Turning film cameras into digital cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca, Apr 7, 2007.

  1. Not with all of them - the early Kodak backs fitted specific UNMODIFIED
    Nikon and Canon camera bodies and could be used interchangeably with
    film backs. The only "modification" was the special focus screen, which
    was an interchangeable item on the cameras in any case.

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index.htm shows an
    early Kodak back that fitted on a standard Nikon F3.

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index1.htm shows
    the DCS-4xx series which fitted standard Nikon F90/N90 series cameras -
    check the note near the top of the page, interchangeable with a standard
    film back.

    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index2.htm shows
    the DCS-1c 3c and 5c series designed for unmodified Canon EOS cameras.

    The Kodak manuals (downloadable from the pages) also state these backs
    are compatible with unmodified cameras.

    These cameras all had electronic shutter controls accessible through the
    motor drive interfaces and, importantly, a space of several millimetres
    between the film plane and the shutter blind.

    Later Kodak backs used modified cameras.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, May 2, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    John Turco Guest

    <edited>

    Hello, Kennedy:

    Once, there was also a line of Kodak-branded DSLR cameras, based on
    Nikon and Canon bodies.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, May 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. That's right John, and you'll find references to those on the web links
    I provided in the previous post as well. They came AFTER the digital
    backs for specific unmodified Nikon and Canon bodies.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, May 5, 2007
  4. aniramca

    Rich Guest

    I don't know. Because a Nikon FE-2 body, all metal, built like a tank
    cost $400 and a flimsy plastic DSLR designed for midgets and women
    costs as much or more? Because the cheapest well-made DSLR (the Canon
    30D) costs $1000 for a body? But mostly because if we are FORCED by
    camera companies to have to use digital bodies with shapes designed
    for FILM (because of bunch of old photoluddites don't like change)
    then maybe having DECENT film bodies with digital hearts isn't such a
    bad idea?
    Right now, you have the plastic equivalent of Canon Rebel T70 $160 SLR
    bodies that cost $400-$800, because they are digital.
     
    Rich, May 7, 2007
  5. aniramca

    ASAAR Guest

    The FE-2 was introduced in 1983, selling until it was discontinued
    in 1989. How much would $400 amount to in today's dollars? If you
    think that the greater reliance on plastic (usually over a metal
    frame) equates to flimsiness, you're mistaken. Have you tried
    drop-test comparisons?

    Anyway, film cameras sold in the last century were expected to
    last much longer, so if being "built like a tank" was justified,
    today's cameras would probably be more expensive for little good
    reason. Digital cameras have been evolving much more rapidly than
    film cameras/film. If you use a DSLR, it's probably not one of the
    ones from the beginning of this decade, which were far more
    expensive and far less capable than the cheapest of today's entry
    level DSLRs. For that matter, despite being "built like a tank",
    what percentage of FE-2s do you think are still in regular use? :)
     
    ASAAR, May 7, 2007
  6. Why do you expect sophisticated "digital guts" to be given away free with
    such a $160 plastic SLR? Is film free?
     
    Charles Gillen, May 7, 2007
  7. aniramca

    Charlie Self Guest

    It's the plastic. Rich thinks all plastics are cheap and crummy. If he
    rode a motorcycle, he'd want a cast iron helmet.
     
    Charlie Self, May 7, 2007
  8. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    The form SLRs took is a function of many years of refinement; it's a
    form-follows-function thing. They are shaped that way because that
    shape works well for the use of that product.
    DSLRs perform the same end function; why would a different shape
    develop?

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Hillary Clinton refused to fly in a Gulfstream II
    private jet provided for her in South Carolina
    and demanded the more luxurious Gulfstream III.
    She was on her way to California. She can't be
    seen in something the valets are embarrassed
    to park.
     
    Bill Funk, May 7, 2007
  9. aniramca

    Rich Guest

    This is like how digital image files measure as larger the more noise
    they contain. Recording every little grain on the film probably takes
    a huge amount of memory, yet the pictures contain (likely) no more
    visible resolution than a high megapixel DSLR.
     
    Rich, May 7, 2007
  10. aniramca

    Rich Guest

    It did. Olympus's E-10, 20 and E-1 all had radically different body
    designs that most people recognized as improvements over the existing
    moch SLR bodies other digitals had. Of course, for Olympus sales to
    take off, they had to throw in the "innovation towel" and kowtow the
    status quo with the boring E-500 body design. Is there really a NEED
    for a left hand side of a DSLR that formerly only existed to hold a
    film spool in SLRs? Face it, people fear and hate change, and it is
    completely irrational.
     
    Rich, May 7, 2007
  11. aniramca

    ASAAR Guest

    Most people that have commented on this (in fact, all that I'm
    aware of) have indicated that the smaller the camera, the harder it
    is to hold without adding blur-inducing camera movement. Mass is a
    factor, but size may be a greater factor, and due to the way cameras
    are held with two hands, a greater width would help much more than a
    greater height. This isn't to say that cameras that have small left
    sides such as Oly's C-8080 can't be held with reasonable stability.
     
    ASAAR, May 8, 2007
  12. aniramca

    dj_nme Guest

    There is also the slight detail that when the FE-2 was released in the
    early 1980's that $400 was a large-ish sum of money, equal to slightly
    more than the average weekly wage in the USA at the time.
    Strangely enough, the cheapest DSLR cameras now costs a bit less, when
    adjusted for inflation.
    It's possible now to buy a Nikon D40 for less than $600, so that is
    slightly cheaper than an average weekly wage and cheaper (relatively)
    than the "cheap" FE3 that Rich is writing anout.
    From B&H the Nikon D40 costs $545, this is roughly 2/3 an average
    weekly wage, making it much cheaper in relative terms than the Nikon FE3
    was in the early 1980's.
     
    dj_nme, May 8, 2007
  13. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    Ah, I see.
    "Many" people saw the new shape as an improvement, but Oly had to
    throw in incentives to sell the things. (Read "bribes")

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    First Lady Laura Bush hosted a formal dinner
    for Queen Elizabeth Monday. The dress code was
    white-tie-and-tails for the men. They sometimes
    had white tails at the Clinton White House but
    the bunnies were always cleared out before
    Hillary came home.
     
    Bill Funk, May 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.