Film vs. Digital

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Digital Modul R camera. The regrettably dead digital Leica R camera. The only 35mm camera (with a crop factor) that could shoot both film AND digital images, by simply swapping backs, sort of similar to a Hasselblad in that regard.

[DaveO]

Thank you for the reply. I never knew that Leica had a camera that shoot digital and film. It's sad that they stopped making the R cameras. They can be bought for a very reasonable price from Keh Camera. It's also unfortunate that the lenses are so expensive.

 

DaveO

[AlanG]

The early Kodak digital SLRs could also shoot film.

 

"The DCS 400-series were based on the Nikon N90s 35 mm film camera (called F90x in Europe). The DCS 410 and some early versions of the DCS 420 and 460 were based on the Nikon N90/F90 body. After the Nikon N90s/F90x was introduced in late 1994, Kodak started using that model as basis for the DCS 400-series. The camera body could be converted back to a film camera by removing the digital component, and replacing the digital back with a standard back."

[thebarnman]

The early Kodak digital SLRs could also shoot film.

 

"The DCS 400-series...The camera body could be converted back to a film camera by removing the digital component, and replacing the digital back with a standard back."

 

 

Well I'll be damned. I thought the R8/9 was the first.

[wildlightphoto]

Well I'll be damned. I thought the R8/9 was the first.

 

The Kodak DCS 400 series cameras were built from a film camera body, but the film camera could not be converted by the user to digital by substituting the digital back for the film back.

[Posto 6]

The early Kodak digital SLRs could also shoot film.

 

"The DCS 400-series were based on the Nikon N90s 35 mm film camera (called F90x in Europe). The DCS 410 and some early versions of the DCS 420 and 460 were based on the Nikon N90/F90 body. After the Nikon N90s/F90x was introduced in late 1994, Kodak started using that model as basis for the DCS 400-series. The camera body could be converted back to a film camera by removing the digital component, and replacing the digital back with a standard back."

 

How feasible, based on current technology, would it be to make up a FF digital component back for R and/or Leicaflex cameras? Or do we still have to wait a few years for this to hit the market at a reasonable cost?

 

Will also try asking a few PRC "boutiques" if they are interested in such a project over the coming weeks.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's been suggested many times. The main problems are:

 

1. Getting the image plane of the sensor into the same plane that film would be in. The silicon imaging surface itself is thinner than film, but there's a certain amount of "stuff" (protective glass, microlenses, IR filtering, AA filtering) - with a significant thickness - that has to sit between the imaging surface and the "front" surface. If one simply pressed a sensor up against the film rails of a film camera, all shots would be noticeable out of focus, focused on the front of the glass, not on the image surface a mm or more behind.

 

So one either needs a smaller, "cropped" sensor that fitts between the film rails, or one has to take a grinding machine to the film-gate area and cut away stuff. The DMR and all other film-to-digital conversion use cropped sensors for partly that reason.

 

Even more so for FF sensors, since sensors have a "border" around them. A 24 x 36 sensor is on a chip that is more like 26 x 38. Cameras designed as digital from the beginning usually move the shutter closer to the lens mount to allow the sensor be where film would have been.

 

Put simply, FF would require significant, mostly irreversible, surgery to the camera body. So it would not be a user-installable product like the DMR - evey single camera would have to go to the factory for chopping and fitting of the sensor.

 

2. Getting the camera to "talk" to the imaging electronics. There has to be some way to tell the electronics "Here comes the exposure!"

 

Fortuitously, Hasselblad already had a pin linked to the shutter button (to prevent firing with a dark slide in place) that could be adapted to press a microswitch in their CFV digital backs for classic Hassys. Fairly modern film SLRs (including the R8/R9) had electronic links, usually to fire a data-back for imprinting the date in the picture area.

 

Using the flash sync has worked, but requires an external cable link - or more internal surgery to tie into the hot-shoe circuits.

 

3. Finding room for all the processors and card slots and such. The original DCS100 from Kodak, based on a Nikon F3, actually required that a "recorder" with a hard disk be carried over the shoulder, in the style of 1970's video cameras - although that did mean one got a big 4" screen for image review: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index.htm

 

Eventually that was miniaturized to something like an add-on motor or battery grip.

 

The answer probably lies in the difference between "feasible" and "economically feasible." I'm sure that with €20,000, a Dremel tool, and a soldering iron, one could marry the guts of a Nikon or Canon (or M9) to a Leicaflex body - or pay someone to do it.

 

Personally, I don't think it is something that will ever hit the market, regardless of technology. Not of interest to those developing the technology, any more than Apple or HP are interested in figuring out how to fit a monitor and hard-drive to a Remington typewriter.

 

But if you get some interest from the "boutiques," I'll be happy to eat crow.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Had Leica did the DMR back for post M4 (i.e. M4-2 and on) bodies they would have sold more backs, as there were more bodies to adapt. The M4-2 and on have couplings for the winders.

 

But I don't think this would have competed against the DLSRs.

 

The M2 competed (from 58 to 67) head on with the Canon P to Canon 7, but all the pros were buying Nikon Fs, only a few used Leicas or Canons, as well as their F.

 

Noel

[pico]

Hi

 

Had Leica did the DMR back for post M4 (i.e. M4-2 and on) bodies they would have sold more backs, as there were more bodies to adapt. The M4-2 and on have couplings for the winders.

 

But I don't think this would have competed against the DLSRs.

 

The M2 competed (from 58 to 67) head on with the Canon P to Canon 7, but all the pros were buying Nikon Fs, only a few used Leicas or Canons, as well as their F.

 

Noel

 

The DMR had a little sensor. 26.4 x 17.6mm. Such a back would have made a mockery of the compact virtue of the Leica RF, no?

 

Regarding the Leicas and Nikon F, it must have been a regional thing. Every newspaper photographer I knew had both.

[Xmas]

The DMR had a little sensor. 26.4 x 17.6mm. Such a back would have made a mockery of the compact virtue of the Leica RF, no?

Confirmed.

Regarding the Leicas and Nikon F, it must have been a regional thing. Every newspaper photographer I knew had both.

Could be but Hoppy used a Canon P and a F for a while.

 

Hoppy Hopkins - Google Search

 

Some body bought a lotta Canons, a P was a lot cheaper than a M2, faster handling, in some ways.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

How feasible, based on current technology, would it be to make up a FF digital component back for R and/or Leicaflex cameras? Or do we still have to wait a few years for this to hit the market at a reasonable cost?

 

I see the appeal in making a retrofit for the existing R cameras, but wouldn't it make more sense for Leica to simply add an R mount, mirror box and prism to the M9 design? Look at a Nikon SP and a Nikon F to see what I mean. Not like they are going to do it. I bet most DSLR manufacturers are looking past the SLR design at this point.

[pico]

Some body bought a lotta Canons, a P was a lot cheaper than a M2, faster handling, in some ways.

 

I had a Canon VT and a 7 for the 19mm (screw mount) and 50mm f/.95, respectively. It was far more cost-effective than the Leica (of which I had two M4s), and I didn't have to sweat it when doing riots in Chicago. Good stuff, those Canons. Big, but good. I still have the 7 and f/.95.

[Xmas]

I had a Canon VT and a 7 for the 19mm (screw mount) and 50mm f/.95, respectively. It was far more cost-effective than the Leica (of which I had two M4s), and I didn't have to sweat it when doing riots in Chicago. Good stuff, those Canons. Big, but good. I still have the 7 and f/.95.

Yes I use a VI and a P when the environment is hazardous, they used to be real cheap, not any more, the Cosina LTM lenses has made them system cameras again.

I see the appeal in making a retrofit for the existing R cameras, but wouldn't it make more sense for Leica to simply add an R mount, mirror box and prism to the M9 design? Look at a Nikon SP and a Nikon F to see what I mean. Not like they are going to do it. I bet most DSLR manufacturers are looking past the SLR design at this point.

 

Perhaps you are not an accoutant? The DMR was like a back for a Hasselblad or RB67 Pro, you could have a film camera or a Dcamera, if one had the film camera already you only needed to lash out the $ for the dback, only a small % would have wanted a DMR.

 

Leica had not sold enough bodies to require a large number of DMRs to be produced.

 

The Nikon F SLR did use piece parts from the SP, but they sold close on a million F bodies. Leica do not have the skills to make M9s quickly enough, or a cheap M9. A cross between a Leica SLR and a M9 would need to compete with a Canon DSLR or Nikon DSLR.

 

Nikon had not sold many SP, they found a larger marked and got a large % of it.

 

Zeiss tried to compete with the Nikon F, in the early 60s with the Contarex SLR system, they lost, they were expensive and 'quaint'.

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Yes I use a VI and a P when the environment is hazardous, they used to be real cheap, not any more, the Cosina LTM lenses has made them system cameras again.

 

 

Perhaps you are not an accoutant? The DMR was like a back for a Hasselblad or RB67 Pro, you could have a film camera or a Dcamera, if one had the film camera already you only needed to lash out the $ for the dback, only a small % would have wanted a DMR.

 

Leica had not sold enough bodies to require a large number of DMRs to be produced.

 

The Nikon F SLR did use piece parts from the SP, but they sold close on a million F bodies. Leica do not have the skills to make M9s quickly enough, or a cheap M9. A cross between a Leica SLR and a M9 would need to compete with a Canon DSLR or Nikon DSLR.

 

Nikon had not sold many SP, they found a larger marked and got a large % of it.

 

Zeiss tried to compete with the Nikon F, in the early 60s with the Contarex SLR system, they lost, they were expensive and 'quaint'.

 

Noel

 

I just think it would be easier to change an M9 into an SLR than it would be to make a full frame back for an R8 R9. (Which as pointed out by Adan, may be impossible.) And would you want to limit the sale of this product to the few who already have an R8 or R9 body that you are no longer producing? Of course I don't expect Leica to do this or an add on back either. Having a camera that can shoot film and digital is not very important today.

[thrid]

Longterm archival stability.

 

My pictures won't vaporize, if my hard drive crashes or a backup media becomes unreadable from oxidation, dye failure or obsolescence..

 

Yes, negatives can also be destroyed, but the odds of my apartment catching fire are a lot lower...

[Xmas]

Longterm archival stability.

 

My pictures won't vaporize, if my hard drive crashes or a backup media becomes unreadable from oxidation, dye failure or obsolescence..

 

Yes, negatives can also be destroyed, but the odds of my apartment catching fire are a lot lower...

 

I've had a fire, plumbing flood, and industrial explosion damage my accommodations, lucky no negative damage, yet. Apartments have high risk of every thing.

 

You do statistics?

 

Silver negatives can be damaged by damp, fungus, industrial pollution, C41 negatives can fade rapidly.

 

Noel

[erl]

It seems to me that "enjoy it while you have it" should be the mantra. Nothing is forever.

[jaapv]

Longterm archival stability.

 

My pictures won't vaporize, if my hard drive crashes or a backup media becomes unreadable from oxidation, dye failure or obsolescence..

 

Yes, negatives can also be destroyed, but the odds of my apartment catching fire are a lot lower...

Hmm - you can buy CDs that are guaranteed for 100 years. And you can store your digital " negatives" in various locations. And copy/convert them if something should crop up, like new file formats. Quite a bit longer term stable and safe imo. I do not think achivability is a viable argument any more.

[AlanG]

I do not think achivability is a viable argument any more.

 

In my opinion, the viable arguments for film are you prefer the look you get from it, you get satisfaction from the craftsmanship it requires (not that digital does not also require craftsmanship) and you prefer using film cameras in general or specific film cameras. As these are all personal and non-debatable, they will always be valid.

 

The rest has been debated to death countless times. In virtually all aspects of what is called "applied photography" digital has taken over from film for various reasons. That alone could be a reason you might prefer to use film and/or make analog prints.

 

If you don't have secure back-up of your film and digital images, bad things can happen to them. Multiple originals on film and digital backups of film and digital backups of digital files has saved me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thrid]

I work in the field of high-end digital imaging and over the past nearly 20 yeas have seen countless terabytes of data become inaccessible do to media failure, obsolescence, extinction of operating systems, data formats etc.

 

All of the negatives that were generated from this data are still in existence and perfectly viable.

 

Given the state of current technology the odds of finding the digital equivalent of The Mexican Suitcase are slim to none.

 

Sorry guys, I have nothing against digital, but we have yet to see a single digital storage media that has the archival stability of film. The closet thing out there are glass/carbon dvd disks that are being developed for institutions like the Smithsonian and Library of Congress. But they are extremely expensive and nowhere near being ready for mass production. 100 years from now you will also need the hardware and software to read one of those disks. For a piece of film you need light and maybe a lens.