| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2012 |
| Location: | Denham, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
'All' it needs is a 24x36 sensor which is thin enough to fit between the film/image mask and the spring back plate in almost any film camera to achieve this but in who's interest? It would need considerable investment, be an expensive device and would produce, at best a primitive digital camera, no better than the original camera, except it would provide digital files instead of slides or negatives.
For the retro enthusiast there is still the 'df', sworn by - by some, ignored by others.
Digital cameras have moved photography forward so much, I don't see any point in trying to resuscitate old technology, especially with such a crude approach. You can still buy film, the guy who used to process my films still processes but offers to digitise the images for the same cost as printing a set of proof prints. Used to be a tenner.
I have to agree with that, since 2000ish cameras have improved markedly. AF is faster and more accurate, high ISO noise has reduced and metering is more consistent. Who would want to go back to a film body to produce digital files?
OK I can see that for those who love their MF lenses and manual exposure modern cameras are not ideal. The tripe I have heard about using a current Nikon in manual exposure mode is frightening, simply select M and use the command dials, if that's too complicated then you might as well go back to film too.