Digital componenets into old camera

[JohnD]

I was thinking about how cheap "film" camera have got now that the bottom has dropped out of the market, including many highly-prized ones.

It struck me that it might be possible to fit the battery, electronics and light-sensitive screen inside such cameras, using the space where the two reels used to go.

This would give a new lease of life the old equipment, and need not even be destructive.

Does anyone know if this has been attempted?

 

[Sam Gangee]

My initial thoughts:
It's not a "light sensitive screen" it's a (very small) chip. If you put it at the focal point for 35mm film (for example) it will see only a tiny portion of the picture. So you'd have to set it a lot further back, and/or change the lens arrangement (which rather defeats the object of trying to recycle the lenses).

 

[JohnD]

bah!

 

[Sam Gangee]

I know, it's disappointing. I was brought up in the days when it was considered bad to throw anything away. But modern technology and manufacturing processes (plus unreliable components) means that we seldom have a choice.

In the days of "bellows" cameras, they were often recycled by being turned into darkroom enlargers or slide projectors. There must be a use for film cameras, apart from popping tiny spiders in the sunlight.

 

[ajrobb]

There are digital camera backs for larger medium-format cameras as there are depth of field affects that cannot be supplied by small formats. I think these can very expensive.

It would be nice if a 35mm camera could have a 36x24 sensor glued over the film aperture. The pressure plate might be flexible to accommodate the extra depth. The 135 cannister could house batteries and memory card.

We can dream...

 

[mattylad]

You can however use some of the lenses available from 35mm cameras on digital ones if you can get the right fitments/adapters.

 

[timtheenchanter]

this is somthing I have looked at for quite some time, and discovered not, although talking to a mate last weekend, I do have some glimmer of hope, I have a good collection of lenses etc from my zenit camera, and is of such an age that it has screw on lenses.
My friend had a DSLR (poss pentax??) that apparently takes such a lens (as well as the newer bayonet fit) Im going to try them out, might be able to stretch to a new camera body, but not to 6 lenses and 4 converters...

 

[timtheenchanter]

OK, I feel like a bit of a fool now, seems as though M42 adaptors are avaliable for just about every DSLR going.

Might just treat myself to a DSLR body!!.

 

[ericmark]

I was given a German half plate camera bought by my dad in 1945 I think with bellows and I tried to place my D-SLR behind the camera and use it's lens and shutter and yes it did work.

However the CCD is no where near the size of a half plate so it was very much cropped and there was no real advantage other than the lens adjustments to correct parallex problems.

Backs are available for Hasselblad so the same camera can take film both reversal and Polaroid plus digital but the price is well beyond the normal prices which most people can afford.

The way in which the digital camera has allowed floating CCD's to reduce camera shake, and integrate a variable ISO into the system so aperture and speed priority can be used. Plus the half coatings on the mirrors of the SLR to allow the auto focus to take place mean so many of the features would be lost with an add on device it would not be worth doing.

I do miss my split screen and prism focusing aids it seems one can buy third party screens to regain these functions. But to fit them also means lost of automatic focus and even with 1980's lenses the red dot still comes up when focus is correct.

There were converters for 42mm to Pentax K and my Pentax K10D will take all but the special lens for the Ricoh which it seems can lock onto the camera never to be removed. However although the pre-focus lens works A1 the later lenses still allow wide aperture viewing and close down as one takes the picture but the automatic system does not compensate for it closing down so either one has to use them wide open and use the exposure compensation to over expose the same amount as you stop down the lens. Or of course fully manual.

Also since the CCD is smaller than the film the image is cropped so a 28mm lens takes the same picture as a 50mm lens did. A 17mm lens in full format is very expensive so one needs to buy the body with a wide angle lens. The other end with telephoto one is on the gain with a 400mm lens taking the same picture that a 600mm lens would take.

The 4/3rds cameras seem to be better option by doing away with the mirror they can mount the lens closer to the CCD meaning the lens is smaller and the less glass in the lens the cheaper it is. Since the CCD is used to display the image it works just like a SLR but without the R.

The higher range compacts with RAW and really good zoom lenses are cheaper, smaller and avoid the problems with dust on the CCD and if I was starting again I would go for a compact. OK you can't reverse lens for macro but you can still use close up filters. And being honest dust on the CCD is a big problem when one changes a lens. With an equivalent of a 28mm to 340mm lens why would you ever want to change the lens?

Plus far smaller so no need to wear the "I'm a photographer not a terrorist" tee shirt!

 

[marklamond]

Many of the first professional digital SLR's were nothing more than what's being suggested - a 35mm film body with a digital back.

A good example is a Kodak DCS 100, have a search on Google. They make a whole series of models. I'd like to use one for the novelty value alone.

 

[ericmark]

I would agree with you. It would be fun. In some ways we still can do some combining of items together to produce what we want. My camcorder can be used as a webcam and wanting to take pictures of animals the idea of having a laptop in a tent connected to a camera outside so we can remotely capture images appeals to me. But these early cameras seem a little on the heavy side