"I'm Back," More about the Digital Camera Back: It's not exactly streamlined. https://www.diyphotography.net/im-back-digital-back-old-35mm-film-cameras/...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It's not exactly streamlined.

https://www.diyphotography.net/im-back-digital-back-old-35mm-film-cameras/

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Given the specs and the constraints, who would want such a thing??

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

Seems kinda like putting jet engines on a '30's Ford Trimotor. Yeah it'll fly, but you're still not going to push that airframe any faster than 100 mph. And do I read that right; there's a 2 to 3 second shutter speed? Don't try to shoot anything faster than grass growing!

machia Loc: NJ

fourlocks wrote:

Seems kinda like putting jet engines on a '30's Ford Trimotor. Yeah it'll fly, but you're still not going to push that airframe any faster than 100 mph. And do I read that right; there's a 2 to 3 second shutter speed? Don't try to shoot anything faster than grass growing!

LOL !!! Jet engines on a Ford Trimotor ! Or perhaps a turboprop on a Curtiss Jenny !
I think if such a device were available roughly 10 years ago it would be considered a serious piece of equipment , but now this is nothing more than a novelty . I know Leica had a digital back for its R-9 and it had a lukewarm reception and Nikon had one on the drawing board but never went into production . A digital back for different camera brands and models is pretty ingenious but if I want to dust off my old Minolta SRT-101 , I'll put a roll of film in it . The old Piper Cub flies fine with its 65hp engine !

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

jerryc41 wrote:

It's not exactly streamlined.

https://www.diyphotography.net/im-back-digital-back-old-35mm-film-cameras/

This idea was out when the digital revolution started. It was something like 2.5 MP back then. It was basically a joke back then and in my opinion still is. If you're going to shoot digital (who doesn't these days) then get a real DSLR. I went kicking and screaming into the digital world and still have my film cameras but adapting the old film cameras with digital backs just doesn't make sense to me.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jerry, actually all those old film cameras were digital, and still are.
--Bob

jerryc41 wrote:

It's not exactly streamlined.

https://www.diyphotography.net/im-back-digital-back-old-35mm-film-cameras/

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

rmalarz wrote:

Jerry, actually all those old film cameras were digital, and still are.
--Bob

Say what????? I missed something. Not unusual for me. I'm not sure what your meaning is.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Pounder, silver halide crystals within the emulsion are either struck by a photon or not during exposure. If they are, they react with the developing agent. If they aren't they don't. That's pretty digital, on or off.

On the other hand, "digital" cameras start out analog, as they measure the amount of photons striking a photo site. That is, in turn, translated to digital information by the processor in the camera. So, photo sites are measuring quantity. That's analog.
--Bob

pounder35 wrote:

Say what????? I missed something. Not unusual for me. I'm not sure what your meaning is.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

rmalarz wrote:

Pounder, silver halide crystals within the emulsion are either struck by a photon or not during exposure. If they are, they react with the developing agent. If they aren't they don't. That's pretty digital, on or off.

On the other hand, "digital" cameras start out analog, as they measure the amount of photons striking a photo site. That is, in turn, translated to digital information by the processor in the camera. So, photo sites are measuring quantity. That's analog.
--Bob

Well that's a tough point you bring up. The word "digital" brings up our most common meaning these days. Binary code. Light (photons) striking a silver halide surface is hardly digital in that sense. Having worked with film and in the old fashioned darkrooms for years I don't see that as "digital". Grain in a negative could be considered digital but that's a stretch. What about Kodachrome that had no "grain"? Interesting discussion but I'm still disagreeing with you on film and paper being "digital". I hope other members will weigh in. This is a lot more fun than arguing politics in The Attic.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Pounder, considering your response, I'd probably agree with it being more binary. The halide is either struck or not, 0 or 1. However, that does lead us back to binary.

Digital camera sensors 'count' photons. Therefore, the actual capture at the sensor level is analog, though only dealing with whole numbers greater than or equal to 0.

Though I'm familiar with Kodachrome and have used a lot of it. I never did much research on it. I just used it when people needed color photographs, also vacations, etc. Rarely did I do any 'photographic art' with it. I'm far more familiar with black and white films and papers.

I do agree with your comment about The Attic. Though, I've always maintained a civil approach when posting there.
--Bob

pounder35 wrote:

Well that's a tough point you bring up. The word &... (show quote)

machia Loc: NJ

rmalarz wrote:

Pounder, considering your response, I'd probably a... (show quote)

I'm reading your posts here w/ great interest . I loved Kodachrome . Do you have any info on the release date of Ecktachrome ? I know Kodak was planning on a 2017-2018 . Would love to dust off my old SRT-101 !

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

rmalarz wrote:

Pounder, considering your response, I'd probably a... (show quote)

Actually the silver halide can't be considered as only 1 or 0 as far as sensitivity. That would result in just bright white and the blackest black. All shades of gray wouldn't be there. I think of it as a 1 to 10 scale. I think we're on the same page just wording it differently. I love working with B/W but most labs can't do it justice. I have all the equipment to set up a nice darkroom but don't have the space or the time right now. I actually bought a Mamiya 645 on ebay just to shoot B/W. My favorite film and paper is Ilford.

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

machia wrote:

I'm reading your posts here w/ great interest . I loved Kodachrome . Do you have any info on the release date of Ecktachrome ? I know Kodak was planning on a 2017-2018 . Would love to dust off my old SRT-101 !

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/01/05/exclusive-kodak-ektachrome-100-is-coming-back-in-35mm-format/

I'd rather see Kodachrome come back but processing Ektachrome is more cost efficient for labs that will to do it.