digital film

Like many photographers on these forums we have adopted digital capture almost exclusively.

Also like many photographers we have moved through various camera systems and this process will probably continue.

A year ago some company was exploring a digital film back that was compatible for various slr bodies. It was obvious they were searching for funding, though the idea seems sound.

Especially for film manufacturers like Fuji, Kodak and Agfa.

Imagine a high iso back, a low iso back and a ...

It seems that one of the problems of file processing and digital issues comes from a digital system that trys to do everything. High resolution, low to high iso, deep color, neutral color, etc.

This may seem like wishful thinking, but it would be very cool to be able to switch backs for various looks and hopefully ease post processing efforts.

Imagine all those old F5's, 1n's, leicaflex bodies just waiting.



Just a thought.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford

[Adam Wade]

I agree that this is a wonderful idea that has a lot of merit. I wonder how it could be made workable, given the physical space requirements of electronics, batteries, and media. If it came out being like the original Kodaks, with the body being double standard height, I am not sure many people would be terribly interested. Add to that the requirement for different interfacing with different exposure electronics, plus different physical fitment, it seems like it would likely be a very expensive proposition, and one with difficulty in terms of getting metering correct. Just look at the growth path Kodak took, starting with a very similar idea in the late 80s.

I see a perhaps more workable idea of having several sensor options for a given digital camera, or perhaps several different senors self-contained in the body that can be rotated or moved into place for different response characteristics. To my mind, this would be a more workable concept in terms of simplicity.

I'd also be worried about the cost; supposedly, as much as 3/4 of the construction cost of a typical DSLR is in the cost of the sensor alone. If we had 4 sensors, how much would the camera cost? Would there be any market for a $15,000 DSLR in today's market, simply based on the promise of more dynamic range and improved shadow noise in a 6 Mpx format in, say, a D1x OR 10D body?

[otto]

James, the company you´re talking about have been in and out of the trade shows like a jack-in-a-box for the better part of 5 years now. I don´t recall anyone posting any reviews of the product whatsoever. (Please correct me anyone) The latest product they have been showing had a resolution of 1.3 mp. Like you said, if it really works, even at 1.3 mp there would be potential customers for it. E.g. for a type of "Polaroid" but It doesn´t seem to be distributed anywhere. The problem with it, in my opinion would be that the sensor couldn´t be very durable or precise, if it would be to co-exist in the same design that accomodates 35 mm film, with a film pressure plate that allows only for an extremely thin sensor. I think it´s clearly possible to make a back, for cameras like e.g. F5. If Phase-One can do it for medium format, naturally they can do it for 35 mm cameras also, and possibly we will see that type of back, when sensor costs drop considerably. Since all functions in such a camera would be manual, unless they come up with a sensor that behaves exactly like film (or the camera factories come up with a camera body with a processor that can adapt to different media) sofar that type of design would not be interesting to any large group of photographers, justifying the development of that type of backs/camera bodies with the promise of any large demand for them, it´s not likely that any came factories will find it feasible to develop, since digital cameras like e.g. Fuji S2 are already quite successfull. Nature and industrial design generally takes the easy, cost effective way out.

[Gary_Voth]

It would be a wonderful product, but I think that given today's technology it would still be very expensive to commercialize. And the market for it is likely shrinking by the hour: consider the rapid decline in price (and rapid increase in quality) of prosumer digicams. The EOS-10D is only $1500, actually less than the cost of an EOS-1V HS or F5 film body. By the time digital film backs could be made cheaply enough, they will probably be irrelevant, as 35mm owners will be able to dedicated DSLRs for less money. I wish it weren't so...

[Adam Wade]

Gary, I think the big advantage will be in having what amounts to a single camera's worth of controls to learn. If it was possible to communicate light sensitivity accurately to the body, we'd be able to use the same metering, flash sync, frame rate (within the limits of the buffer and processors)... I can see where this might be a very valuable system for pros. I'd prefer to have an EOS 1v body with the ability to use a large, low-ISO sensor, a medium-sized ISO 100-400 sensor, and a noise-control ISO 1600 sensor. For that I'd pay big, since as it now stands I'd have to contend with three fairly different bodies with very different cFns and capabilities, three different levels of weather sealing, two different levels of durability, and each with their own image and E-TTL issues (well, less so for one of them)... You get the picture. Imagine having the same file format and workflow for ALL your images, and only ONE body to learn. Imagine buying two identical bodies and being able to swap your sensor if one body craps out.

Considering that buying a 10D, a 1D and a 1Ds right now would set someone back about $15,000 if you included the "typical" accessories, you can see where paying the same amount for a single camera that would do it all (or even the possibility of getting something like that for $10k or less) might be an inviting option to some of us.

[Ethan_Hansen]

I beleive the company you are referring to is Silicon Film. They have been vaporware vendors since at least '98 or '99. That was when I first heard from them, asking if I would be interested in testing their products "when available" and, in the meantime, investing money in their enterprise. Their web site still announces the product "is not yet available", but that they are happy to hear from you "if you are a qualified investor." Some things never change. They filed for bankruptcy and suspended operations in September 2001, but are still willing to fleece stupid people.