Digital sensor for 35mm film cameras

[Horatio]

Did anyone see this last year?



It's only DIY at present, but seems like a great idea for one of the major camera makers, especially with a larger sensor.

 

[radiant]

That was a great idea. I was thinking of same for Super 8 cameras some time ago.

Quite a crop ratio! Wonder what is largest "hobby scale" sensor to integrate to microcontroller. I'm guessing those aren't larger than smartphone sensors..

 

[Horatio]

That was a great idea. I was thinking of same for Super 8 cameras some time ago.

Quite a crop ratio! Wonder what is largest "hobby scale" sensor to integrate to microcontroller. I'm guessing those aren't larger than smartphone sensors..

That would be my guess as well. The crop factor would be severe.

 

[Steve@f8]

I wouldn’t wish to spoil a perfect film camera. There are many digital cameras out there, some reasonably priced. Although in my book it’s always preferable to purchase a previous model at lower price, second hand letting the previous owner take the initial depreciation.

 

[mshchem]

Fun for hobbyists!

 

[mshchem]

I wouldn’t wish to spoil a perfect film camera. There are many digital cameras out there, some reasonably priced. Although in my book it’s always preferable to purchase a previous model at lower price, second hand letting the previous owner take the initial depreciation.

I bought a mint D3 from a local dealer 5 years back for 750 dollars, traded it in for a used D5, then traded it for D6. I don't think I live long enough to buy a used D6 .

Nikon announced that in the next year there will be a Z9 that's going to eclipse the D6. I use digital to chase my cats.

 

[radiant]

That would be my guess as well. The crop factor would be severe.

In Super-8 the crop would be pretty small I think? I haven't compared the Super-8 film size and available sensors but far better than compared to 35mm frame.

 

[benveniste]

It seemed like a great idea in 2001 too, when a Company called "Silicon Film" showed a prototype, filed patents, and announced they'd be shipping Real Soon Now. Then reality set in. The product turned out to be a fairly famous case of vaporware.

It's even less of a good idea today, when there's a flood of older dSLR's on the market. The problem is essentially one of a split brain. You either need communication between the back and the camera, or the user has to turn on the sensor when they wish to shoot, adding another step to the process. Similarly, while film cameras were using DX encoding for film speed, that would be a real kludge with a digital sensor, so you'd likely have to set ISO manually. In short, digital backs were a far better fit for the workflow of medium format studio photographers than users of cameras like the EOS-3 or the Nikon F100.

But if you are interested, there's yet another effort called Back35 running on indiegogo and kickstarter right now. They also looked for crowdfunding in 2016, 2017, and 2018. As of this writing they claim they'll be shipping in September. Of this year, even. This one uses a 14 megapixel 1 2/3 sensor ((~ 6.08 x 4.56 mm) which Panasonic no longer lists as current. If I'm reading the claims correctly, it also uses optics internally to reduce the incoming image. For this, they are asking $343. For $100 less, you could buy a camera like a Canon 50D. You'd end up with a far less klutzy package physically, actual integration, and better results.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/i-m-back35-have-a-roll-already-i-m-not-jealous#/

But heck, it's your money, your gear, and your choice. Personally, if I want to use FA or F100, I'll use film. If I want to use a digital camera, I'll use a digital camera.

 

[AgX]

Exactly. "Silicon Film" was a failed endeavour back then and repeatedly discussed here in the past.

As it failed back then, I do not even see why it should be a success today, under even more adverse circumstances (except for the better sensor). For those who want a film-camera feel, the industry already offered digital cameras that got a look and handling like a film camera.

But maybe I am overlooking something. There had been other digital gadgets where I wondered who would buy such.

 

[Auer]

I dunno...

Why not buy a Pentax KP for $700 and you can slap every K and M42 mount lens ever made on it....?

Or just about any thing can be adapted to a M43 body anyhow.

 

[AgX]

I assume the idea is to have the original look and feel of a film camera, without having to bother with film.

At least at the start of the "Silicon Film" project the idea was to take over ones film camera outfit into the digital age.

 

[radiant]

I don't think the project is about anything serious, just a funny hack & proof of concept. There is really no commercial point to modify film camera body to digital. These are fun projects, I think.

 

[Bikerider]

Exactly. "Silicon Film" was a failed endeavour back then and repeatedly discussed here in the past.

As it failed back then, I do not even see why it should be a success today, under even more adverse circumstances (except for the better sensor). For those who want a film-camera feel, the industry already offered digital cameras that got a look and handling like a film camera.

But maybe I am overlooking something. There had been other digital gadgets where I wondered who would buy such.

I was going to say something like this as well, it was a good idea but not fully thought through.

 

[AgX]

"Silicone Fim" even after getting oudated still could have been a testing tool to those clinging to film photography, but being bothered to spend film and processing "just" for testing body or lens for faults or such. But for this the device would have to be applicable to any camera, just as a type 135 film, which it was not.

Basically this kind of use would apply to any successor device.

 

[grat]

I wonder how many people commenting actually watched the video-- anyone talking about "modding a perfectly good camera" probably didn't.

I suspect this unit would drop into the vast majority of 135 body cameras. Kind of clever that he uses the 35mm retaining pin as the on/off switch.

 

[AgX]

Well, the basic arguments against I presented, still apply. Though a sensoring device that basically works with any kind of type 135 camera without modification of camera could be useful for testing camera or lens, as I already stated, and useful when instant viewing or instant digtal filing is needed.

However the rather small participation and the lack of enthusiasm seems to indicate that this device meanwhile misses the demand of Apuggers.
Though as you have indicated it might have been overlooked that it does not necessitate modifications of the camera.

 

[whojammyflip]

This was a website from 2011, similar arguments were presented about why this was a bad idea back then. Similar to denial that lomography was a movement or that analogue music was a thing:

http://re35.net/

10 years later, folks are still discussing it, there is still a market for it. However, in contrast to 2011, the big camera companies are under massive pressure already from mobile phones and the miniaturization of optical components, like plastic lenses and sensors. They probably don't have any money left to look into something like this, as they pursued the miniaturization of their cameras, until they became the size of a mobile phone, but without mobile phone functionality.

Great graphic showing the decline of camera sales:

https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/

 

[AgX]

I do not understand your argumentation.
Those who are strongly adhered to analogue photography would just NOT buy it.

 

[fs999]

I must say as I abandoned, because lack of time, my analogue photography I was really interested in 2001 to use my old camera as a, new to me, digital camera. But since I began digital photography in 2006, I re began slowly analogue photography in 2008 and now would never buy a digital back for my cameras...

 

[Chan Tran]

This was a website from 2011, similar arguments were presented about why this was a bad idea back then. Similar to denial that lomography was a movement or that analogue music was a thing:

http://re35.net/

10 years later, folks are still discussing it, there is still a market for it. However, in contrast to 2011, the big camera companies are under massive pressure already from mobile phones and the miniaturization of optical components, like plastic lenses and sensors. They probably don't have any money left to look into something like this, as they pursued the miniaturization of their cameras, until they became the size of a mobile phone, but without mobile phone functionality.

Great graphic showing the decline of camera sales:

https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/

People think there is a market for it but there is not. If any of these things work satisfactorily and the cost is significantly less than a digital camera of similar performance then yes there is a huge market for it. But that is impossible. Any of these things would cost more.

 

[grat]

Of course there's a market for it. It may not be a very large market, but nonetheless, a market exists.

Personally, I've got some rather nice 35mm lenses that I can't use with a DSLR-- sure, I can use them with film (and I do), but the ability to take digital shots with those lenses would extend their usefulness. It would be a useful tool for testing camera functionality (and with a firmware update, could be used as a shutter tester).

I have no bias against film or against digital. Both are equally useful tools for a similar, but different, type of task. Why limit your options?

 

[Chan Tran]

Of course there's a market for it. It may not be a very large market, but nonetheless, a market exists.

Personally, I've got some rather nice 35mm lenses that I can't use with a DSLR-- sure, I can use them with film (and I do), but the ability to take digital shots with those lenses would extend their usefulness. It would be a useful tool for testing camera functionality (and with a firmware update, could be used as a shutter tester).

I have no bias against film or against digital. Both are equally useful tools for a similar, but different, type of task. Why limit your options?

I said there is no market because would you pay the same price for the unit as a brand new same specs digital camera? Because it's not possible to make one for less.

 

[wiltw]

Exactly. "Silicon Film" was a failed endeavour back then and repeatedly discussed here in the past.

As it failed back then, I do not even see why it should be a success today, under even more adverse circumstances (except for the better sensor). For those who want a film-camera feel, the industry already offered digital cameras that got a look and handling like a film camera.

I agree about then vs. now. Due to the higher quanitity of higher end film bodies with removeable backs, still in use back then with comprehensive list of lenses and accessories in possession of system owner, a digital conversion back was more feasible than it is today. Now, so much of that stuff has been sold off piecemeal to a retrograde crowd interested in the 'old photography' using film, who is not as heavily invested in 'the system'. The failure of the 'silicon film' effort, IMHO, was the manner of execution by Silicon Film, rather than the concept of digital conversion of film body.

Back then, I had conceptualized a digital conversion unit, where the electronics and battery were position below the body, like the auxiliary battery grips offered for dSLRs...kind like the old accessory motorized backs for 250 exposure film magazines bulk without the canisters for the bulk roll film. I was not in the market to take my idea to reality, so the effort was never made. I certainly could see how an engineer might find some key execution issues not easily solved.

 

[grat]

I said there is no market because would you pay the same price for the unit as a brand new same specs digital camera? Because it's not possible to make one for less.

Of course it is. I can buy a web cam for $25, and aside from sensor, this isn't much more than a webcam. There's no lens, no shutter, no controls, no fancy case, no viewfinder-- This is a small box of electronics, a plate, and a digital sensor.

Good astronomy cameras can be had for < $200, so I don't see why this couldn't be made for a similar price.

I'm not expecting R5 or A7 levels of sensor technology-- a full-frame sensor would be nice, but I don't see that happening (unless it's a 5 year old 16 MP sensor, or something similar).

 

[Chan Tran]

Of course it is. I can buy a web cam for $25, and aside from sensor, this isn't much more than a webcam. There's no lens, no shutter, no controls, no fancy case, no viewfinder-- This is a small box of electronics, a plate, and a digital sensor.

Good astronomy cameras can be had for < $200, so I don't see why this couldn't be made for a similar price.

I'm not expecting R5 or A7 levels of sensor technology-- a full-frame sensor would be nice, but I don't see that happening (unless it's a 5 year old 16 MP sensor, or something similar).

Whatever the performance level is if you want to match the adapter for film camera would cost the same as a digital camera if not more. You said a webcam for $25 and that unit in the OP post cost more doesn't it? So yes if you're willing to pay more than sure but if not it's not possible.