It does sadden me to say this, I have over 30 rolls of Panatomic-X in the freezer and am always looking for more to aquire. Any film junkie knows where I am coming from just by my choice of what film to hoard. That being said, this film junkie finds digital to be incredibly convenient, my antique Olympus C2020 (hard to believe a 4 year old camera is an antique but in digital terms - it is) makes generating, work related, documentation photos incredibly easy. Problems with this camera are extreme distortion at the wide end, lousy close up capability, and poor sharpness. A not yet anounced D2H would solve this, the price will be what stops me from buying. So I am resigned to going fully digital with an occasional foray with my hoard of Panatomic. When this will happen is price driven, spending 4000.00 USD on a camera is more that I am willing to do, but 2000.00 would get me in a buying mood. A digital back for my F5 at 1000.00, I would be logging off and driving to the store within 10 minutes.

 

As for the dust issue with a removable back, that doesn't bother me at all. I also shoot 4 x 5 on occasion and have learned the hard way about dust control, one of my favorite negs requires spotting of every print because I was sloppy loading the film into the film holder. At least with a removable digital back we could test for dust easily, shoot a white wall after mounting the back, download the pic and check. They would be somewhat fragile but so are our lenses and we all know how to care for our lenses.

[Allen Herbert]

Loads of new digitals to come yet. Work hard, fill your pockets, or you will be left behind. You don't want to be that sad bloke still using old tech...do you ?<div></div>

[josh a.]

Because pricing is based on how desirable certain features are ... nothing to do with production cost. -

 

That's so true. It also has nothing to do with customer satisfaction.

[avery_homes]

By Allen: "You don't want to be that sad bloke still using old tech...do you ?"

 

Allen, talking as an old "bloke" with a F2AS, why not. The art is in the person, not the camera body. What's new today is tomorrows antiques of junk. What's in you, now that's what makes the difference.

 

Avery

[Allen Herbert]

The art is in the person, not the camera body

 

There's a thought.