I'm still holding my breath for ...

[dmr]

... A "digital film", as has been announced a couple times but never made into production.

I would really like to see digital as an option, in other words, some way to use the same camera system with digital or film.

The big thing that bothers me about "going digital" is that you are stuck with the same "film" for the life of the camera. As with most electronics, it's on the edge of obsolescence when it makes it to the showroom floor. I doubt, for example, that I would like shooting with the GIII as well if I were limited to shooting 1970s vintage Ektachrome only.

I would sure love to see one of the major manufacturers include a film transport on a DSLR or DRF. Make digital be one "film" option among many!

 

[jimcollum]

you have that option with the leica R9. the digital module can be removed and the film used as well.. and it's an excellent sensor as far as digital goes.

 

[naturephoto1]

you have that option with the leica R9. the digital module can be removed and the film used as well.. and it's an excellent sensor as far as digital goes.

As well as with the older Leica R8. Both cameras will work with the module, however there is the multiplier of a bout 1.3X for the lenses when working with the digital rather than the film back. The Digital Module R however is really expensive however in the vicinity of about $6000 as I recall with 10.8 megapixels but much more color depth than the top of the line Canon or Nikon digital SLRs.

Rich

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Do you mean this: Dead Link Removed ?

It's the biggest vaporware ever! On Wired's list for many years.

 

[waynecrider]

Of course we all know that many digital backs are available for the likes of Hasselblad, Mamiya etc allowing us to shoot both film and digital. It's only comes down to the ability to afford them that stops some of us.

 

[Bromo33333]

you have that option with the leica R9. the digital module can be removed and the film used as well.. and it's an excellent sensor as far as digital goes.

And don't forget the numerous digital backs available for medium format (Phase One, Jenoptik, IMacon/Hasselblad, Leaf, and so on) and large format (Better Light scanning backs). All of these would allow swapping between film and digital if one were so inclined, and had the wherewithal or could rent.

 

[dmr]

Do you mean this: Dead Link Removed ?

Uh-huh. I recall seeing others similar to this too, but as you say, vaporware.

The Leica DMR (LOL, yes, I know ...) is way outa my price range, especially if you add the price of the R8 or R9, which I don't have. Plus, that thing is HUGE, judging from the photos I've seen. Same for a MF with a digital back, big.

Plus, for some reason, I don't really know why, the small sensor size bothers me. I know one of the Canon DSLRs has a full 36x24, so I know that is do-able.

What I want is not made (yet) and that would be like a 35mm cartridge that I can just drop in the GIII or the Mamiya or the Pentax and shoot normally, then plug into the PC or laptop to process. I really don't need a screen or teeny-tiny buttons or menus and such.

I would think that if the demand were there, it would happen. I guess the Teeming Millions would rather just buy a new DSLR ... and another in a few more years ... and another ... rinse, repeat.

Oh well ...

 

[Bromo33333]

I would think that if the demand were there, it would happen. I guess the Teeming Millions would rather just buy a new DSLR ... and another in a few more years ... and another ... rinse, repeat.

Many folks are happy with the results with a digital sensor by itself. And will be happy to lug a different camera in the camera bag - an added bonus is if they are "bought in" to a system already - such as Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax - all you need to do is buy a DSLR for <$1k and you are in business with your entire lens range.

Myself - I prefer the film and digital backs - that is *if* they ever come out with something acceptable to me (8-16 bits per color with interpolation just doesn't cut it results wise for me. I'll take better fine shading and a little grain instead!)

 

[naturephoto1]

Uh-huh. I recall seeing others similar to this too, but as you say, vaporware.

The Leica DMR (LOL, yes, I know ...) is way outa my price range, especially if you add the price of the R8 or R9, which I don't have. Plus, that thing is HUGE, judging from the photos I've seen. Same for a MF with a digital back, big.

Plus, for some reason, I don't really know why, the small sensor size bothers me. I know one of the Canon DSLRs has a full 36x24, so I know that is do-able.

What I want is not made (yet) and that would be like a 35mm cartridge that I can just drop in the GIII or the Mamiya or the Pentax and shoot normally, then plug into the PC or laptop to process. I really don't need a screen or teeny-tiny buttons or menus and such.

I would think that if the demand were there, it would happen. I guess the Teeming Millions would rather just buy a new DSLR ... and another in a few more years ... and another ... rinse, repeat.

Oh well ...

Actually, I the Digital Module R and a Leica R8 or R9 are not really that large as I recall. I have handled the set up at Photo Plus last year. It certainly balances well. But Yikes the price! And I am one of the Pros on Leicas list and I can't afford it either. But it is the only game in town that works with a film 35mm camera that can also be used as digital. And basically Leica who is a relatively small company with the others in the team were able to introduce this tour de force that both Canon and Nikon either said could not be done or totally ignored.

I have the R8 and do not plan on getting the R9. Yes it is a bit disappointing that the Digital Module R does suffer from the 1.3X problem. However, as far as cost and considering it is Leica it is not totally out of line with the cost of the top of the line Canon and Nikon (about the same price as these cameras) that do allow full frame. And for those of us with that big investment in Leica glass (particularly if we already own an R8 or an R9) that can be used for both film and digital it is something to certainly consider.

Rich

 

[dmr]

Plus, that thing is HUGE, judging from the photos I've seen.

Actually, I the Digital Module R and a Leica R8 or R9 are not really that large as I recall.

Here's one of the photos I remember which shows its size. I hope this link works ...

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leica_dmr/300_Leica_DMR.jpg

I know the link to that one digital film above shows something added to the bottom kind of like the DMR, one of them a while back gave me the impression that it was self-contained, like just pop it in, shoot, pull it out and plug in a cable to the PC.

I would like something that doesn't add significantly to the size of the existing camera.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I'm asking for too much ... or too little, actually.

 

[naturephoto1]

Hi,

You have to understand that the Leica R8 and R9 are modular cameras. They do not have a built in motor winder or motor drive. By themselves, without a motor winder or motor drive they are substantially smaller than the top of the line Nikon or Canon Digital camera. Those are the cameras that the R9 are targeted at. I have uploaded a series of photos from different sources. The first image shows the Leica R9 alone. The 2nd shows the camera with the motor drive. The third shows the Leica R9 with the DMR (this is a 10 megapixel camera this way). The DMR includes the battery for the camera and back; with the Leica R9 it is about the same size as the R9 with the motor drive. The 4th photo in the series shows the top of the line Nikon DX2 (10.2 megapixel) camera which includes the battery source for the the camera. The 5th photo in the series is the Canon EOS-1DS Mark II (16.7 Megapixel) camera which again includes the battery source for the camera.

Rich

 

[waynecrider]

What I want is not made (yet) and that would be like a 35mm cartridge that I can just drop in the GIII or the Mamiya or the Pentax and shoot normally, then plug into the PC or laptop to process. I really don't need a screen or teeny-tiny buttons or menus and such.

It was already invented and bombed out. In fact, I don't remember if it ever made it into production.

 

[Papa Tango]

The radiology industry has been doing digital film for some time. Pop in the plate, shoot, pull out and offload, return to stock...

 

[dmr]

It was already invented and bombed out. In fact, I don't remember if it ever made it into production.

There was a lot of talk on the newsgroups about this a few years ago. From what I remember, one company actually showed some working prototypes at some trade show, but no, nothing ever made it to market.

IIRC, one company was involved in some legal mess with investors and venture capitalists over falsifying results and such.

A couple things I remember were that none of these were full frame, and for some strange reason that bothers me, and also that the model that was to actually make it to market would only work with certain model cameras, only one of which I had (K1000) but not with others.

I really think that if a full-frame version of this, one that would fit any more or less standard 35mm camera, ever made it to market at a reasonable cost, it would indeed be a huge success.

I also think that none of the major camera companies would want to develop this, since it would cut into their sales of new products, therefore it would have to be a smaller (underfunded) start-up venture if anybody.

 

[MAGNAchrom]

what I'm holding my breath for:

6x7 or 6x8 or 6x9 full-frame digital backs for use with older cameras such as the RB67, RX67, Fuji 680, Graflok, etc.

The sensor should deliver no more than 100 pixels per mm (50 lp/mm) giving large dynamic range (due to the relatively large 100 px/mm "bucket size" of the sensor), and no need for a wierd 1.5x lens factor. Further, old lenses could be used since the sensor wouldn't be "out-performing" the lens. Contrast that with the new sensors which pretty much require newer, sharper lenses!

The data delivered would be approx 5600x7000 pixels for a 6x7 back which is plenty good enough to keep up with current needs. I for one would likely buy such a digital back on the spot.

Unfortunately, such a back would have to be produced by someone other than any current digital back manufacturers -- they pretty much all want you to spend more money on lenses, bodies, etc. beyond the digital back itself. I can't blame them as the market is small, there is a lot of competition, and the R&D costs must be large.

Perhaps the Chinese might pull it off? One can only hope.

 

[wirehead]

The problem, MAGNAchrom, is that it would be hideously expensive. With film, you can just shoot half as many pictures per roll. Anything larger than APS-C and your cost starts to increase very very quickly. I mean a 645 ff back is $30,000.... well, my only-slightly-educated guess is that it's at least $300,000, maybe more, for a 6x7 back.... even at a smaller pixel pitch.

There was a good set of arguments about why we'll NEVER see a proper digital back system for 35mm SLRs, too.... not the least of them being that none of my 35mm cameras have a removable back, so I'm out of luck.

 

[Patzer]

... A "digital film", as has been announced a couple times but never made into production....

I guess what has been a head scratcher for me on this, is why did not companies like Kodak, Fuji, or Polariod pursue the route?

Something like that long standing vaporware project? It would have been in their financial interest, would it not have been?

They should have jumped on it in the 1990's.

:confused:

 

[donbga]

I guess what has been a head scratcher for me on this, is why did not companies like Kodak, Fuji, or Polaroid pursue the route?

Something like that long standing vaporware project? It would have been in their financial interest, would it not have been?

They should have jumped on it in the 1990's.

:confused:

IMO, this approach would have stymied improvements and innovations in digital camera designs. The fact that it didn't happen underscores that fact.

Also let us not forget the effects of fierce competition for market share which has driven down the cost of digital equipment in the consumer, amateur, and pro-sumer segments.

Polaroid turned out to be morons and that's why they are out of business. Fuji has made some of the best cameras in the P&S and pro-sumer categories, and Kodak has innovated in other areas of digital imaging.

Canon and Nikon are the two giants of the pro DSLR market with Sony trying to carve a niche.

But all of these facts are documented elsewhere on the net.

As for Leica, though they have made some great cameras and lenses, they were never priced to compete with the Nikon and Canon segments and to gain market share. But do they need to?

For me I just enjoy the gifts that we have in digital technology and I don't worry why things turned out as they did.

Don Bryant

 

[Patzer]

Many if not lf all of your post I would agree with. Being new to this forum, I ran across and read this older post. It prompted me to wonder, like I did. It is still mystery to me, why they did not do it in the 1990's, when it would have made a difference.

 

[donbga]

Many if not lf all of your post I would agree with. Being new to this forum, I ran across and read this older post. It prompted me to wonder, like I did. It is still mystery to me, why they did not do it in the 1990's, when it would have made a difference.

I think the reality was that an affordable product couldn't be made and at the time development of digital engines was still relatively primative compared to now and considering the obsolescent rate in this segment I don't think they could have recovered the development costs and remained competitive.

As I said if it could have been done it probably would have. Never the less it doesn't matter because it didn't happen.

It's a bit like worrying about discontinued films of old, no matter what we speculate it ain't gonna happen now.

Don