How many years until we can finally buy digital backs for old

File: Millionthtimethread_zps26d6c3e3.jpg (91KB, 556x312px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 556x312px

oh hey it's this thread again

Never. There's too many differences. Shit, the film door on an AE-1 is different from an F-1.

Especially now that mirrorless allow for any lens to be adapted...35mm SLR film backs would be pretty pointless.

>>2983191
>keeping the focal plane farther back than "compact" mirrorless
>pointless
Check yourself before you wreck yourself pal

File: Hasselblad CFV 1.jpg (25KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x400px

>>2983186
You already can

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	500
Image Height	400

>>2983186
You probably imagine a digital back that makes it a 40-50MP FF camera.

But the market isn't there, so what you'll probably get is someone strapping a Chinese low midrange smartphone camera assembly with a shitty zoom lens to correct for various camera models so very unique people like you can shoot with SLR as a novelty; and to show what patrician retro gentlemen they are.

>>2983226
If you move the focal plane back, the rear door will extend back even farther.
Sensors aren't flat like film mate

Never ever. Firstly I doubt camera companies would allow it to happen, and secondly the challenges to make a "one size fits all" type adapter is too great and impractical.

>>2983232
How long until they're cheap?

https://frankencamera.wordpress.com/

do it yourself

>buying digital back for 35mm toys

just buy a adapter or kys

>>2983253
Nikon already patented it.

>>2983186
Wish they would just remake the classics in digital
Only Leica does it

>>2983415
>nikon Df

>>2983439
there's nothing classic about that abject failure

>>2983444
What's the problem with the Df? Only hipster would buy something like that anyways

>>2983445
If they had taken an FM3a and just made it digital, no autofocus/etc bloat, would've been perfect hipster camera. Why does it even have that awful grip on it. They should've made it optional accessory.

>>2983446
Can people still manually focus? Nikon makes cameras for people buying their new shitty lenses. Why do you think they would make a camera just for old lenses?

They surely could made the body less bulky without the AF motor and LCD screen.

>>2983448
removing the AF module and AF points display would make it much shorter, bringing it closer in line with classic SLR size and also allows the use of split prism finders. The thickness isn't actually that bad compared to the old SLRs, considering the sensor and LCD.

One of my nitpicks is why did they add a separate PSAM dial? It makes having a shutter dial redundant. They should have followed Fuji's lead and just have an Auto setting on each dial. Then the PSAM dial could've been the exposure compensation dial instead. The rear dial would be for aperture control for lenses without an aperture ring (with a dedicated switch somewhere to set aperture to auto or manual as needed).

The hand grip is an eyesore. I'd remove that too.

It would be much cheaper without the AF module and truly be a ``muh pure photography'' hipster model.

>>2983448
>just for old lenses

Manual focus is fun with new AF lenses too. MF isn't code for old lenses.

File: wcftox.jpg (143KB, 1374x704px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1374x704px

>>2983467
>One of my nitpicks is why did they add a separate PSAM dial?
Yep they could just put a mode button and use the main dial to select PSAM like a pro nikon camera. The ISO and exposure compensation dial looks ugly as fuck too.

Just found pic related on google.
>less is more

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013-11-06T09:35:16+01:00
Image Width	1374
Image Height	704

>>2983475
I mean whats the point of manually focusing on a tiny viewfinder without the split screen?

>>2983477
I think the point is that there -would- be a split screen if it was a MF focus only camera.

>>2983477
Also, if you mean MF focusing on an AF camera without split screen, that's a job for zoomed-in live view. Or focus trapping

>>2983481
Yep that's the whole point. I hope nikon comes up with a DF2m m for manual focus

They could make it the same price as the D7xx/6xx if they removed all that zillion AF points + AF motor crap. You could still AF on live view mode using the sensor and processor.

>>2983226
What in the fuck are you even on about?

>>2983446
>>2983445
I shot with my digital today (og a7), holy mother fuck what a bad time.
Christ knows what the meter thought it saw.
Fucking digital exposure is critical, but it jumps around like an ape, roasting highlights indiscriminately. I ended up just running -1.5 all afternoon.
800 flimsy buttons that push themselves and change settings on their own.
Punch in live view for manual focus is nice for accuracy, but the implementation is bass ackwards, takes ages, destroys your ability to frame effectively.
EVF blackout meant I was just waving the thing around aimlessly when trying to shoot a sequence.
>writing to card, yo camera is bricked af rn

An FMD, with just hard dials, split-prism finder, EVF that kicked in when you hit M.Up, no rear LCD, would be based.
I see no reason they couldn't combine pellicle mirrors and prism optics to give you HUD style EVF overlay in the OVF either.
>still wouldn't shot digital unless I had to, but IF I had to, it would be like this

>>2983483
>They could remove all the AF
>You could still AF
You what?

>>2983494
ALSO
>FMD to be released as ltd. ed. kit w/ Ai-S versions of the new 58/1.4, 28/1.8, 105/1.4

>>2983497
>how mirrorless cameras AF

>>2983494
Dunno what you're talking about man. I find my A7 incredibly simple and intuitive with a great meter.

Maybe yer just dum

>>2983494
>Fucking digital exposure is critical
I guess you never shot slide before

I ended up just running -1.5 all afternoon
Just use manual mode and auto iso you retarded.

>>2983476
so,
a sony?

>>2983506
>I find my A7 incredibly simple and intuitive
>Maybe yer just dum
Maybe you've just never used a film camera.
This is a thread about bringing the simplicity and joy of the film camera user experience to a high quality digital camera, without shelling out for a Leica.
>>2983510
Probably more slide than you bae.
You want to see a *great* digicam for metering? The GR. Manual mode, spot or centre-weighted, press a button and it snaps to a correct aperture priority reading for what you've metered off, then you compose and shoot, without having to hold a half-press or turn a comp dial and forget to unturn it or spin through 3rd stop increments to get from 1/500 to 1/15 when moving light to shade.
The A7, on the other hand, auto gains too fast, so it jumps around too much, then locks exposure when you hit zoom, then flares when you get out, etc etc. And fixing any of this is all menu diving, so it really can never happen mid shoot.
So yeah, for mixed light shooting, -1.5, deal with it in post.

>>2983563
>Maybe you've just never used a film camera.
>This is a thread about bringing the simplicity and joy of the film camera user experience to a high quality digital camera, without shelling out for a Leica.
Get a shit P&S and glue it to auto. You can have a camera as simple like good film cameras were with the same "joy" of being a lazy luddite about operating technology.

>>2983563
>This is a thread about bringing the simplicity and joy of the film camera user experience to a high quality digital camera, without shelling out for a Leica.

every fuji x series camera ever

>>2983566
>Glue it to auto
The entire argument was to have more manual control over it at a moment's notice. You missed the point entirely.

File: AR9_04.jpg (75KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x600px

>>2983186
about 10 years ago

File: P1000383copy.jpg (38KB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x320px

>>2983563
>Maybe you've just never used a film camera.
That's all I used for a long fucking time bud. Still dunno what's not simple about the Sony (or most digital cameras for that matter). They're as simple as you make them. The only thing I touch on the A7 is iso and shutterspeed...just like a film camera.

>>2983762
adapterbro?
h-how do you keep your bronny lenses stopped down on the A7 etc? I have a huge hardon for the 80/2.8 but always end up using a memeya lens instead.

>>2983762
Is the mamyia 7 really that good? I dont know if I could live without muh bokeh.

>>2983779
>is sex with a hot woman really that good? i don't know if i could live without muh throbbing gay cock in and around my mouth

>>2983779

alexander gronsky did norilsk with it. its sharp as balls, renders colors awesomely, also gorgeous. you wont need muh bokeh if you have composition skillz.

>>2983787
lmao

>>2983186
>digital backs for old SLRs?
For what? I do not see the reason to develop such a thing as company, and no reason to buy one as a costumer.

OK, it would make sense for a 100k dollar film camera system, but for old photo cameras, even the expensive ones, i really see no reason.

>>2983772
I adapt FD glass, not my Bronica glass. Adapting the Bronica glass would result in a really shitty balance I think.

>>2983779
That's a 6, which also has pretty shit Bokeh (and doesn't focus close enough for portraits). It's a killer camera though.

File: 1435862123214.png (169KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 800x800px

>>2983787

>>2983895
>>2983790
>>2983787
Samefag

>>2983586
>to have more manual control over it at a moment's notice

I don't understand the point, digital cameras give you WAY more manual control at a moment's notice than any film ones did, or a digital insert in a film camera can do.

>>2984056
He means manual as "by hand" or physically choosing the aperture/shutter speed not just pressing buttons and turning digital dials and AF

There is probability that Df replacement is coming out next year, afterall Nikon turns 100 in 2017

>>2984639
That or just the same old Df in a special "titanium edition" and extra thin leather strap.
The Df was such a huge flop, it would be too embarrassing for Nikon to come out a Df II
Especially when Pentax made a better nostalgia SLR by painting the normal K-3 body silver.
Also there is still Fuji if you want a nostalgic feel in your digital camera.

>>2984402
But you can do that on, say, Fuji, or that overpriced retro lolympus.

And I've never understood the fetish for manual dials anyway. If you have shutter speed and aperture shown in the VF, there's no fucking difference in operation between fixed speed dials and "digital" infinite-scrolling ones.

>>2984659
It's like using a watch instead of your phone.

Just by glancing you know your settings before even raising up the camera to eye level.

>>2984673
A phone is easier to tell the time on at a glance though...

>>2983563
>You want to see a *great* digicam for metering? The GR. Manual mode, spot or centre-weighted, press a button and it snaps to a correct aperture priority reading for what you've metered off, then you compose and shoot, without having to hold a half-press or turn a comp dial and forget to unturn it or spin through 3rd stop increments to get from 1/500 to 1/15 when moving light to shade.

So true. I was out shooting some slide with my tlr today and used the GR for metering. I occasionally also use it for checking distance when using my scale focus folder.

That's the only time I use the GR in manual btw. Otherwise it's glued to P mode with very scarce visits to Av.

>>2984877
t. millenial that cant read a fucking watch

>>2983294
probably never
at the point when they can make cheap medium format backs they'll just make whole cameras, the consumer market doesn't care about the modular aspect

>>2984877
>digging your phone out of your pocket is easier than raising your wrist
spot the milennial that uses his phone too much to avoid real life interaction

>>2984877
Are you serious? There's no way a digital watch is faster to read than an analog one. An analog watch is used to see how much time has passed or how much time it takes just by glancing the minutes hand. A digital watch will simple tell you an exact time, you still need to do the math in your brain.

>>2984896
He seriously doesn't know how to read an analogue watch, probably can't write in cursive either.

>>2984898
>millenials
I bet he takes pictures in auto mode because it's easier.

>>2984884
>>2984892
Yeah, because a huge screen on a phone isn't easier to read than checking the hands on a small watch face.

And yes, it takes the extra time to get your phone out, but it's still easier to tell the time at a glance.

>>2984896
> There's no way a digital watch is faster to read than an analog one
Were talking about a watch vs a phone.

And were talking about telling the time, not seeing how many minutes have passed.

>>2983186
pretty much the only good 35mm digital back is the one for the leica r8

>>2984972
>And yes, it takes the extra time to get your phone out, but it's still easier to tell the time at a glance
It's easier to turn the key to launch the nuke than to aim a gun and fire but how long do the launch codes take?

>>2984972
>because a huge screen on a phone isn't easier to read than checking the hands on a small watch face.
Nigga, you blind?
I got the cheapest terrorist watch on the market and even my eyes can read an F-91W at arms length. Stop buying yourself tiny girls analogue watches.

>>2984972
>taking the phone out of the pocket
>dropping it screen facing down

>>2984879
One touching meter is great. I do center weighted and meter about 3 or 3 1/2stops down from middle grey for shadows. How is light changing so much that M isn't sufficient is what I don't get.

>>2985034
Inside, outside, shade, full sun. etc etc.

>>2985034
Do you underexpose 3 to 3 1/2 stops your shots? Why would you do that? Are you metering the sun?

>wear a wristwatch
>everyone's now asking me for the time all the time

wristwatch is literally the film camera of telling time.

>>2985128
>literally the film camera of telling time.
So literally the best way to do it, and the only way a real man does it?

>>2985128
also
>literally
>t. millennial

>digital backs for SLRs
>meme hipster cameras
>analog watch vs phone

/p/ in a nutshell

>>2984999
And I can tell the time on my phone from the other side of the room.

Checkmate you retarded fuck.

>>2984673
Just get a camera with a top screen. Every setting you need to know is there, and easier to read because it's all in one place.

>>2985228
What you need is knowing the settings. No matter where you read them off, viewfinder, top LCD, knobs, the color screen in the back etc...
All this muh knobs are better than screens is bullshit, it literally makes no difference in the actual photo.
Lighting, subject, composition are what matter the most not the piece of gear you made them with! Fuck!

>>2985225
And my arm's not on the other side of the room.

Checkmate you ableist fucking scum

File: canon-ftb-vintage-camera.jpg (47KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 680x680px

I just want a digital back for my FTb. I love that fucking camera, it was my first and I want to be buried with it.

Plus I have like $9,000 worth of FD mount lenses.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2983186
Whats the point? Its like asking how soon until we get bluetooth and XM radio on a 1955 Chevy

>>2985340
already happened

>>2985340
But bluetooth and XM radio in a 55 chevy is easy as fuck to do, and you get that a e s t h e t i c car