-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I
innocent
Hi Bob, No, you certainly don't need to cut a slot in the F5 to effect a digiback. Additional electronics yes, and that's what I refer to as a digiback anyway. The CPU in the Nikon F5 cannot be wrong for a digiback all that is required is a new firmware version that would enable a seamless integration of the existing circuitry with the enabled CCD back pronto. No great science eh!
Now, Larry in his message agrees that the whole question is a marketing issue, I aver to his agreement. Indeed the development of a digiback for the F5 and F100 is purely for the economic gain of Nikon and Nikon only. Of course a digiback will terminate the coolscan market, dx lenses will be kissed goodbye, oh, the new flash gun with an 800, I've actually lost count on how many manipulations of the market The Nikon has made in total.
Larry also mentioned that the cost of a digiback could be beyond the price of the Canon 1DS and that "an owner of a $2000 camera body is unlikely to settle for generic 6MP consumer-level quality". Bravo, it seems Nikon has spoken but not convincingly. First, there seems to be no iota of justification in terms of production and marketing costs for the currently marked-up, predetermined, preset prices that are tagged on ALL THE NIKON CAMERAS or indeed any other. Except Nikon will prove otherwise by publishing their accounts in more detail form. Secondly, Nikon already has an advance technology for their CCD sensors and may well apply the CMOS technology if they are not already considering it, therefore the question about a compromise in quality is non existent (Fair comment).
Leica and Kodak as the forum is aware are working on a digiback for their products and the only difference in the "market for Nikon and Leicas" is that while Leica upholds its customers welfare the Nikon seems to grab and grab and grab whatever its customers can be stretched to cough out. It is not for me to say that many pros use Leica anyway and perhaps some of us will be considering a shift but not without a fight !!!
Finally, as far as the end user goes, the cost of a digiback on an F5 does not outweigh its benefit. Nikon should reconsider their extortionate bargain approach for their products. Before I kick Nikon hard I've sent an e-mail to their customer relations regarding the issue discussed herein, and who knows I might be wrong, and in that case my apologies.
For WE WANT A DIGIBACK FOR THE F5 AND WE WANT IT NOW!
Inno' G Okorji
Now, Larry in his message agrees that the whole question is a marketing issue, I aver to his agreement. Indeed the development of a digiback for the F5 and F100 is purely for the economic gain of Nikon and Nikon only. Of course a digiback will terminate the coolscan market, dx lenses will be kissed goodbye, oh, the new flash gun with an 800, I've actually lost count on how many manipulations of the market The Nikon has made in total.
Larry also mentioned that the cost of a digiback could be beyond the price of the Canon 1DS and that "an owner of a $2000 camera body is unlikely to settle for generic 6MP consumer-level quality". Bravo, it seems Nikon has spoken but not convincingly. First, there seems to be no iota of justification in terms of production and marketing costs for the currently marked-up, predetermined, preset prices that are tagged on ALL THE NIKON CAMERAS or indeed any other. Except Nikon will prove otherwise by publishing their accounts in more detail form. Secondly, Nikon already has an advance technology for their CCD sensors and may well apply the CMOS technology if they are not already considering it, therefore the question about a compromise in quality is non existent (Fair comment).
Leica and Kodak as the forum is aware are working on a digiback for their products and the only difference in the "market for Nikon and Leicas" is that while Leica upholds its customers welfare the Nikon seems to grab and grab and grab whatever its customers can be stretched to cough out. It is not for me to say that many pros use Leica anyway and perhaps some of us will be considering a shift but not without a fight !!!
Finally, as far as the end user goes, the cost of a digiback on an F5 does not outweigh its benefit. Nikon should reconsider their extortionate bargain approach for their products. Before I kick Nikon hard I've sent an e-mail to their customer relations regarding the issue discussed herein, and who knows I might be wrong, and in that case my apologies.
For WE WANT A DIGIBACK FOR THE F5 AND WE WANT IT NOW!
Inno' G Okorji
J
jhricardo
> Hi Tony,
I'm curious about this back from panasonic. I look it on Fred Miranda =20=
and couldn't find anithing. I wonder if you could send us the link for the related article.
Thank You!
I'm curious about this back from panasonic. I look it on Fred Miranda =20=
and couldn't find anithing. I wonder if you could send us the link for the related article.
Thank You!
> There already is a Panasonic digital back for the Leica M3. Saw it on Fred Miranda. Be out in the spring. All manual.
Perhaps, but if this is even true, does not the M3 have a removable back/bottom section, rather than just a hinged back? In other words, when one reloads an M3, one removes a section of the back and bottom of the camera, puts it on the table, swaps film, and puts it back. So, mechanically speaking, one could design a replacement back incorporating a CCD where the pressure plate normally sits. When the back is not being used, the CCD could have a protective cover.
The cover isn't an engineering necessity, but the first person who screws up their CCD will howl "lawsuit!" when they find the replacement cost would make it cheaper to buy a new unit.
Anyone here remember the phantom company that was planning to introduce a digital unit that would replace the film in any camera? I think it was called e-film or something - they were claiming a few years ago that they were going to have a device that could be inserted where the film goes in any 35mm camera - it was going to look something like an old 126 film cassette but with a CCD on the film plane and the electronics stuffed into the film spool and take-up wells. After about a year, they disappeared.
BobF
Perhaps, but if this is even true, does not the M3 have a removable back/bottom section, rather than just a hinged back? In other words, when one reloads an M3, one removes a section of the back and bottom of the camera, puts it on the table, swaps film, and puts it back. So, mechanically speaking, one could design a replacement back incorporating a CCD where the pressure plate normally sits. When the back is not being used, the CCD could have a protective cover.
The cover isn't an engineering necessity, but the first person who screws up their CCD will howl "lawsuit!" when they find the replacement cost would make it cheaper to buy a new unit.
Anyone here remember the phantom company that was planning to introduce a digital unit that would replace the film in any camera? I think it was called e-film or something - they were claiming a few years ago that they were going to have a device that could be inserted where the film goes in any 35mm camera - it was going to look something like an old 126 film cassette but with a CCD on the film plane and the electronics stuffed into the film spool and take-up wells. After about a year, they disappeared.
BobF
Hi Bob, No, you certainly don't need to cut a slot in the F5 to effect a digiback. Additional electronics yes, and that's what I refer to as a digiback anyway. The CPU in the Nikon F5 cannot be wrong for a digiback all that is required is a new firmware version that would enable a seamless integration of the existing circuitry with the enabled CCD back pronto. No great science eh!
Now, Larry in his message agrees that the whole question is a marketing issue, I aver to his agreement. Indeed the development of a digiback for the F5 and F100 is purely for the economic gain of Nikon and Nikon only. Of course a digiback will terminate the coolscan market, dx lenses will be kissed goodbye, oh, the new flash gun with an 800, I've actually lost count on how many manipulations of the market The Nikon has made in total.
Okay, let's see. You're probably right about the F5's existing CPU being acceptable for use as far as the mechanical stuff goes (auto focus, etc) but you still need to add another CPU to handle the operations of the CCD itself. Oh, and memory - where do you propose the smartcard would go - or would you say a cable attachment to a belt-clipped digital image tank is the way to go? The point is, there are a bunch of things that would have to be stuffed in this miraculous digi-back, and they would take real space...in effect, think of the old Polaroid film holders that Nikon had for the old F's - huge clunky things that were as large as the main camera body to contain the mirrors and polaroid film. Well, with a digiback, it wouldn't have to be as big - but how excited are you over the notion of adding another inch or two (or more) to the height of your slim and svelte F5? Or would you add those cubic inches to the back of the camera, preventing your eye from getting near the viewfinder?
I giggle at the Leica reference someone made before - I also recall the SLR adaptor they made for their rangefinder cameras a couple of decades ago. A really clever engineering kluge, it was - mounted between the lens and the camera body with a viewfinder tube that allowed the user to see the reflected image. How often did you see those puppies used? But obviously the intent was to give the owners of the hugely expensive Leitz lenses the ability to use them on an "SLR", even if that device was manual stop down and even required manual mirror flip.
As for Nikon only considering its own "economic gain" - yeah, that's what that darn capitalistic philosophy will do to a company - make it feel the need to not produce money-losing items. Don't you hate it when that happens?
Not to rain on your parade of silliness - have you any idea of how many pros have sold or shelved their F5's and have gone to digital? So the F5 market is ever-shrinking - and that, of course, is naturally the kind of market any company wants to produce new products for. What with engineering and tooling costs being nothing, it's obviously an issue of management shortsightedness at Nippon Kogaku that they haven't realized the potential tin mine of opportunity in creating digital backs for the F5.
Really, kids - for all this whining, have you noticed that when the D2H comes out there's not an option to have new back for the D1's? And for gosh sake - they are cut from far more similar cloth than the Dx and the F series. Or go cry to Kodak - after all, it's really in their interest to keep the film industry going - why not ask them to make a film back for their 14n? Oh, yeah, 'cause you can't remove the back of the 14n...can you guess why? But then again, why take heed of the realities as seen by the pro market and another captain of the photographic industry?
Well, everyone is entitled to their hopes and dreams, and I certainly don't want to be accused of crushing them, Innocent - no matter how completely unfeasible they are. I'm just trying to apply some simple logic to the issue. Remember, there's engineering and there's Product Management - the former asks "can it be done?" while the latter asks "should it be done?" Any product manager at Nikon (or Kodak) knows the answer to that question.
BobF
Now, Larry in his message agrees that the whole question is a marketing issue, I aver to his agreement. Indeed the development of a digiback for the F5 and F100 is purely for the economic gain of Nikon and Nikon only. Of course a digiback will terminate the coolscan market, dx lenses will be kissed goodbye, oh, the new flash gun with an 800, I've actually lost count on how many manipulations of the market The Nikon has made in total.
Okay, let's see. You're probably right about the F5's existing CPU being acceptable for use as far as the mechanical stuff goes (auto focus, etc) but you still need to add another CPU to handle the operations of the CCD itself. Oh, and memory - where do you propose the smartcard would go - or would you say a cable attachment to a belt-clipped digital image tank is the way to go? The point is, there are a bunch of things that would have to be stuffed in this miraculous digi-back, and they would take real space...in effect, think of the old Polaroid film holders that Nikon had for the old F's - huge clunky things that were as large as the main camera body to contain the mirrors and polaroid film. Well, with a digiback, it wouldn't have to be as big - but how excited are you over the notion of adding another inch or two (or more) to the height of your slim and svelte F5? Or would you add those cubic inches to the back of the camera, preventing your eye from getting near the viewfinder?
I giggle at the Leica reference someone made before - I also recall the SLR adaptor they made for their rangefinder cameras a couple of decades ago. A really clever engineering kluge, it was - mounted between the lens and the camera body with a viewfinder tube that allowed the user to see the reflected image. How often did you see those puppies used? But obviously the intent was to give the owners of the hugely expensive Leitz lenses the ability to use them on an "SLR", even if that device was manual stop down and even required manual mirror flip.
As for Nikon only considering its own "economic gain" - yeah, that's what that darn capitalistic philosophy will do to a company - make it feel the need to not produce money-losing items. Don't you hate it when that happens?
Not to rain on your parade of silliness - have you any idea of how many pros have sold or shelved their F5's and have gone to digital? So the F5 market is ever-shrinking - and that, of course, is naturally the kind of market any company wants to produce new products for. What with engineering and tooling costs being nothing, it's obviously an issue of management shortsightedness at Nippon Kogaku that they haven't realized the potential tin mine of opportunity in creating digital backs for the F5.
Really, kids - for all this whining, have you noticed that when the D2H comes out there's not an option to have new back for the D1's? And for gosh sake - they are cut from far more similar cloth than the Dx and the F series. Or go cry to Kodak - after all, it's really in their interest to keep the film industry going - why not ask them to make a film back for their 14n? Oh, yeah, 'cause you can't remove the back of the 14n...can you guess why? But then again, why take heed of the realities as seen by the pro market and another captain of the photographic industry?
Well, everyone is entitled to their hopes and dreams, and I certainly don't want to be accused of crushing them, Innocent - no matter how completely unfeasible they are. I'm just trying to apply some simple logic to the issue. Remember, there's engineering and there's Product Management - the former asks "can it be done?" while the latter asks "should it be done?" Any product manager at Nikon (or Kodak) knows the answer to that question.
BobF
> Helen, apparently you are not following the instructions in these > e-mails (admittedly pretty stupid instructions, but what are ya gonna > do?).
Note that you are supposed to hit your reply button, THEN scroll down to the lower half of the message where you'll see the markings -V-V etc. You must type your remarks in between the two lines of V's.
Otherwise, when you send it all that comes through is "type your text here!"
Note that you are supposed to hit your reply button, THEN scroll down to the lower half of the message where you'll see the markings -V-V etc. You must type your remarks in between the two lines of V's.
Otherwise, when you send it all that comes through is "type your text here!"
A point of curiosity. How many who read this forum would actually buy such a device, and what would be the uppoer limit of what you would be willing to pay for it - say in $US (in order to make it easier to convert to our local currency)?
To lead off, I would not. I want a camera to be totally integrated - not digital as an after thought.
larry!
To lead off, I would not. I want a camera to be totally integrated - not digital as an after thought.
larry!
There is a term in the computer world - "vaporware". It is something that a company announces while it is still non-existent.The LEICA DIGITAL-MODUL-R is vaporware.
At PMA, Photokina, etc. many companies show "prototypes" in sealed glass display cases where no one can handle them. Often, they are solid pieces of industrial modeling with no mechanicals at all.
Why do companies do this? For the same reasons that car companies build concept cars that they show at car shows.
It provides a way to see if potential customers would actually be interested in the product. It gives them a chance to get reactions on what details impress a customer and what puts a customer off.
If the response to the announcement of the Leica back is positive, it will probably sell a substantial number of R8 and R9 Leicas - even if the back remains vaporware, freezing out competitors.
The press release says it will be "shown" at Photokina 2004 - not released. As we saw with the Contax Digital SLR, years went by between the time it was announced and the supposed shipping date. To tell the truth, I have never seen any evidence that it was actually on store shelves.
However during those years Contax owners continued to buy nice Zeiss glass and patiently wait.
So far, no one has successfully brought a digital back for 35mm to market even though it seems like it would be a most obvious winner. No other camera manufacturer has indicated any interest in a similar project.
One independed company tried, changed ownership a couple of times and finally went under, realizing that they had a terrible product that would have to sell for more than a top line pro-sumer camera. It had a low resolution sensor with a horrendous multiplication factor.
Bottom line - don't hold your breath waiting for such a device. An announcment does not equal a product on the shelves.
larry!
At PMA, Photokina, etc. many companies show "prototypes" in sealed glass display cases where no one can handle them. Often, they are solid pieces of industrial modeling with no mechanicals at all.
Why do companies do this? For the same reasons that car companies build concept cars that they show at car shows.
It provides a way to see if potential customers would actually be interested in the product. It gives them a chance to get reactions on what details impress a customer and what puts a customer off.
If the response to the announcement of the Leica back is positive, it will probably sell a substantial number of R8 and R9 Leicas - even if the back remains vaporware, freezing out competitors.
The press release says it will be "shown" at Photokina 2004 - not released. As we saw with the Contax Digital SLR, years went by between the time it was announced and the supposed shipping date. To tell the truth, I have never seen any evidence that it was actually on store shelves.
However during those years Contax owners continued to buy nice Zeiss glass and patiently wait.
So far, no one has successfully brought a digital back for 35mm to market even though it seems like it would be a most obvious winner. No other camera manufacturer has indicated any interest in a similar project.
One independed company tried, changed ownership a couple of times and finally went under, realizing that they had a terrible product that would have to sell for more than a top line pro-sumer camera. It had a low resolution sensor with a horrendous multiplication factor.
Bottom line - don't hold your breath waiting for such a device. An announcment does not equal a product on the shelves.
larry!
> Thanks, Bob, I'm new to this. Here's my 2cents for improvements in Nikon's digital SLR bodies that's probably much simpler than a digital back for non-digital bodies:
Why doesn't Nikon put a DUST-blocking dark slide for changing lenses (at the front of the camera, like the Mamiya 7II) on DSLRs??? It would keep the dust out while changing lenses and save the hassle of getting them cleaned, hours of retouching dust marks, and resolve the to-change-or-not-to-change dilema in less than optimum situations (such as during desert wars, for ex&le -- where Nikons are, after all, very popular and very far from maintenance shops). Wouldn't it be marvellous? Nikon should definitely consider it!
Why doesn't Nikon put a DUST-blocking dark slide for changing lenses (at the front of the camera, like the Mamiya 7II) on DSLRs??? It would keep the dust out while changing lenses and save the hassle of getting them cleaned, hours of retouching dust marks, and resolve the to-change-or-not-to-change dilema in less than optimum situations (such as during desert wars, for ex&le -- where Nikons are, after all, very popular and very far from maintenance shops). Wouldn't it be marvellous? Nikon should definitely consider it!