Why not a film camera with an EVF?

[Crimeo]

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.

 

[wiltw]

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.

 

[Crimeo]

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. 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

 

[wiltw]

The goal is a film camera and film photos, just with an EVF for previewing the shot

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

To be honest, I'd love a mirrorless with an OVF. I don't like the EVF all that much.

 

[wiltw]

To be honest, I'd love a mirrorless with an OVF. I don't like the EVF all that much.

...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.

 

[Crimeo]

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.

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.

 

[mshchem]

The EVF could Bluetooth to an Instax. Convert your film camera to digital

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Crimeo]

They are more immediate

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

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"

 

[Pieter12]

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...


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.

 

[xkaes]

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.

 

[OAPOli]

"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.