If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film
In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: (Philip Homburg) writes: In article , David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Wally writes: 3. Is it reasonable to wait (and hope) for a digital databack that will turn this camera into a high end digital camera? My guess: It's not going to happen. *Nobody* has done that for a 35mm body yet. You mean that all those Kodak backs for the 801, F90, F5 (and the one for the F3) are just fiction? Yep. Or at least I've never heard them mentioned by anybody. More info? Go to the Kodak web site and look for obsolete digital cameras. F90 based cameras are the DCS 410, 420, and 460. I think the 660 and 760 are based on the F5. There is also a whole series based on Canon cameras, and there is a 3xx serie based on a Nikon APS camera. Howmany DSLRs do you know with removable finders? Um, 3 or 4 I think. Which ones? Furthermore, it would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor, or else the viewfinder would be wrong, making it completely unsaleable in the current market. Full-frame sensors are still exotic, expensive, high-end items. Again not true. What's not true about it? 'It would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor'. Um, the rapid techonology change seems to me to argue *for* replaceable backs on standard bodies and *against* specialized bodies. I doubt it. You can't do special cameras like the D2H if you are stuck with older mirror/shutter mechanisms. For the price of a 1Ds it should be easy to include a body for free. Large cameras with an integrated motor-drive (such as an F5) are not the ideal cameras for digital backs. Seperate backs will be a good marketing strategy when the market is close the saturation. When people buy your cameras as fast as you can produce them, it is not a good strategy. -- The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film
In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I've actually heard of those, but I thought they were sold as *cameras* rather than backs. When you sell a DCS 460 for, say $8000, it does not really matter whether the body is included or not. -- The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message .phicoh.net... You mean that all those Kodak backs for the 801, F90, F5 (and the one for the F3) are just fiction? Yep. Or at least I've never heard them mentioned by anybody. More info? Go to the Kodak web site and look for obsolete digital cameras. F90 based cameras are the DCS 410, 420, and 460. I think the 660 and 760 are based on the F5. There is also a whole series based on Canon cameras, and there is a 3xx serie based on a Nikon APS camera. All of the cameras you mention were just that, complete camera bodies based on those film bodies. They had a clump on the bottom, in place of the power booster that held all of the digital circuitry. None of that was available as an add-on. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film
In article CmsCc.3710$rh.118@okepread02,
Skip M wrote: "Philip Homburg" wrote in message q.phicoh.net... You mean that all those Kodak backs for the 801, F90, F5 (and the one for the F3) are just fiction? Yep. Or at least I've never heard them mentioned by anybody. More info? Go to the Kodak web site and look for obsolete digital cameras. F90 based cameras are the DCS 410, 420, and 460. I think the 660 and 760 are based on the F5. There is also a whole series based on Canon cameras, and there is a 3xx serie based on a Nikon APS camera. All of the cameras you mention were just that, complete camera bodies based on those film bodies. They had a clump on the bottom, in place of the power booster that held all of the digital circuitry. None of that was available as an add-on. You can remove the digital back and replace it with a regular film back. It is simply an add on. The fact that it made economic sense to sell those things including the body doesn't change the fact that from a technical point of view, it is simply a digital back for an existing camera. It mainly proves that there are no technical reasons why you can't build digital backs for existing cameras. It is just the most manufactures think that it doesn't make economic sense (at the moment). -- The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma regarding Digital vs. Film
In article ,
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: 'It would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor'. See what I wrote? It's still up there. It would have to incorporate a full-frame sensor, *or else the viewfinder would be wrong*. That's absolutely true. The Kodak backs are not full frame. Did you check which trick they used to reuse existing finders? It is so trivial I'm not going to spell it out. (Download the DCS 460 manual for a really nice overview). And then I claim that it's not a viable product if the viewfinder is wrong. You can argue with that, since we haven't tried the experiment; so far it's just my opinion. Kodak did try it. They sold lots of them at very high prices. That makes it a viable product to me. I doubt it. You can't do special cameras like the D2H if you are stuck with older mirror/shutter mechanisms. Why not? And are the mirror/shutter mechanisms of the N80 and N70, which recent digital products are based on, in any way superior to the mirror/shutter mechanism in the F5 or F100? The D2H is an improvement over the F5. It is better then what Nikon build before. Seperate backs will be a good marketing strategy when the market is close the saturation. When people buy your cameras as fast as you can produce them, it is not a good strategy. When the market is close to saturation, there will be very few film-based bodies in the market at all, and most of them won't have interchangeable backs. The DSLR market may saturate before everybody has dropped film. The D70/D100 and even the D1 don't work well well manual focus lenses. I don't know how many people simply refuse to buy a Nikon DSLR until they come with one that does works for them. -- The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|