 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / August 2008conversion of film slr to dig slr
hi all, i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to the great nikon company and the reply was as stupid as the japanese can be does anyone have any thought on this or am i crazy? please read on: Sir, i posted my comments in facebook please have a look below and please comment thank you: http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=2373072738 Icq Man wrote at 11:49pm CONVERSION ADAPTORS FOR FILM CAMERAS TO DIGITAL CAMERAS oooooooooops i forgot to put titles to my two contiguous posts no 2870 and 2872 thousand apologies icqman 2008 08 17 sun 11.53 pm Icq Man wrote at 11:35pm i am not sure if i have posted this here or some other photography fora of facebook. The problem with facebook is it is still suffering teething pains, blocking members, crashing, viri and it lacks, to me the most important, across facebook cross reference of one's posts. If this post hereunder has appeared here before, i regret i dont see any response or facebook crashed and lostface?? ;-) OK here goes my comments: i have been doing silver halide films photography for the past 25 years, having now, 2 nikon fm, 2 nikonfe, 2 nikonf3, all with remote control motor drives attached, nikkor 52mm sized f1.2, 2.8.105,180-250, 500reflex, ae lenses with hosts of nikorr filters, countless flashes which i threw away when not serviceable. now comes the digital cameras-- i am wont to change to digital but as silver halide films are getting very hard to come by i am forced to go digital but i am still refusing . heheheh. .... continue next post as each post is limited to 1 000 characters Icq Man wrote at 11:44pm some of us remember how the slr blew the conventional cameras to the bushes. these companies made a study on why this was so -- the most important reason-- poor focus. So the leica (which i have m1, m2 and m42) re invented the wheels to come up with autofocus and this blew slr ;-) Here is my question: why should i switch to digital nikon even though some of the nikkor ae lenses can be adapted to the relevant nikon d series.? nikon should come up with some sort of conversion kit, e.g. convert the backplates into digital with xxx gig chips memory on the millions of nikon cameras in the world ? of course, nikon would say it is tough. Nothing is tough if they want to put their heads into it. maybe some other camera companies would come up with a universal digiital adaptors for the conventional film cameras?? i am saving thes two posts just in case facebook crashes again . Any response would be most appreciated. thanks a lot 2008 08 17 sunday posted in wall photography,facebook ==================================== and nikon "immediate" reply is this: Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:50:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Nikon Inc. Technical Support" <support@nikontech.com> Subject: CONVERSION ADAPTORS FOR FILM CAMERAS TO DIGITAL CAMERAS [Incident:080817-000102] Reply-to: "Nikon Inc. Technical Support" <support@nikontech.com> Message-id: <48A856F2.000002.20484@webnj19.int.rightnowtech.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_Y48RVA40000000000000" X-Scanner-mx2: Original-recipient: rfc822;icqman@streamyx.com Your question has been received. You should expect a response from us within 24 hours. To reply by email click "Reply" in your email program, move your cursor to the blank line between the two lines below and type your response. [===> Please enter your reply below this line <===] [===> Please enter your reply above this line <===] To update your question from our support site, click here. Discussion Thread Customer (icq man)08/17/2008 12:50 PM http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=2373072738 Icq Man wroteat 11:49pmCONVERSION ADAPTORS FOR FILM CAMERAS TO DIGITAL CAMERASoooooooooopsi forgot to put titles to my two contiguous posts no 2870 and 2872thousand apologiesicqman 2008 08 17 sun 11.53 pm Icq Man wroteat 11:35pmi am not sure if i have posted this here or some other photography fora of facebook. The problem with facebook is it is still suffering teething pains, blocking members, crashing, viri and it lacks, to me the most important, across facebook cross reference of one's posts. If this post hereunder has appeared here before, i regret i dont see any response or facebook crashed and lostface?? ;-) OK here goes my comments:i have been doing silver halide films photography for the past 25 years, having now, 2 nikon fm, 2 nikonfe, 2 nikonf3, all with remote control motor drives attached, nikkor 52mm sized f1.2, 2.8.105,180-250, 500reflex, ae lenses with hosts of nikorr filters, countless flashes which i threw away when not serviceable. now comes the digital cameras-- i am wont to change to digital but as silver halide films are getting very hard to come by i am forced to go digital but i am still refusing . heheheh..... continue next post as each post is limited to 1 000 charactersIcq Man wroteat 11:44pmsome of us remember how the slr blew the conventional cameras to the bushes. these companies made a study on why this was so -- the most important reason-- poor focus. So the leica (which i have m1, m2 and m42) re invented the wheels to come up with autofocus and this blew slr ;-)Here is my question: why should i switch to digital nikon even though some of the nikkor ae lenses can be adapted to the relevant nikon d series.?nikon should come up with some sort of conversion kit, e.g. convert the backplates into digital with xxx gig chips memory on the millions of nikon cameras in the world ?of course, nikon would say it is tough. Nothing is tough if they want to put their heads into it.maybe some other camera companies would come up with a universal digiital adaptors for the conventional film cameras??i am saving thes two posts just in case facebook crashes again . Any response would be most appreciated.thanks a lot2008 08 17 sunday posted in wall photography,facebook Thanks for using Nikon products! Nikon Inc. (USA) Support / Service http://support.nikontech.com Any use, dissemination, distribution, posting on Internet bulletin boards, disclosure or copying of this e-mail or any information contained herein by or to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of this E-mail without reading or saving in any manner. ===================================== >cksickfûçkk >aka running dog chow-kow-sick-fûçk who shouts thief for the past 20 years and this dog is a "lawyer" LOL > hi all, > i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to the great > nikon company and the reply was as stupid as the japanese can be > > does anyone have any thought on this or am i crazy? The whole thing is so badly formatted as to defy a reading. The subject of adding digital backs to film SLR's was extensively discussed in various groups. Google the usual groups for more. Feasible? Yes. Right way to go? Debatable.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> hi all, >> i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Right way to go? Debatable. This isn't a new idea. Try the Leica DMR as a point of reference. But I agree that whether it is a good approach is debatable. SignatureNeil >>> hi all, >>> i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But I agree that whether it is a good approach is debatable. In groups such as rpe.35mm this was discussed a lot in the early decade and there was some excitement over a device that looked like a 135 film cassette with a blade going over the exposure area that contained the sensor. Elegant idea that never came to fruition. For my Maxxum 9 a digi-back to replace the existing back would have been a wonderful solution for a wonderful camera. I could have retained the best of film and digital. I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped) back for it I'll have a 24 Mpix body for my Minolta lenses which (most of them) out resolve my Hasselblad lenses in any case. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > In groups such as rpe.35mm this was discussed a lot in the early decade > and there was some excitement over a device that looked like a 135 film > cassette with a blade going over the exposure area that contained the > sensor. Elegant idea that never came to fruition. Ah here it is... http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/imagek.html Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:39:44 -0400, Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> from <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> In groups such as rpe.35mm this was discussed a lot in the early decade >> and there was some excitement over a device that looked like a 135 film [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/imagek.html ahhh thanks Alan et al for the contributions i was asleep when this group came up with bursts of responses --- thanks amigo if this ny company takes and is still taking 20 years to do something about the conversion, then the technicality is "enormous" i think it is a case of "planned strategy" of the digital brotherhoods i am still hoping to get my hands on one workable cassete to try out on my nikons it would be a great pity if my armory of nikkor lenses go to waste when the silver halide films are long gone not to mention the developing and printing of it. i am keeping my fingers crossed ;-)) thanks again all the good perople of rec.photo.equiment.medium-format for the quick response. ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > ahhh > thanks Alan et al for the contributions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about the > conversion, then the technicality is "enormous" One problem was how to make it selfcontained, not needing leads leading out. The biggest problem however was that there is very little space inside a 35 mm film camera. The sensor, of course, needs to be where the film gate is (and needs to be thin. Very thin.) The rest of the thingy was then crammed into the well that takes the 35 mm film cassette. Also not a big place. The unsormountable problem however was that the distance between the film gate and the place for the film cassette varies, not just with camera make, but even beween models of one manufacturer. So many different 35 mm cameras, so many different electronic film units needed. At first it was a fun idea. But it very quickly progressed from silly, through rather stupid, to extremely boring. On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> from <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> ahhh >> thanks Alan et al for the contributions [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >But it very quickly progressed from silly, through rather stupid, to >extremely boring. thanks Q.G. de Bakker for the addendum. indeed the lead goes to limbo? simpleton me, is thinking of the backplate pressing down on the film can be jam packed with electronics to sense the distance, etc to work like digital? i am looking at my first nokia digital phone which was just a mobile phone.The latest nokia (some 4 years after the first) has camera, radio, scan, gprs and SMALLER!! i think the ny camera company needs to get a lead from nokia to fin(nish) the project? ;-) necessity is the mother of all inventions. ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > necessity is the mother of all inventions. If that were so, Nokia (and other) cell phones (to name but one thing) would not have been invented. It would also explain that 'Digital Film' is what is is: something that will never be invented (to name just another thing). ;-) On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:32:10 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> from <48b6c57f$0$50780$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> necessity is the mother of all inventions. thanks Q.G. de Bakker for your inputs ;-) >If that were so, Nokia (and other) cell phones (to name but one thing) would >not have been invented. yes, isnt is a perforced necessity to have a handy phone instead of running to the public phone booth prior to the 80's ? >It would also explain that 'Digital Film' is what is is: something that will >never be invented (to name just another thing). >;-) aaaaaaaah LOL why not?? you have given another good key to an invention. why not invent digital films?? that is the rub ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > aaaaaaaah LOL why not?? > you have given another good key to an invention. > why not invent digital films?? > that is the rub 'Digital Film' was invented. The rub was having to decide for what camera. On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:54:46 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <48b6c57f$0$50780$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> <ka6eb4hhhqdc050er4ffr2vbv8dpnq2i9l@4ax.com> from <48b71f2c$0$92349$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> aaaaaaaah LOL why not?? >> you have given another good key to an invention. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >'Digital Film' was invented. >The rub was having to decide for what camera. oh? was the "dig film" not standardised to the 135 specs? please see my response to alan on nokia simplification of the nokia camera which is getting more and more sophiscated and who knows may one day blow the other digital and film cameras to the bushes, thanks to all again ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > oh? > was the "dig film" not standardised to the 135 specs? Here's what you are supposed to have read in an earlier post you replied to: "The unsormountable problem however was that the distance between the film gate and the place for the film cassette varies, not just with camera make, but even beween models of one manufacturer. So many different 35 mm cameras, so many different electronic film units needed." In other words: "What 135 specs!?" > please see my response to alan on nokia simplification of the nokia camera > which > is getting more and more sophiscated and who knows may one day blow the > other > digital and film cameras to the bushes, Many people know: they never will. The only thing these toy-thingies are good at is raising pixel count, and miniaturising. And these two things only will guarantee that the quality of the pictures they produce will be even less than that of a smelly, sticky brown substance. ;-) Sophisticated? Only if you are turned on by gadgetry, and do not pay attention to quality at all. Take a hint from the fact that people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for huge digital machines, while the pixel count in ever shrinking mobile phone cameras is available, very often for US$ 0.00. > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > i think the ny camera company needs to get a lead from nokia to fin(nish) the > project? ;-) Well yes, you could take a phone camera innards and fit them into a 135 canister without too much problem. The necessary 4mm lenses might be a little harder to come by. Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:24:07 -0400, savvo <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> from <720jo5-6i7.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >135 canister without too much problem. The necessary 4mm lenses might >be a little harder to come by. heheheh, thanks savvo for the side swap bordering to ridicule?? !! ;-) in my introibo -badly formated though, i profered my delima: plethora of useable nikkor lenses (from 1.2 to 500 reflex let alone the flashguns and filters) and the 6 unburstable nikon bodies. my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the sunsets? i have not bought any dig camera yet though i am salivating at the d50 and higher but the damned thing is the the old film nikkor lenses are mostly not adaptable to the digital ones. ;-(((( that is why i ask if anyone has come up with the idea of adaptation of the silver halide cameras-- there must be billions of them before the digital ones come around . Many hallowed members here have helped to throw some lights to the adaptation problems and there appear to be no solution. i have thrown in the nokia idea and your "ridicule" is taken in jest , ;-) well, being the case as it it. i should not be surprised if nokia advances forward with camera models that could and surely threaten the professional ones. then i suppose i have to pack all the nikons and leicas to the basement and use the nokia digital phone-camera professionally ? thanks savvo for the smile on my face this early morning ;-)) ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > [savvo] wrote/and/or quoted: >>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > heheheh, > thanks savvo for the side swap bordering to ridicule?? !! ;-) I don't know what you find funny. I was being perfectly serious. You (I think) suggested using the camera parts of a Nokia phone to resurrect the old 135 can digital insert idea. Digital phone camera sensors are tiny. If you were to construct such a device all your Nikon lenses would give you tiny fields of view unless you have some in the 3-5mm range. > in my introibo -badly formated though, i profered my delima: plethora of useable Yes. I wish you'd do something about that, it makes reading your posts difficult and replying to them a real pain. > nikkor lenses (from 1.2 to 500 reflex let alone the flashguns and filters) and > the 6 unburstable nikon bodies. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > higher but the damned thing is the the old film nikkor lenses are mostly not > adaptable to the digital ones. ;-(((( Well the D50 is rather out-of-date but you can probably pick up second-hand ones for very little. All your AF film lenses will work. You could get a D200 at very good prices now which will also happily work with all the MF lenses. > that is why i ask if anyone has come up with the idea of adaptation of the > silver halide cameras-- there must be billions of them before the digital ones > come around . Yes. People had the idea. It's already been discussed a couple of messages back. > i have thrown in the nokia idea and your "ridicule" is taken in jest , ;-) I think you're confusing me with an Australian. > well, being the case as it it. i should not be surprised if nokia advances > forward with camera models that could and surely threaten the professional ones. I would. They'd have an awfully long way to go and have expressed no interest so far in doing so. I suppose they could probably afford to buy Sigma if they were so inclined but I'm sure they're quite happy owning the mobile phone market. > thanks savvo for the smile on my face this early morning ;-)) Glad to help. However unintentionally. Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:18:02 -0400, savvo <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <720jo5-6i7.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <pa6eb45ptr2jgr399u0v6fkn0ehasm1q9p@4ax.com> from <qqrjo5-d28.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> [savvo] wrote/and/or quoted: >>>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> heheheh, >> thanks savvo for the side swap bordering to ridicule?? !! ;-) thanks again savvo for the quick response >I don't know what you find funny. I was being perfectly serious. You >(I think) suggested using the camera parts of a Nokia phone to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >device all your Nikon lenses would give you tiny fields of view unless >you have some in the 3-5mm range. that is why i mentioned that if one applies the nokia camera idea to the larger camera - in this case, the 135 format, with the necessary changes/modifications/upgrading, to accomodate the existing film lenses there should be some light in the bigger tunnels rather than the 3-5 mm nokia lenses ;-)) >> in my introibo -badly formated though, i profered my delima: plethora of useable >Yes. I wish you'd do something about that, it makes reading your posts >difficult and replying to them a real pain. thousand apologies again to all in this very very helpful group. in fact, i never thought any body would respond at all seeing that the titan nikon replies so "stupidly" to my long query. so out of desperation, i lop the introibo to all the rec photo groups and thought nothing of it -- being so disgusted by nikon whom i "supported" faithfully for some 30 years. nevertheless, i am very very happy that this rec.photo.equipment-medium-format responded so quickly that i did not notice long after i posted enmasse. thanks again to all the good people of this group ;-)) >> nikkor lenses (from 1.2 to 500 reflex let alone the flashguns and filters) and >> the 6 unburstable nikon bodies. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >You could get a D200 at very good prices now which will also happily >work with all the MF lenses. you are right. i mentioned the d50 as i was fiddling with the charts of ae/mf lenses to see which ones are adaptable to nikon digs. after applying the mf collars. i think i can manage to adapt about 6 of the 20 over lenses and at that time (12 years ago) the whopping cost of the mf rings, service charges and the d50 body at that time was really crazy ! yes, now with the d200 , i dont see any charts of adapting ae lenses anymore in the nikon websites. This means i have to say goodbye to all my nikkor lenses, bodies and all.? >> that is why i ask if anyone has come up with the idea of adaptation of the >> silver halide cameras-- there must be billions of them before the digital ones >> come around . > >Yes. People had the idea. It's already been discussed a couple of >messages back. yes, thanks savvo et al. >> i have thrown in the nokia idea and your "ridicule" is taken in jest , ;-) > >I think you're confusing me with an Australian. oh? i am a newbie here. ;-)) >> well, being the case as it it. i should not be surprised if nokia advances >> forward with camera models that could and surely threaten the professional ones. >I would. They'd have an awfully long way to go and have expressed no >interest so far in doing so. I suppose they could probably afford to >buy Sigma if they were so inclined but I'm sure they're quite happy >owning the mobile phone market. hmm savvo, i am not sure of that ;-) i think nokia outwardly shows "no" interest other than mobile phones. it does have some investments on thing like mechanical, scientific and large scale imaging satelites companies. do you really think nokia would buy sigma?? - nokia-associated companies have outdone millipore in large scale reverse osmosis-- singapore is using the ro from oy santasalo, finland and not from millipore. of course sg reverse engineers the ro to take on sea water .. this is asia ;-)) >> thanks savvo for the smile on my face this early morning ;-)) > >Glad to help. However unintentionally. indeed, savvo all of you are great helps. glad that i found this group ;-) ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > >>> [savvo] wrote/and/or quoted: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there should be some light in the bigger tunnels rather than the 3-5 mm nokia > lenses ;-)) So you put an APS-C sensor out on a very thin flexible substrate and somehow manage to cram all the image processing, buffering, and batteries into the film can. Where are you going to put the flash card? Maybe you're happy just to store, say, 36 shots onboard and take the unit out to connect it to a USB port. How long before that exposed sensor is covered in dust. Ever had a bit of grit in the back of your camera that's scratched your negs? What's that going to do a sensitive bit of silicon? You don't want to run the sensor all the time because you've had to cram the smallest possible batteries in, plus you don't want to overheat it, so how do you sync it to the shutter? >>> nikkor lenses (from 1.2 to 500 reflex let alone the flashguns and filters) and >>> the 6 unburstable nikon bodies. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the nikon websites. This means i have to say goodbye to all my nikkor lenses, > bodies and all.? The D200 works with way more lenses than the D50 will. I've not been with Nikon long enough to know what an AE lens is, but I did used to use an AI lens on my D200. >>I would. They'd have an awfully long way to go and have expressed no >>interest so far in doing so. I suppose they could probably afford to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it does have some investments on thing like mechanical, scientific and large > scale imaging satelites companies. If Sony, one of the two major sensor manufacturers and a market-leader in pro and consumer video equipment can't get its DSLR market share out of the single figure %ages, despite a head start from buying Minolta's expertise and plant, I'm very sure Nokia will be very happy to stay out of the bear pit. > do you really think nokia would buy sigma?? No. Not a chance. I was musing on a preposterous proposition. Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man savvo wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 8:37 PM: > How long before that exposed > sensor is covered in dust. If you keep the cover closed, a long time. The sensor would not be exposed anymore than in a dslr. Except of course if you open the back. Which you don't need to anymore: there is no film there. > Ever had a bit of grit in the back of your > camera that's scratched your negs? What's that going to do a sensitive > bit of silicon? Since when is silicon "soft"? It's what makes up sand! What is soft is the anti-alias plastic filter in front of it. That can be replaced and/or cleaned easy if the back cover can be opened. It does NOT move when you wind, so it doesn't get scratched like film does! In fact, there is NOTHING inside such a camera that can scratch it. > You don't want to run the sensor all the time because you've had to > cram the smallest possible batteries in, plus you don't want to > overheat it, so how do you sync it to the shutter? batteries in all my slrs are in the handle and they are big rechargeable AAs which last forever. Longer than my dslr's punny little lithium stuff anyway... As for synching it to the shutter, that can be easily achieved with any slr that has a flash contact: shutter won't open until flash contact is closed. Plenty of time to "turn on" the sensor: like you say it doesn't need "warming". >>>> my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the >>>> sunsets? they won't. just look for it instead of believing the crap. heaps of alternatives. you can even still find new film for super8 movie cameras and they went out ages ago! not to mention 620 and other "weird" formats long gone from production. > The D200 works with way more lenses than the D50 will. I've not been > with Nikon long enough to know what an AE lens is, but I did used to > use an AI lens on my D200. Exactly. The D200, D300, D700, D2(x) and D3 can all use AI and AI-S lenses, as well as all the AF models. That's with metering. Without it even my D80 works fine with anything since AI. That's since the 60's. > If Sony, one of the two major sensor manufacturers and a market-leader > in pro and consumer video equipment can't get its DSLR market share > out of the single figure %ages, despite a head start from buying > Minolta's expertise and plant, I'm very sure Nokia will be very happy > to stay out of the bear pit. indeed. but Sony is inching in, that's for sure. and it takes time to build up momentum: once they sort out their range into a coherent lot, things will move fine. It's only this year they have had more than one model, while the others have been at it for nearly a decade! > savvo wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 8:37 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in a dslr. Except of course if you open the back. > Which you don't need to anymore: there is no film there. You've missed the point. How do you access the pictures that you have shot if you never open the camera? Try reading the thread to find out what it's about. > > Ever had a bit of grit in the back of your >> camera that's scratched your negs? What's that going to do a sensitive [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doesn't get scratched like film does! In fact, there is > NOTHING inside such a camera that can scratch it. I didn't say it would scratch it. I asked pluto to consider what it _might_ do. >> You don't want to run the sensor all the time because you've had to >> cram the smallest possible batteries in, plus you don't want to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are big rechargeable AAs which last forever. Longer than > my dslr's punny little lithium stuff anyway... You've missed the point. Go back and read the thread. > As for synching it to the shutter, that can be easily achieved > with any slr that has a flash contact: shutter won't open > until flash contact is closed. Plenty of time to "turn on" > the sensor: like you say it doesn't need "warming". How do you get the flash sync through the closed back of the camera to the 'digital film'? >>>>> my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the >>>>> sunsets? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > year they have had more than one model, while the others > have been at it for nearly a decade! So what's your point about Nokia's willingness or ability to compete? Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:50:04 +1000, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> in this message <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <720jo5-6i7.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <pa6eb45ptr2jgr399u0v6fkn0ehasm1q9p@4ax.com> <qqrjo5-d28.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <6qqeb417kmq9gc09qf1jh9p9812abh9gou@4ax.com> <550lo5-gr8.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> from <g992ap$m0m$1@registered.motzarella.org> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: thanks Noons for your inputs >Exactly. The D200, D300, D700, D2(x) and D3 can all use AI >and AI-S lenses, as well as all the AF models. That's >with metering. Without it even my D80 works fine with >anything since AI. That's since the 60's. with modifications to the rings ae ai of course? >> If Sony, one of the two major sensor manufacturers and a market-leader >> in pro and consumer video equipment can't get its DSLR market share [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >year they have had more than one model, while the others >have been at it for nearly a decade! yes, i was in tsukuba city, tokyo in 1989. sony was the "anchor" tenant of this research city. at that time sony was completing the pioneer model of videol-radio phone. ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:37:57 -0400, savvo <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> in this message <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <720jo5-6i7.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <pa6eb45ptr2jgr399u0v6fkn0ehasm1q9p@4ax.com> <qqrjo5-d28.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <6qqeb417kmq9gc09qf1jh9p9812abh9gou@4ax.com> from <550lo5-gr8.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >The D200 works with way more lenses than the D50 will. I've not been >with Nikon long enough to know what an AE lens is, but I did used to >use an AI lens on my D200. oh yeah? savvo?? can you please quote me the url/urls ?? if majority of my ae>>ai>>lenses can be re adapted (to mf?) to the d200 i may consider to dump my 6 (snif snif snif tear, tear ) nikon bodies and get the d200 thanks again savvo for the help. ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:37:57 -0400, savvo <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> _PLEASE STOP QUOTING THE REFERENCES_ > wrote/and/or quoted: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > oh yeah? savvo?? > can you please quote me the url/urls ?? You can get the manual from www.nikon.com There's a lens compatibility chart at www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/ > if majority of my ae>>ai>>lenses can be re adapted (to mf?) to the d200 i may > consider to dump my 6 (snif snif snif tear, tear ) nikon bodies and get the d200 You don't need to 'adapt' AI lenses, they're already manual focus and work as-is on the D200. Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:20:54 -0400, savvo <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> in this message <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <720jo5-6i7.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <pa6eb45ptr2jgr399u0v6fkn0ehasm1q9p@4ax.com> <qqrjo5-d28.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <6qqeb417kmq9gc09qf1jh9p9812abh9gou@4ax.com> <550lo5-gr8.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <n73gb49tfi2cino3ldvajeud9gaorm3keg@4ax.com> from <67dlo5-059.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:37:57 -0400, savvo <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> > >_PLEASE STOP QUOTING THE REFERENCES_ noted with tremidty of Bigstick watching. >You don't need to 'adapt' AI lenses, they're already manual focus and >work as-is on the D200. thanks i will ask around the nikon suppliers for a first hand opinion which more likely will be that i would have to use their new lenses ;-)) ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml snip> > in my introibo -badly formated though, i profered my delima: plethora of > useable [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > adaptation > problems and there appear to be no solution. Considering the extreme number of working 35mm film cameras extant, the likelihood of 35mm film completely dissappearing is very slim. Many people are still buying film and shooting film. Eventually, we will see the less popular film types go away, but the common types will be around a long time. Every WalMart, Walgreens, and CVS drugstore has a $100K film developing machine installed. With that much capital investment by major corporations, there will be film to run through those machines for a long while. Ken Hart1 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:23 AM: >> my question was what am i going to do if silver halides are going to the >> sunsets? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > machine installed. With that much capital investment by major corporations, > there will be film to run through those machines for a long while. Of course there will be film for a loooooong time! The only ones claiming there won't are the peddlers or scammers of digital rubbish, trying to drum up business using the "pending event" technique. On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:26:59 +1000, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <720jo5-6i7.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <pa6eb45ptr2jgr399u0v6fkn0ehasm1q9p@4ax.com> <voVtk.8$Dj1.0@trnddc02> from <g9980d$rgh$3@registered.motzarella.org> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >Of course there will be film for a loooooong time! >The only ones claiming there won't are the >peddlers or scammers of digital rubbish, trying >to drum up business using the "pending event" technique. indeed, Noons, this is the business scenario in the east. "planned obsolescence" ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:23:55 GMT, "Ken Hart1" <kwhart1@verizon.net> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <720jo5-6i7.ln1@tog-vm.savvo.co.uk> <pa6eb45ptr2jgr399u0v6fkn0ehasm1q9p@4ax.com> from <voVtk.8$Dj1.0@trnddc02> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >Considering the extreme number of working 35mm film cameras extant, the >likelihood of 35mm film completely dissappearing is very slim. Many people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >machine installed. With that much capital investment by major corporations, >there will be film to run through those machines for a long while. thanks "Ken Hart1" for the good news from your side. i am in malaysia where even kodak has gone "underground" to concentrate on large format film plates, x ray films to hospitals. Japanese film companies like fuji, et al, have moved out their film developing and printing machines on hire purches to concentrate in a few big cities at a very high cost. i remember way back 10 years ago, i had to buy films by the dozens from one company before going out for my shooting forays. who can afford even 3r prints at us 30 cents each? youngsters here are using mobilephone camera and you can see their works in facebook. ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> in this >> The unsormountable problem however was that the distance between the film >> gate and the place for the film cassette varies, not just with camera make, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > simpleton me, is thinking of the backplate pressing down on the film can be jam > packed with electronics to sense the distance, etc to work like digital? For a "back" solution, it's no issue at all since the 'back' of the camera can extend backwards. The surface of the sensor need only be on the film plane. This does make the proposed "cassette with a blade" idea hard or impossible to do (there were other issues as well); but replacement backs is another alternative that could have worked for some SLR's. (eg: one problem was triggering the exposure, so cameras with a sync connection could trigger the exposure that way. Some MF backs use this approach). But yes, the cassette idea is dead and no 35mm SLR makers have opted to make backs for their cmeras. OTOH, I hardly can see how they would be much cheaper than the full bodies DSLR's of today. The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and digital for those of us who still shoot both. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:10:33 -0400, Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> from <HYSdnR0ix6DEvyrVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:10:50 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> in this > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >camera can extend backwards. The surface of the sensor need only be on >the film plane. ok Alan Browne lets take it from here. i was told how the nokia camera works. there is a memory chip which store the dig images the chip which does the rest of the autofocus, aperture... blah blah extension plugs to direct load to computer all the dig signatures. if nokia can do this why cant nikon (taking nikon as an eg as i am using nikon ) the back can have all what nokia is having and more this plate can be detatched to connect to computer to load the images am i crazy?> >This does make the proposed "cassette with a blade" idea hard or >impossible to do (there were other issues as well); but replacement [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >make backs for their cmeras. OTOH, I hardly can see how they would be >much cheaper than the full bodies DSLR's of today. you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses why should i throw these out for dig and start all over again? nikon "owes" me to solve the digital problems ;-))) >The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and >digital for those of us who still shoot both. hmm this sounds logical ;-) ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > lets take it from here. > i was told how the nokia camera works. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > if nokia can do this [...] They can't. So stop mentioning Nokia in every single post. > why cant nikon (taking nikon as an eg as i am using nikon ) > the back can have all what nokia is having and more > this plate can be detatched to connect to computer to load the images > am i crazy?> Perhaps. Perhaps just hard of learning. ;-) > you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac > i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses > why should i throw these out for dig and start all over again? > nikon "owes" me to solve the digital problems ;-))) But they have. As a Nikonmaniac you should already know that there are Nikon digital cameras (proper ones) that will take your lenses. Your bodies can still be used too, but with film. >>The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and >>digital for those of us who still shoot both. > > hmm this sounds logical ;-) But undoable. On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:30:12 +0200, "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <HYSdnR0ix6DEvyrVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com> <tqgeb41nefui81reo7kr1ardr2i2cfctad@4ax.com> from <48b789ea$0$53772$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> lets take it from here. >> i was told how the nokia camera works. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >They can't. >So stop mentioning Nokia in every single post. sorry, Q.G. de Bakker it is a shorter word for mobilephone ;-)) >> why cant nikon (taking nikon as an eg as i am using nikon ) >> the back can have all what nokia is having and more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Perhaps just hard of learning. >;-) yeah ;-))) >> you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac >> i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >As a Nikonmaniac you should already know that there are Nikon digital >cameras (proper ones) that will take your lenses. mmmmmmm not all lenses some of them only as i have posted >Your bodies can still be used too, but with film. yea, now what when films are hard to come by nowadays even more the developing and printing of the films >>>The advantage, of course, would have been one body for both film and >>>digital for those of us who still shoot both. >> >> hmm this sounds logical ;-) > >But undoable. righto. thanks Q.G. de Bakker for all the helps. ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > subject as: Re: conversion of film > slr to dig slr: Just a reminder: "rec.photo.equipment.medium-format - Medium format cameras and lenses This group would be for the discussion of issues related to medium format equipment. Medium format cameras are normally taken to be cameras in which 120 or 620 size roll film is used, producing images in the range of 6cm x 4.5cm to 6cm x 9cm. The cameras used are typically either single lens reflex, twin lens reflex or scale (or rangefinder) focusing. The discussion of panoramic cameras using 120 film size would also be appropriate for this group. All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisments or other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are prohibited." This thread belongs elsewhere. SignatureWe are not amused >> subject as: Re: conversion of film >> slr to dig slr: So who made you queen? (And when did you start denying the Gothe lineage?) Ha! Signaturesavvo orig. invib. man > This thread belongs elsewhere. And you belong ... ? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:36:07 -0400, Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> in this message <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <HYSdnR0ix6DEvyrVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com> <tqgeb41nefui81reo7kr1ardr2i2cfctad@4ax.com> <48b789ea$0$53772$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <g8lfb4dhgifmlv2am9t42ul0ognm1v7s2m@4ax.com> <1Omdndq3gIxQhCXVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@bway.net> from <67WdncFV4LE60iXVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> This thread belongs elsewhere. > >And you belong ... ? is queen lizzie the OFFICIAL bigstick of this forum? ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:46:22 -0400, Lizzie Saxe-Coburg <HerMajesty@Windsor.co.uk> in this message <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <HYSdnR0ix6DEvyrVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com> <tqgeb41nefui81reo7kr1ardr2i2cfctad@4ax.com> <48b789ea$0$53772$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <g8lfb4dhgifmlv2am9t42ul0ognm1v7s2m@4ax.com> from <1Omdndq3gIxQhCXVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@bway.net> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> subject as: Re: conversion of film >> slr to dig slr: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >This thread belongs elsewhere. thanks Lizzie Saxe-Coburg for the fact that this is a moderated group. if my asking for the url froom savvo constitutes a breach to the groups tos, i tender my apology ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml > you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac > i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses The many Nikon bodies will work fine with your lenses. Enjoy. > why should i throw these out for dig and start all over again? > nikon "owes" me to solve the digital problems ;-))) I'm done with this discussion. There is ample discussion in the newsgroup archives as well as various web pages. Google away. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:35:46 -0400, Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> in this message <2pf1b4t4mfuu68ll69m3j4lpmice7ro6q6@4ax.com> <WeKdnT0E35KEECzVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <tdisk.19259$mh5.12708@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> <VOWdndxoA7HSWSzVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <VOWdndhoA7GMWizVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@giganews.com> <ti89b45ckpp9je5tjagskrok6iqdhoc641@4ax.com> <48b4e25e$0$71939$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> <op3db49oea0qk8de0fdsdv1k0ebcr99n94@4ax.com> <HYSdnR0ix6DEvyrVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com> <tqgeb41nefui81reo7kr1ardr2i2cfctad@4ax.com> from <67WdncZV4LEP0iXVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com> subject as: Re: conversion of film slr to dig slr: wrote/and/or quoted: >> you may call me a sturborn nikonmaniac >> i have 6 nikon bodies and ksdollars worth of lenses [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Google away. thanks alan, willl do this weekend ;-) ============================================== caveat fair use notice: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 25/08/2008 6:27 AM: > I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still > quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped) > back for it I'll have a 24 Mpix body for my Minolta lenses which (most > of them) out resolve my Hasselblad lenses in any case. Get a scanner for your film backs and enjoy 72Mpix (non-cropped) now. Nothing could be easier or cheaper. > I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still > quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped) back > for it I'll have a 24 Mpix body for my Minolta lenses which (most of them) > out resolve my Hasselblad lenses in any case. Two things: 1) They don't (outresolve your Hasselblad, nor most other quality MF lenses). They should (!) to be able to keep up (same for all 35 mm format lenses). But that doesn't mean that they do. And they indeed don't. 2) The quality of 24 MP produced by a sensor with big wells is much better than 24 MP produced by sensor with tiny wells. The old 16 MP back may well produce better (though with less MP) images than a 24 MP minisensor. ;-) >> I'd like to get a used back for my 500 C/M, but even used they are still >> quite expensive. By the time I could afford a used 16 Mpix (cropped) back [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They should (!) to be able to keep up (same for all 35 mm format lenses). > But that doesn't mean that they do. And they indeed don't. I reviewed these a long while ago, and several of my Minolta lenses (one of which is a Sony made Carl Zeiss design) are sharper than my 80mm and 150mm Carl Zeiss 'blad lenses per MTF tests. I don't have the curve for the 120 Makro, it is probably sharper at close focus range and not bad at longer ranges; but not as sharp as the 150 at infinity... I am sure that the 100 f/2.8 macro (Minolta) is sharper than the 120 Makro and the 150. Easy. Likewise my 135 f/1.8 (a CZ design) is sharper than the 80 and 150 (possibly not the 120 Makro at short range). The Minolta 85mm f/1.4 has legendary sharpness... (though I don't (yet) own one ... and I may get the CZ version instead). The only fly in the ointment above is that the sources for the curves were not the same lab/bench/tech. MMV. > 2) The quality of 24 MP produced by a sensor with big wells is much better > than 24 MP produced by sensor with tiny wells. The old 16 MP back may well > produce better (though with less MP) images than a 24 MP minisensor. OTOH, I can justify a 24 Mpix $4,000 FF body new where I can't justify a used 16 Mpix back @ nearly $10,000... Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > The only fly in the ointment above is that the sources for the curves > were not the same lab/bench/tech. MMV. That's not an only fly, but a swarm of flies. But since you own these lenses, why look at curves? >> 2) The quality of 24 MP produced by a sensor with big wells is much >> better than 24 MP produced by sensor with tiny wells. The old 16 MP back [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OTOH, I can justify a 24 Mpix $4,000 FF body new where I can't justify a > used 16 Mpix back @ nearly $10,000... With "justify" meaning "afford", yes. I know the feeling. ;-) >> The only fly in the ointment above is that the sources for the curves >> were not the same lab/bench/tech. MMV. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > With "justify" meaning "afford", yes. I know the feeling. ;-) No, just "justify". There are other things in life. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> With "justify" meaning "afford", yes. I know the feeling. ;-) > > No, just "justify". There are other things in life. Of course. Which is part of the entire "afford" thing. ;-) Anyway: whether you can or cannot justify the expenditure has no bearing on whether or not the less MP larger sensor pictures are of higher quality than the higher MP smaller sensor pictures. > hi all, > i append hereunder my thoughts on the above and posted the same to the great > nikon company and the reply was as stupid as the japanese can be > > does anyone have any thought on this or am i crazy? ************************************************************************* I think it would be cheaper to just sell the 35mm equipment and look into either a used medium format camera, or a new one like the Mamiya AFD series of cameras. They have removable backs and can work with digital or film. That might be the way of the future anyway with cameras that have removable backs that are made to accept either format. Ric in Wisconsin. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.