canon F-1/A-1 digital back
Steve Flemimg
In the marketplace I can understand the development of new technology
and the subsequent sales and in turn the obsoleting of previous
design. To a point. Canon owners as well as Nikon and whatever make of
manual camera that has a removable back have, with the aid of a new
digital back and computer/video interface should have an extremely
usable camera system that can catapult their manual system into the
new millenium as well as being able to keep shooting celluloid. I
cannot imagine retiring all those wonderful lenses for whatever is
preattached to a ready made digital camera. If you feel the same way
write to the manufacturer of your camera and ask them to manufacture a
digital back for your camera body.
Steven Flemming
OneThumb
Any digital back that could take full advantage of a good 35mm SLR lens
would be so astoundingly expensive that you would spontaneously combust
just looking at the price tag. For the foreseeable future you will much
better off buying a complete optical system optimized for a given
sensor. Anything else would be overkill.
e M e L
"Digital film" was announced in April 1998 in New Orleans. Wow! they *may
be* nearing the release despite being "vaporware" for almost a year and a
half! 1.4M pixels @ 24 bit, if I remember correctly. Imagetek said that
they'd make separate dedicated modules for new AF cameras and an universal
one for MF cameras (in fact they had a dummy unit inserted into Canon F1N,
which made my blood rush because I use this model.)
An interesting idea (product...? I'll believe when I see it...)
Michael
Steve Flemimg wrote in message <38209d01....@news.corridor.net>...
Matthew J. Zukowski
had in my head as far what such a beast should look like. Fortunatly 1/2
of the camera is pretty much standardized. As far as the other half, this
unit doesn't look like it needs it. As technology advances I'm sure
someone will come out with a product similar to this even more compact and
higher res. (can you stick it in a Konica TC without retractable crank??
perhaps not).
Now I don't expect this to actually be a cost effective solution, not at
all. I do expect it to be on par with the cost of a new digital camera,
but be of benifit to people that already own at least a pair of lenses.
But given the target market, people who have a clue and want to make their
systems ever more useful by permiting digital imagry.
Further looking at the sight, it doesn't look like they presently have
plans to offer full frame coverage. Rather then a 35mm frame, they seem
to be using a 11*8.6mm frame. That's a touch bogus, but hey. It's a
start. And a claim of a estimated street price of sub $800, well, time
should yield a better product.
e M e L (som...@notavlidaddress.com) wrote:
: For a little excitement, take a look at http://www.imagek.com/
:
:
e M e L
>Rather then a 35mm frame, they seem
>to be using a 11*8.6mm frame. That's a touch bogus, but hey. It's a
>start. And a claim of a estimated street price of sub $800, well, time
>should yield a better product.
Well, the size of the frame doesn't really matter in digital photography,
just the number of pixels that a camera captures, so the area of the sensor
is irrelevant.
Michael
Les Hassell
>
> Well, the size of the frame doesn't really matter in digital photography,
> just the number of pixels that a camera captures, so the area of the sensor
> is irrelevant.
>
> Michael
Not true unless you have no need for a wide angle lens. My 15mm 2.8 would
become a 42.75mm 2.8. Since my bread and butter is a 24mm, having a 2.85 focal
length magnification makes the product useless for me. Although, it would be
great for when I need to break out the long glass; having a 228-570mm 2.8 for
the price and size of a 80-200 2.8 WOULD be sweet!!!
--
Les Hassell
http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~hassell
---------------------------------------------------
Anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic.
---------------------------------------------------
remove "LENSCAP" to reply by email
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew J Zukowski
: e M e L wrote:
: >
: > Well, the size of the frame doesn't really matter in digital photography,
: > just the number of pixels that a camera captures, so the area of the sensor
: > is irrelevant.
: >
: > Michael
:
: Not true unless you have no need for a wide angle lens. My 15mm 2.8 would
: become a 42.75mm 2.8. Since my bread and butter is a 24mm, having a 2.85 focal
: length magnification makes the product useless for me. Although, it would be
: great for when I need to break out the long glass; having a 228-570mm 2.8 for
: the price and size of a 80-200 2.8 WOULD be sweet!!!
Yes, if you want to magicly transform that ultra fast sub $1000 17mm lens
that you picked up into a stock sub $50 50mm, then this is great.
Actually, the whole concept of using a higher density ccd array to achieve
the telephoto effect is a good one, provided your glass is up to the
chalange, and I really could see someone buying 2x digital film, 4x
digital film, or 1x digital film.
But there are plenty of people who will custom convert your hasselblad to
digial, but only medium format, and only for the sub$50,000 price bracket.