It's vaporware, it was never actually made.

I've always thought of this, if someone came up with a full frame 35mm sensor the size of a film canister that could be used in any film camera, people would pay shitloads to scoop one up

>>749655
I don`t think so, but lets say they make such thing.
- raw only
- power issues
- dust on senor, easy to brake
- no LCD, and fuck I shoot digital for instant effect
- no communication with body, DSLR slow down their frame rate when buffer is full
- heat problems, both in CPU and sensor DLSR have passive systems for cooling.

The problem with that application though is that the distance between the frame and the roll varies from camera to camera. Perhaps it can be made that the strip that's sticking out is adjustable.

Plus, there's the whole way the device will interact with the camera since different cameras advance film in different ways. Though I guess we can just put faux-sprocket holes all along the edges of the strip and the processor in the inside can use that.

The the sensor will just be in a constantly "on" position and will only process the data into an image when it senses movement on the sprocket holes.

Then ISO can be changed by DX coding on the fly.

It'll probably need an external interface though. Like something that screws into the tripod socket or into the hotshoe that wirelessly communicates with the internal device so you can change settings.

The way I see it, our main problem is cramming a power source, and image processor, and storage into the size of a film canister. It sounds doable if we restrict the megapixels to 6 or something.

FUND IT!

>>749657
Op here: so it's not that big deal right?

I think it could be a great project if they solve all those problems, not so hard to make but obviously it should costs a lot on research.

I'll take the camera as a museum piece :)

>>749667
But I don`t realy see reason to do it.
"digital film" and some high end film body (1v HS, F4/5/6, D9/MZ-S) would cost way more than top FF film body.

>>749657
>I don`t think so, but lets say they make such thing.
>- raw only
Oh snap! (see the irony)
>- power issues
Battery on the other side of the camera, where the other spool is. More than enough room for a decent round shaped battery.
>- dust on senor, easy to brake
Easier to clean up than a DSLR because you can actually take it iut for cleaning. And in any case, you will scratch the hot-fitlet in fron of the sensor, which is easily replaced.
>- no LCD, and fuck I shoot digital for instant effect
On the other hand, you are not loosing the feeling of shooting film, which in this case may be the point.
>- no communication with body, DSLR slow down their frame rate when buffer is full
No continuous shooting in my OM-1n, for example, or anything simmilar.
>- heat problems, both in CPU and sensor DLSR have passive systems for cooling.
With no continuous shooting, I don't really see that as a big problem, really.


Of course it's a great idea with a failed execution, but it could be made with great results if they put the effort into it..

Wireless LCDs actually aren't that hard to do, especially at short-range. They could have a separate one that could clip into the film reminder slot, or onto the strap or whatever.

However, what I think would be best is if they would make a replacement back unit, instead. Maybe have one universal sensor/LCD/processor unit, which would snap into a variety of backs for different cameras.

I've always dreamed of one of those, though, and being able to shoot digital with classic cameras. Aside from convenience, it'd be great for camera shops and repair places, as this would make it insanely easy to test the shutter, meter, etc.

I see one striking disadvantage. This is even smaller than Four Turds. Fuck that shit.

none of you are electronic engineers are you?

>>749701

Agreed! The reason for shooting with manual film cameras is for the deliciousness of the 35mm. Other things don't and only adds weight and complications.

People didn't need lcd's before so a good or even decent photographer can manage without one today as well. Also it makes the camera heavier and drain the battery has to be larger.

Continuous shooting you say? There are better cameras for shooting sporting events... really...

Dust? Fuck dust, no one needs 100% perfect image representation anyways. Also easy to clean up in PP.

>>749727

oh Christ did I fuck up the grammar in that post or what?

Bah, it will never work properly with actual technology. Maily for battery space... with enough power it would be able to communicate with a wireless LCD for preview and buffer status etc.
And full size sensors (crop factor in a classic camera = FAIL) are still too much expensive.

Maybe in 5 years from now... but then it would face the hardest issue: a solid place in the market.

However I'm seriously cosidering to buy a dedicated film scanner these days. Those babies can take a sharp +30Mp image out of a 35mm frame.
One advantage of such solution will be that you don't transport the technological side around, the expensive and fragile stuff will remain at home outside you take the rugged and not-worth-stealing film cameras.

>>749661
>The way I see it, our main problem is cramming a power source, and image processor, and storage into the size of a film canister. It sounds doable if we restrict the megapixels to 6 or something.
You forgot "Cramming an imaging sensor, IR cut filter, and its associated support electronics into the thickness of a piece of film". I think that would be the real dealbreaker here. I doubt you could get the filter over a sensor that thin, much less the sensor itself, much less the electronics needed to make it actually work as a sensor rather than just a lump of worthless silicon with some etchings on it. Even if you could make a sensor that thin, it would break if you looked at it funny.

>>749741

Well in most film cameras there's enough clearance for 1 mm thickness or even more... the film is usually kept in place by a spring loaded pressure plate on film camera (at least in the ones I own). And the IR filter desn't need to be on the sensor, it could be attached on the top of the lens.

Op again.

I'm an electronic tecnician and I think it's easy to fit a sensor, a battery, a memory and a processing unit in a film canister.
IR filter could be applied in front of the camera as said.
Cooling system could be a problem but with an old camera you should not do continous shooting anyways... maybe it result a bit slow as a camera.
Wireless screen is a pain in the ass: wireless needs a lot of energy, it will heat up the entire system, probably adding noises from the antenna.
The best method for a screen could be a thin cable... but really I don't see the need of a screen on an old camera, you're accustomed too much well

>>749776
build it and they will come.

>>749776
But I don`t realy get WHY you would want to do it.

System alone will cost more than high end FF camera, you lose lots of benefits from shooting digital and end up with just film body and half assed digital system.

>>749778

Why?

>>749778
When it will can be done for a fair price, a lot of people would want it.
The only benefit you lose is to review photos on the LCD and the ability to cancel photos to make room on the fly, but hell these aren't the ONLY benefits that digital brought in... remaining benefits:
1_ you cut film-development costs;
2_ you cut development time;
3_ you cut roll changing time (in old camera such old leicas can be quite a pain in the ass);
4_ high iso performance;
5_ high dynamic range;
6_ privacy;
etc. etc.

>>749778
r u serious?

I would LOVE to have a "digital" version of my Canon T90...it's so simple to use, and isn't overflowing with unnecessary features (no, I DON'T want "in-camera" retouching), I am sure there are plenty of people attached to their film bodies that would like the option to carry digital in a familiar body without all the crap that comes along with a digital body

>>749657
also bigger problems:
- no synchronization between sensor and shutter (so the sensor has to be always on or what?)
- fixed sensitivity, unless you add some kind of a wireless controller
- no features that rely on live view
- no sensor-shift IS

Anyway, a contraption like this will be interesting only to a ridiculously small number of artfags. Most of /p/ won't be able to afford it since it will be more expensive than a digital Leica due to huge R&D costs and minuscule sales.

>>749778

Op here, as I said I'm just moving my first steps in photography.
I already have a digital camera, a fujifilm finepix S5000 (yeah I know it makes you laugh), and now I put my hands on this old canon of my uncle... So I remember that I've seen an article talking about one of those things years ago, when digital cameras started to be commercialized, and I was curious if that becomes really functional and, above all, cheap.

I know there are a lot of good cams for low prices but I want to practice before I'll empty my wallet in some better cam :P

>>749795
>1_ you cut film-development costs;
>2_ you cut development time;
>3_ you cut roll changing time (in old camera such old leicas can be quite a pain in the ass);

FF digital will do it better and cheaper than this proxy

>4_ high iso performance;
>5_ high dynamic range;
Just don`t start this trollfest OK.

>6_ privacy;
WUT ?

Cost wise it would be better to get F4/5/6+D700/1V HS+ 5D/5DmkII D9/D7+A850/900

>>749798
>also bigger problems:
>- no synchronization between sensor and shutter (so the sensor has to be always on or what?)
An hot shoe wireless device that would send the flash trigger impulse will do the job
>- fixed sensitivity, unless you add some kind of a wireless controller
You shoot raw, you decide iso later
>- no features that rely on live view
Who gives a fuck
>- no sensor-shift IS
Who gives a fuck

>Anyway, a contraption like this will be interesting only to a ridiculously small number of artfags. Most of /p/ won't be able to afford it since it will be more expensive than a digital Leica due to huge R&D costs and minuscule sales.

Yep price would be the worst issue. But, as said, in 5 years it could be possible to have it at a reasonable price.

>>749796 isn't overflowing with unnecessary features (no, I DON'T want "in-camera" retouching)

then don't use that shit, faggot. what is wrong with you? you probably vote democrat and complain that republicans exist, too.

>>749800
>6_ privacy;
>WUT ?

You would shoot photos of your naked girlfriend and you will bring the roll to the lab? If you think they don't look at the photos and don't take the nudes-sex for them, you're naive.

>Cost wise it would be better to get F4/5/6+D700/1V HS+ 5D/5DmkII D9/D7+A850/900

Holy shit people here can't think that in the near future price for electronics will drop as ever...

>>749806
>Holy shit people here can't think that in the near future price for electronics will drop as ever...
yeah, since this price drop won`t affect FF DLSRs ?

Vaporware. I'd buy it for an M3 in a heartbeat if it worked, but it doesn't. Probably issues with miniaturization, especially of power supplies. The whole "how would you control it" and "how do you see your picture" things in here are silly: some people have mentioned wireless controllers, but you could simply open up the body and flick a switch for different ISOs, and anyone who needs to chimp is a chump, unless they're shooting the sort of work you'd have put a Forscher back in back when people shot film.

>>749741
There's no reason why support electronics couldn't be stuck over in the "film canister," and when you look at the size of some P&Ss today, it should be possible. It's a power issue for a sensor of any sort of reasonable size, probably.

Or just a commercial one. This'd be more of a niche than an M9, becuase you wouldn't get collectors run out and snap up ten.

>>749802
Gain is applied before A/D conversion; raw is the result of the A/D conversion.

If you don't know what I'm talking about stop talking about sensors.

>>749804
why do you have an objection to that? I honestly don't use that shit
Av
Tv
bulb
Program
Tele 1-2-3
Wide 1-2-3
bracketing
are pretty much all the features I have on that camera, and I've taken my best photos with it.

You're missing the point of this project. The only thing that changes is the capture medium. Since people who shoot 35mm don't have "live view" they wouldn't care if it's not doable, nor an of the other stuff that has become convention with DSLRs

OP only needs to figure out how to get the thing working. Then he's done, and there is interest in this.

>>749802
>An hot shoe wireless device that would send the flash trigger impulse will do the job
No, it won't. You need to turn the sensor on before the shutter starts to move, but hot shoe is triggered later - either when the first curtain has fully opened (1st curtain sync) or just before the second curtain starts to close (2nd curtain sync).
Not to mention that this device can only signal the start of the exposure, but it won't tell the sensor the length of it.

>You shoot raw, you decide iso later
Most sensors don't work that way, as the signal is amplified before the analog-digital converters as well as later digitally.

>Who gives a fuck
Exactly. The sensor-as-film device will be interesting only to those who don't give a fuck about 90% of the advantages of digital (and don't give a fuck about price!), and it's a really really small group of people.

>in 5 years it could be possible to have it at a reasonable price.
No. A very small scale production with a lot of R&D involved was never cheap, and will never be.

>>749811
>The whole "how would you control it" and "how do you see your picture" things in here are silly

You're forgetting that digital is far less tolerant to incorrect exposure than film, particularly overexposure. If you just swap your film with a digital sensor and use the same sunny 16 rule or something, you'll end up far more ruined shots than with film. That's why people want histograms and shit on digital.

>>749817
>No, it won't. You need to turn the sensor on before the shutter starts to move, but hot shoe is triggered later - either when the first curtain has fully opened (1st curtain sync) or just before the second curtain starts to close (2nd curtain sync).
Not to mention that this device can only signal the start of the exposure, but it won't tell the sensor the length of it.

Well, a simple algorithm on the DSP will be able to tell when the sensor is receiving light (like film, the sensor will be in darkness when not shooting) and start recording data.

>Exactly. The sensor-as-film device will be interesting only to those who don't give a fuck about 90% of the advantages of digital (and don't give a fuck about price!), and it's a really really small group of people.

Live View and IS on sensor aren't 90% of the advantages of digital. They weren't even avaible on DSLR until about 3 years ago.

>>749824
>They weren't even avaible on DSLR until about 3 years ago.
Dynax 7D 2004, stabilized sensor.

Seriously this idea is like fucking lomography, using something cripled and braging that you do it with film body.

I don`t see big market for it, most people would prefer to but SLR and DSLR from same mount.

>>749824
>Well, a simple algorithm on the DSP will be able to tell when the sensor is receiving light
Then the sensor and A/D converters have to be always on, and provide data to the DSP at a rate enough to catch the start of an 1/8000s exposure, which will result in piss poor battery life even if it's possible at all. (And the battery life is pretty bad even on a proper digital camera compared to a film one!)

Also, this doesn't solve the issue of determining the end of the exposure, as once you start exposing your frame, the DSP cannot receive any data before the exposure finishes and A/D converters do their jobs.

Also, how can this work for long night exposures of, say, stars when there's almost no light hitting the sensor?

>Live View and IS on sensor aren't 90% of the advantages of digital.
Instant feedback and easily changeable or automatic sensitivity make up for the rest.

What there might be a market for, on the other hand, is just a really minimalist DSLR. I.e., just build something like a Digital Rebel into a body shaped like a Pentax K1000-not-D without a lot of controls and with a finder designed for manual focus. Physical knob for the shutter speed and ISO, and a standard modern control dial for Aperture (since most modern lenses don't have an aperture ring of their own anymore). Maybe even leave off the LCD and digital-specific buttons. Put a very small LCD on the top to tell you how many frames you've got left on your card, plus a battery indicator. Aperture and shutter speed and ISO and meter indicator can be displayed in the viewfinder.

It certainly wouldn't be a crazy runaway best seller, but I think it would probably sell enough to recoup the R&D costs, and it'd be the sort of camera that you could just keep pumping out forever since the target market isn't the sort of camera buyer who oh-my-god-gotta-have-its the newest features in a camera body. And lots of photography schools would want to buy 'em as teaching aids. And since it would have a lot fewer buttons and no LCD, it should be cheaper than average to produce.

>>749813 why do you have an objection to that? I

how can you be so fucking retarded?

why do I have an objection to what you said? because we are not the same person.

and my point still stands - if you don't like the extra stuff, DON'T FUCKING USE IT. nobody is forcing you to use every little feature of your camera. I own a 50D and I use more features on my olympus XA.

quit being such a stuck-up whiny fucking faggot, would you?

>>749831
- get D5000
- katzeye focusing screen
- superglue LCD facing inside
- PROFIT???

>>749833
Wouldn't have the same tactile feel or retro styling, though, which is what a lot of people are looking for. Also, a D5000 won't meter on manual-focus glass.

>>749831

nice theory, but no dice.

1) the only people who would realistically buy this are purist fucktards who are still stuck on this stupid concept. these people are either very old and thus don't do a lot of picture taking anyway or are young, penniless idiots who are mostly into the "purist" mindset because they think it makes them look cool on the internet

2) photography schools wouldn't buy this shit, nor would they recommend anyone to pick one up. why? because 35mm is way cheaper than this digital frankenstein could ever be (and lets you teach darkroom at the same time), and when you get right down to it, what aspiring pros need to be taught to use is a REAL DIGITAL SLR, because that's what they'll actually be using on the job.

this imaginary camera has no place in the universe except to appeal to a couple cheap morons who are already shooting film anyway, and can't afford it for exactly the same reason they want it in the first place - they're poor and stupid.

>>749831 And since it would have a lot fewer buttons and no LCD, it should be cheaper than average to produce.

less buttons and no LCD? yeah, that'll reduce the cost by about...$30.

>>749832
holy rage
dude, if you're going to pop a blood vessel over this stuff, don't post
and a 50D doesn't have nearly as many features as my d3s, which makes it painfully difficult just to shoot in Av
the transition to digital has not been easy for me

>>749832
>if you don't like the extra stuff, DON'T FUCKING USE IT.

Problem is, I'd rather not fucking pay for the bells and whistles I won't use on my camera but nooo, manufacturers will just shove it down your throat while convincing the masses that they do _want_ those "useless" features and use that as justification. For example, live view and video.

also, goddamn, it feels like I've been on /p/ for ages. I've already learned to accept it that there will always be newfags but it feels like it's 2009 again arguing over the same bullshit. First a revitalized gearfaggotry, then post processing, then this.

>>749843 my d3s

troll detected

>>749833

It'll be too heavy and not have a full frame sensor...

>>749846

well you've got two fucking options, here:

1) buy a digital camera, and have certain "disadvantages" you can just ignore

2) buy a film camera, and have certain disadvantages you can never make up for

I don't know if you noticed, but most of the world has chosen one of these decisions without whining for a mythical third option (which will never, ever exist) that satisfies your inane "requirements".

>>749843
>as many features as my d3s
II / X

>>749847
>troll detected
>pic related
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG TECHWIN
Camera Model	NV11, VLUU NV11
Camera Software	702241
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:27 11:12:46
Exposure Time	0.6 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	7.80 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>749837
>the only people who would realistically buy this are purist fucktards who are still stuck on this stupid concept.
I think it's the sort of camera that would generate a cult following. Especially if they did actually sell them at a Rebel-style price point, which I think they easily could. You know that Ken Rockwell would pimp the hell out of it, and he has a shit-ton of readers. And just reading /p/ suggests that the luddite photographer population is a lot bigger than you're assuming here.

Like I said, it wouldn't sell like gangbusters. But it's simple and cheap to build, and you could stick a 10MP sensor in there and manufacture it in small runs in perpetuity and the people who would want a camera like this would keep buying it.

Hell, I'd drop $500 on something like this, no problem, and I'm certainly not a purist. They'd be light and cheap and make good backup bodies.

>>749862

oh good, a cooked EXIF.

you seriously want me to believe that you spent like eight grand on a camera that's too hard for you to use, and what you really wish for is a T90?

>>749864
>Hell, I'd drop $500 on something like this
For FF I realy doubt, APS-C even would be stretching it.
More like 1-2k$

>>749864 And just reading /p/ suggests that the luddite photographer population is a lot bigger than you're assuming here.

/p/ is not an indication of anything. it's the same 20 faggots circle-jerking over gear and calling each other trolls. we're not some grand subculture of photographies here, we're just some nerds on the internet who post bad pictures.

>>Hell, I'd drop $500 on something like this, no problem

yes, but you are also an idiot. the amount of cameras you buy and own is atypical of the average consumer, who are the ONLY demographic that matters in this context. 99% of everything you have ever owned has been designed or spawned from something that met the needs of the average consumer, not some intertwat's super-specific gear jerkoff fantasy.

>>749846
>I'd rather not fucking pay for the bells and whistles I won't use on my camera

The trick of the mass market is, removing said bells and whistles won't reduce the price. It's actually cheaper to mass-produce a single model with both live view and video than three different models, one with live view, one with video, and one without both.

>>749866
>For FF I realy doubt, APS-C even would be stretching it.
Obviously not FF. I don't think APS-C would be out of the question, though. Cost savings:
1. No built-in flash
2. No LCD
3. No buttons for controlling the digital system
4. Simpler body construction
5. Simpler shutter mechanism (nobody's going to be expecting 6.5fps on a camera like this. 3fps like a Rebel would be fine)
6. No need for the electronics to support live view, video, the interface on the rear LCD, etc, so they could get by with a cheaper CPU.
7. No TV-Out port
8. No speaker
Cost increases:
1. Split-prism viewfinder, probably.
2. One extra knob for ISO (vs. a Rebel. This design would eliminate the mode dial, so the cost of the mode dial would be replaced with the cost of the shutter speed dial)

They can sell the low-end Rebel or a D3000 for around $500 body-only. Those have a bigger bonus from economies-of-scale, but I think a camera like this could still make money thanks to an absurdly long product cycle.

>>749875
But we were talking about this film sized digital proxy for SLR, not a digital SRT 101.
You kinda drifted off topic AC.

damn just buy a film slr and a dslr , it would be way cheaper

>>749881
but if you buy overpriced digital film, you get "the film feel" whatever the fuck that is...

>>749878
>expecting threads to stay on topic

:3

I think it would be an awesome idea too but I'd rather have that short flange EVIL camera that adapts every lens evar.

But I really wouldn't mind a Nikon DM2n. Now if only there were a way it could still be made entirely mechanical, lol. Recharging a battery when you recock the shutter and stuff.

>>749878
>But we were talking about this film sized digital proxy for SLR, not a digital SRT 101.
Yes, I changed gears in >>749831

>You kinda drifted off topic AC.
I know. The original topic was dumb, so I decided to move to something related but slightly less dumb.

The reason people want something like the widget the Op posted is because they want to shoot digitally with the feel of an old film camera, not necessarily because they want to use their specific crappy old film cameras digitally. I was describing a compromise which, while unlikely, is at least theoretically possible with current technology.

>>749882
>> digital "film feel"

I only was asking if something like this does exist when I made this topic...

Now I've made you all to rage one against the other... I feel dirty and bad...

>>749865
wow, really?

I wanted a digtal camera that, you know, took pictures without fussing over a ridiculous amount of settings. it's the photo, not the gear. I got the D3s because it's FF and does better in low light than any other camera right now.
And it wasn't $8K. That's the D3x
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG TECHWIN
Camera Model	NV11, VLUU NV11
Camera Software	702241
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:27 12:18:05
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	7.80 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>749906
And still you are too stupid to use it.

>>749906 I wanted a digtal camera that, you know, took pictures without fussing over a ridiculous amount of settings.

so you got one of the most complex and highest-spec'd cameras on the market?

>>749910
hey, that's what learning is all about
coming to digital this late in the game puts me severely behind everyone. The menu structure on this camera is less than great, but the IQ is magnifique

but I'd return it in a heartbeat if I could put its sensor into my old camera.

>>749913
it's what I wanted, not what I got. What I wanted, in the sense that you mean, was unsurpassed IQ

>>749915 unsurpassed IQ

well considering that you have a completely pedestrian lens on it, this is untrue.

>>749914
u r doing it wrong

1. Set raw
2. PASM
3. Develop in LR ect

menus bullshit
It has all knobs that you need on camera, metring, af ect.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6943820.html

>>749916
the 50 1.4G is pedestrian?

reactionimg.svg

Granted it's not as good as most AI-S lenses, but I needed the AF

I only have FD lenses. Finding their counterparts in F-mount is going to take a bit of time before I settle.

And to get back on track, OP, if you can figure this out, you'll be a hero amongst a very small but very grateful group of people
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG TECHWIN
Camera Model	NV11, VLUU NV11
Camera Software	702241
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:27 12:56:00
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	7.80 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>749906
>>749906

haha oh wow, someone who browses /p/ actually owns a d3s.


Got any photos you've taken with it?

>>749943
not yet, still "getting a feel" for how this whole digital thing works

but here's something from my 35mm collection. Ektar 100. Taken on a T90 with a 85 1.2L
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 ED
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:27 13:11:08

>>749949

fuck your ektar bullshit

>>749943
and it's "some who owns a d3s that browses /p/"

lrn2semantics

>>749952
*someone

Instead of making this fit inside of a camera, why not fit it /behind/ the camera? Just as camera's had replaceable backs for databacks, one could make a digital back that would sync up with the camera through a sync cable, and could have a screen or at least a dial for sensitivity on the back. Sure, it wouldn't fit only specific cameras, but making different backs shouldn't be too hard, just as different fittings are made for digital medium format backs.
However, when made, it would cost thousands because of the precise work needed and the small market.

>>749952

those are both the same thing retard

>>749956
It has been done allready.

>>749949

oh and also BULLSEYE

>>749956
Thing is though, there are not that many Medium format SLR's out there and many of them were designed to be modular so there would be systems with compatible backs. dSLR's on the other hand weren't really designed to have interchangeable backs. Hell, you can't even use the same data/date back from a Nikon camera on other Nikon cameras.

>>749959
Yes, but that was in the start of the digital revolution, and the sensor 'back' would be twice as large as the camera itself. I suppose the Leica R8 got closest, but we're talking a universal solution here.

>>749966
What if the digital back would be the shape as OP's picture, but larger and with an LCD on the back? You could fit it inside the camera, and it would be held there with the rewind lever and the sprockets. You simply remove the entire back door of your camera to make it fit. It wouldn't fit flush with all cameras, but it would fit on all at least.

>>749950
I'm sorry to have angered you

Perhaps some APX 400 will calm you?
50mm 1.4
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 ED
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2010:03:27 13:22:19

>>749958
I focus more on photography than I do on /p/. Though I'm thinking about a starting a thread. Maybe.

>>749964
that's true, but for this photo, I think it works. Knowing when to break the rules is what makes you good.

I'm off to brunch. Troll away.

>>749956
Cutting a film SLR in half and then slapping a digital back on it was how Kodak made its early DSLRs. The result wasn't smooth.

I think that with 35mm and lesser cameras, nobody makes interchangeable backs just because modularity adds so much complexity and price that you're better off just buying 2 separate cameras. (Ricoh's stuff is a different kind of a modular system, but it still illustrates this point quite well)

>>749978

irrelevant, the way I worded my post didn't prioritize the /p/ browsing over the d3s owning or vice versa.

And besides, you said you didn't even have any photos with the d3s yet but you are posting on /p/ so..........

>>749980

>Knowing when to break the rules is what makes

true but that photo is pretty boring so I dont think that fact is relevant.

>>749971
What if my camera doesn't have a removable back door, or any door at all, e.g. a Leica? Also, light/dust sealing will be a big problem, and we still haven't figured out an universal way to sync the mechanical parts (shutter/mirror) with the sensor.

>>749986
I had an idea for a non-interchangable sensor DSLR made from a 35mm SLR. I was thinking if the motor drive was added on, and all the unused space emptied out, there might be enough room left for all the other junk needed. But I don't have the money for such a project at them moment, anyways.

If ANY company made a DSLR with the look, feel, and controls of an old film SLR + motor drive, I would buy that shit in a heartbeat.

Enjoy your shitty DIY frankenshit camera that costs more than a new one.

>>749975
>>749949

you bought a D3s for this bullshit?

congratulations, you wasted your money. why didn't you just buy a D700 if you needed to be an FF fag? the D3s is a high-speed camera for PJ's and sports shooters. this shit you're posting could've been taken by a point and shoot.

>>750018
such hate
check the exif

>>750149

>implying someone with the screen name johnLOL cares if you take him seriously

ok

>>750171
>implying whether or not you care has any bearing on me telling you

>>750186

>this is getting ridiculous

>>750203
>implying you aren't already ridiculous

>>750206

>i implied no such thing sir

>>750214
>implying you didn't imply implications

well this thread just shows how much of a cock smoking faggot johnlol is.

>>750217

>impling nigger nigger nigger nigger

>>750219

>implying every thread doesn't show that