 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
If you had a old film MF camera would this tempt you? https://www.dpreview.com/news/2243143760/im-back-mf-is-a-400-digital-back-for-analog-medium-format-cameras My feeling is that 16MP is OK but if it was 24MP and also preferably on a larger sensor it might be more tempting. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Wouldn't tempt me sensor is too small. |
|||||||||
Gilbert Sandberg
|
JK, I agree, especially on sensor sizes. Also I would not support the venture of producing an item like that back. I do own some (collectable 6x6) Bronica but I would not invest in any digital back for it, regardless of the price, unless the sensor was of appropriate size (55x55). Anyone who wants to use aged 6x6/6x7 gear would be served better by using any of the current film-scanners. One general remark: we have read about many attempts at after-market "affordable" digital backs, has anyone seen any succesful attempts ? Regards, Gilbert |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
Basically a camera taking a picture of a screen on which the image from the lens of the host body is focused. This means that the focused image is quite dim and thus the sensitivity of the camera in the back needs to be appropriately high. The images on the linked page seem to show vignetting which would need to be corrected, preferably by the back. I'm not tempted by this one any more than I was by the 35mm version. My only remaining film cameras are a pair of F5s, for which there is no back available. When I used one a couple of years back to check the calibration of a Pentax ME Super I discovered that AF has come a long way since 1996. Nice idea but for me it appears to fall some way short of matching the performance of these cameras with film and a good scanner. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I think the products flatters to deceive. I would want at least a 44x33mm but preferably a 60x60mm sensor (mega costly) and at least 24MP to be interested. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Missing the boat comes to mind. Like Geoff remarks, film and a scanner would be a much better way of using old cameras in the digital age. You can buy a lot of film for the cost of a good digital body. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well there was a subtle hint on my thoughts about this in the Topic heading. I used the word "Distraction" first!.  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
'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. |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
Robert wrote:'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.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. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
The vast majority of my photography is with older manual focus lenses and manual control of exposure. Not just because I'm too tight to buy modern lenses but because they are in my opinion better in many ways. To use a modern lens with manual focus is somewhere between not easy and almost impossible, depending on the lens. With most of the old MF lenses it's a pleasure. The splash screen has taken to kicking in again... I suppose for people with low expectations, a digital back might be fun but not really compatible with most serious photographers. I read complaints about the image quality and functionality of current top cameras so I don't give a cobbled together accessory from a start up venture much of a chance, the paying public can be a bit fussy. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole - why pay out all that cash when you can pick up a better quality used digital camera or even a new compact for the same or less? |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
As rob says it's a pointless exercise even more so with the advent of mirrorless cameras I.e my Panasonic g80 will take adaptors for most classic legacy glass , I have both Nikon and m42 adaptors .once mounted to the camera a screen comes up asking me to input the lens focal length . It also has the double image thing to get perfect focus as well forget what it's called . Plus if I for instance put on my vivitar 200mm f3.5 legacy lens it immediately becomes a 400mm f3.5 with 4 way I.b.i.s and it works well to ,I simply set it for infinity and it will do b.i.f nicely . So basically there is no need in this day and age for a digital unit for old cameras. I also believe that adaptors are starting to appear for the latest full frame mirrorless especially Sony models |
|||||||||
jk
|
If I could have a Hasselblad 2000FCW or 205FF with 150mm f4 CF with a digital back (25MP or 40MP) then I would love this but I wont be spending the money to obtain this when I have D850 and Z7 with 105mm f2.8 (both cameras are 45MP). At present the 'Hasselblad V back' digital back is hugely expensive and 'crippled' as it only uses a small central part of the 60x60mm frame, namely 36.7 x 49mm. This doesn't work as a digital solution for me. It has to be 60x60 or nothing. I would certainly NOT ever want to go back to film. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
jk wrote:It has to be 60x60 or nothing. Absolutely, that's the whole point of MF, crop in post process. The moment I leant that the digital 'MF' was little more than 35mm format I lost interest. I agree about not wishing to go back to film, although soon it may not even be possible? |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Interesting concept, would get some of my shelf queens out from time to time. 16mp should give a reasonable print and it could be fun. I shoot the odd roll of film, but the post is so so and it is costly. Hypo has shipping restrictions, I hate to think of what paperwork collodion would take to get. This is easy, don't like the long wait time, will probably order one, or 3.\, after the funding is over. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |