Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]All due respects to Bob Shell putting a sensor in place of film may not be as "impractical" is it seems. The Leica M body might very well be eaiser than others. Why? First the removable back door could be replaced with an aftermarket "door/ccd sensor" maybe even with an LCD screen on the outside. Secondly the removable baseplate. The rest of the electronics could be in a housing below the body much like the Leica winder. Is for the thickness of the sensor compared to film, CreoScitex has already announced a 6 megapixel sensor the size of a 35mm frame and ultra thin. Check it out at: http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews_jun2000.html#cmost JC At 12:38 PM 7/9/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Michael, >I like so many others is also searching for the holy grail of digital -- >a digital recording device in the shape of a 35mm cassette with the >sensor area the shape of film in the film gate. Bob Shell gave a very >good explanation last month on the Contax mailing list why this is >currently impractical. I don't have all the technical details >memorized, but it boils down to the unfortunate fact that even if a CCD >chip of the correct size were available at a reasonable price, it >wouldn't fit in the film gate of most cameras. First off, it is thicker >than film. Second, there are all sorts of wires coming off the chip on >all sides. This makes it bigger than the film gate. Perhaps at the >rapid pace of technology development it won't be too many years until we >get such a device. Until then, I am going to be getting a semi-digital >setup consisting of my existing film cameras, a good service to scan >slides and negatives (35mm and MF) to Kodak Photo CD format, a more >powerful computer, Photoshop, and an Epson printer (perhaps one of the >new ones with more permanent inks). > >I have a big investment in top quality Leica and Zeiss lenses. It >wouldn't make sense to use this sort of glass on a small resolution CCD >sensor. Cheap lenses work well for that. In fact, I had a photo ID >card made a couple months ago and I was curious at the little digital >camera the place was using. I couldn't see who made the lens, but on >the front it boldly proclaimed "Glass Lens". Now, THAT, is scary! >John > >"M.E.Berube - GoodPhotos" wrote: >> >> At 12:01 AM 7/9/00 -0700, Austin Franklin wrote: >> >one does not need to spend $2000 for a lense that will give >> >the best possible results with a 640x480 CCD...perhaps around $40 would be >> >sufficient. >> >> Despite siliconfilm (-formerly imagek-) being thus far vapor-hardware, my >> initial post was that I would rather see a digital solution for the >> camera's that I already carry, than to have to carry yet another body with >> me if I wanted to capture digital images from the snap of a shutter. IF >> such a solution cost much more than a Fujileica Digilux, I would as soon >> get one of those as a toy. >> >> Regardless, I completely agree with Mark that a good scanner is the best >> way to go when you want a digital image of any quality at the technology's >> current point of development. Considering how long it has taken the best >> digital technology to advance to just over half the image quality of the >> cheapest disposable 35mm camera (pixel-wise), the quality scanner route is >> likely the best way to go for a while. But still, an affordable working CCD >> option for my M would be a cool toy. >> >> Carpe Lumen, >> Michael E. Berube >> http://www.goodphotos.com > >