• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Why not a film camera with an EVF?

Crimeo

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2026
Messages
10
Location
Canada
Format
35mm
Just slap a sensor in where a focusing screen would be above an SLR mirror, and feed an EVF with it (as well as optional digital jpg snapshots for pictures not worth the film perhaps)

Unlike just remaking something you can get on ebay for 1/3 the price, this is actually unique and worth considering IMO. You can preview what a scene will look like in B&W exactly with black and white film loaded, live exposure preview, focus peaking, histograms and info heads up displays, etc.
 
Bodies with easily changed backs (Nikon F, Olympus OM-1, Topcon RE) could easily mount a digital sensor back in place of the usual pressure plate back, the ribbon cable could run downward to electronics and battery mounted below like the motor winders would fit. One could put an LCD externally for status/control display, like P&S camear. I proposed that back in the mid 2000's. The Imback unit was somewhat like that, but that was the only offering.
 

The goal is a film camera and film photos, just with an EVF for previewing the shot
 
Crimeo said:
The goal is a film camera and film photos, just with an EVF for previewing the shot
Click to expand...

The Nikon F and Topcon RE could convert to EVF fairly easily since they both have interchangeable finders. Why bother, using a film reflex camera and film recording?... merely for chimping the way all too many photographers shoot today...zero faith in their own ability to shoot without error?! We used to shoot film with zero feedback, so why convert to battery consuming EVF if no digital sensor for recording the photo. EVF suffers from optical lag since what captures the image has to be converted to viewable JPG, so there is always 1/60 or 1/120 lag from image capture to initial display, too. Reflex SLR has zero optical lag.
Maybe, for using a film reflex camera outfitted with a retrofit digital sensor...but again, no commerically successful offering.
 
Last edited:
A hybrid would be a Sony A900 full frame body married to Minolta 7 film drive and replace the back screen with the screen of the 7 More modern would a marraige of a A99 to a A900.
 

To be honest, I'd love a mirrorless with an OVF. I don't like the EVF all that much.
 
Cholentpot said:
To be honest, I'd love a mirrorless with an OVF. I don't like the EVF all that much.
Click to expand...

...but then it could not be 'mirrorless', because the mirror is needed for optical path to eye. At the minimum, we are back to the pellicle (Canon Pellix or Canon RT) and its issues.
 

Why bother: for the same reasons everyone bothers in I believe 100% of modern cameras (? maybe not some random one or two pentax ones or something) sold with EVFs that could have been sold with optical viewfinders. The industry as a whole has overwhelmingly found they're better for most people.

Every advantage that made it dominate the market applies at least as well to film as to digital, and in many cases more so to film. Photographers in real life don't have superpowers and cannot just perfectly visualize every compensation and the exact dynamic range of scenes and precisely how things would look with zero saturation, etc.

"Why bother with calculators? Just do it all in your head" basically.
 
I HATE EVFs. I yet to see one that looks good, and refuse to buy a camera that only has an EVF. All my cameras with a viewfinder have a optical ones. They are more immediate, more true to the scene.
 
They are more immediate
Click to expand...
Modern EVFs update with millisecond delay and 120 FPS, it's literally impossible to detect for almost anyone now, very much unlike first gen EVFs. That's for reasonable light levels. In near pitch darkness, the refresh rate drops to significant portions of a second, but this is not really reasonable to complain about when the OVF wouldn't see anything but black at all. It's delayed but it's also giving you magical night vision powers...

more true to the scene
Click to expand...
The actual scene that matters for photography is the one that will be captured, though. The EVF shows that one much more accurately. With a simulated exposure level that will occur (more accurate than "whatever your eye sees without applying any of the camera settings"), with the correct color balance including black and white (OVF incorrectly reports colors if you have B&W film loaded, which is less accurate), with appropriate dynamic range (could be made to be inputted by film stock, versus the OVF shows you your brain's dynamic range which =/= the film's, so less accurate)

---------

Again this is kind of generally missing the intended point of the conversation. EVFs being nice or not in general is a solved question: the whole industry runs on them and sales are just fine etc. I'm asking more so why not apply it to film, not "EVF vs OVF"
 

I still hate them.
 
As suggested, it could be done. Just replace the focusing screen with a sensor/panel, and convert the pentaprism to display the scene through the viewfinder. The mirror box and shutter would work as usual, and expose the film. But no one is going to make it, or convert an old camera.

Unfortunately, you just missed April 1st, but if you want to try it, start out with a $10 Miranda SLR. Most of them had removable heads.
 
"Full frame" sensors aren't exactly cheap, and I don't think one could physically fit in place of the focusing screen. A smaller sensor would require secondary optics to preserve the FOV.
 
You can get them for around $400, and you save big time by buying a Miranda SLR.
 
OAPOli said:
"Full frame" sensors aren't exactly cheap, and I don't think one could physically fit in place of the focusing screen. A smaller sensor would require secondary optics to preserve the FOV.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by not fitting. There's infinite room upward toward the sky to use to fit whatever you need. The sensor sites have to be where the ground glass surface was, any supporting materials go upward

Cost: yeah the sensor is like $500 ish, but this is a serious camaera with higher capabilities than any existing film camera, as a result. That isn't unreasonable. Pentax 17s have slow as hell dim lenses and only zone focus and apparently sold way better than expected at $500, a film SLR more capable than any in history in a bunch of new ways being $1,500 seems fine to me?

If you need to save money you could also use an APS-C sensor in the middle and an array of tiny phone sensors around it to fill out the full frame. The viewfinder doesn't need to worry much about lines in between the boundaries for merely previewing full frame, and the APS-C middle would offer quality uninterrupted digital hybrid APS-C photos still with an interesting versatile twist of being able to get the crop factor characteristics of the lens you have attached. Sensors get exponentially cheaper with smaller area, so the whole array could be just $200 or so
 
So, OP, the idea here is simply to have a drop in replacement of a focusing screen? Be able to view through the lens?
I will have one in Hasselblad please. Be able to preview before making photo on film, heck yeah.
I have DSLR bodies, best of both worlds for digital.
My problem with EVFs is they come in a world without film. Without film I can't use my darkroom, no fun in that!

An EVF that would mount to a Nikon F2 or F3 would be cool. Not gonna happen.
 
mshchem said:
An EVF that would mount to a Nikon F2 or F3 would be cool. Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...
...for the same reason that a digital sensor for retrofitting SLR (like Nikon F, Olympus OM-1, Topcon RE, etc) with digital capture is not there (apart from what ImBack created)...technical feasibility, insufficient market demand to preclude economy of scale dropping manufacturing cost. Even fewer takers now than 20 years ago, because those owning film SLR have them in part due to reduced initial cost of obtaining film bodies to complement their desire for analog capture.
 
Last edited:
mshchem said:
An EVF that would mount to a Nikon F2 or F3 would be cool. Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Pentax pushed the envelope with a 1/2 frame that doesn't have a mirror box. How much more would people spend?
 
The "I'm back" (or whatever it's called) is about as much digital retrofitting as you'll ever find. The majority of slrs do not have replaceable parts for their viewfinders. So you'd need to make something for a very limited number of cameras that are also not in production. That's a losing proposition, from a business point of view. That's the why not.

I can't think of any good reason why, either. If you want digital photos, use a digital camera. It works better.
 
Don_ih said:
I can't think of any good reason why, either. If you want digital photos, use a digital camera. It works better.
Click to expand...

SLR camera bodies and lenses are far lighter and more compact than dSLR bodies and lenses, and have much lower cost than buying mirrorless bodies and lenses, so digital capture retrofit is fundamentally appealing (especially for those already owning SLR systems). The lack of removeable finder bodies is an even greater obstacle than lack of removeable backs...fundamental appeal is limited largely to pre-1971 designs because TTL precluded removeable finders in so many later cameras.
 
Last edited:
wiltw said:
SLR camera bodies and lenses are far lighter and more compact than dSLR
Click to expand...

The competition isn't dslrs. It's mirrorless. And mirrorless cameras plus lenses are generally capable of being smaller and lighter than and Olympus OM1.

Anyway, EOS slrs aren't much different in size or weight from EOS dslrs. And none of those camera/lens combinations weighs anything significant.
 

The small body SLR, a 'big' SLR, and an APS-C dSLR




...but mirrorless is in a whole different world in terms of affordability.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register