Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital back for F3?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:45:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for
all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are
sold today.
Aaron

More about : digital back

Anonymous
May 10, 2005 11:45:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Aaron Blacksmith wrote:
> Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for
> all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are
> sold today.

Depends which. The F5, F6, EOS-1v and Maxxum 9 are certainly better
bodies than the F3.

To date the only 35mm cameras that have backs available are the Leica R8
and R9. At that the backs aren't on the shelves yet, but should be
shortly, assuming Leica survive the Extraordinary General Meeting of
shareholders later this month.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- 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.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:03:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d5r420$efm$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Aaron Blacksmith wrote:
>> Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for
>> all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are
>> sold today.
>
>Depends which. The F5, F6, EOS-1v and Maxxum 9 are certainly better
>bodies than the F3.
>
>To date the only 35mm cameras that have backs available are the Leica R8
>and R9. At that the backs aren't on the shelves yet, but should be
>shortly, assuming Leica survive the Extraordinary General Meeting of
>shareholders later this month.

Well ... it depends on available from *whom*. :-)

Kodak made a back to convert the N90s to a 1.3MP digital for the
AP -- called the NC2000e/c -- and several other variants for other
markets. I've got two of these -- one with a N90s body, and one with a
plain N90 body.

I think that they're still making backs to convert the N90s (and
perhaps others) to digital.

I think that the N90(s) was selected because of the 10-pin
connector on the front of the body, giving easy interconnection to the
various information in the camera, including frame numbers, and easier
integration between the camera body and the digital back. I'm not sure
what other Nikon film bodies may have this connector, if any. But if
any others do, and if they have the tripod socket in the same physical
location, it might be possible to put this back on one of the other
bodies.

But -- at 1.3 MP, it is not particularly attractive today, other
than the fact that it can work with any of the AI lenses with full
metering (unlike the D70).

But it also has no image display (just a tiny display which
displays the count of photo space remaining in the storage media, and
the SCSI ID when interfacing it -- plus a pie chart to give you an idea
what percentage of your media is already in use. So -- no chimping.

Oh yes -- it also has a rather awkward RAW format, and nothing
else, so you are stuck needing the plugin from Kodak to convert the
images to either jpegs, or to PhotoShop's own internal format.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Related resources
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 2:04:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Aaron Blacksmith" <Aaron@___Nospam.com> writes:
> Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid
> thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than
> the toys that are sold today.

Kodak used to make one, way back in 1991. It was called the DCS-100,
and sported 1.3 Mpx. I don't know if that falls under your defintion
of "powerful", but the backs sometimes show up on eBay.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/

Later models were based upon other Nikon bodies. My favourite is the
N90s:
http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/dcs460.html
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 4:20:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <428112D4.2050102@nospam.net>,
UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>Aaron Blacksmith wrote:
>> Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid thing for
>> all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera than the toys that are
>> sold today.
>> Aaron
>>
>Better than the F5? F6? D2x? In what way?

The F3 is supposed to be the only Nikon camera that has a light meter
that works with shift lenses even when they are shifted.

Compared to the F5, etc. the F3 also has center-weighted light metering
with all finders.

Other than that, the F4 is the camera that gets the most out of manual
focus Nikkors.

I like the handling of the F3+MD4, but Nikon made far too many mistakes
designing the F3 (the way the light meter is unreadable in low light
situations is probably the worst feature, but switching off the light
meter readout when a flash is detected is a close second, having a dead
camera when the batteries in your motor drive are dead is another brillant
design feature, then there the lack of a switch on the MF-18 to rewind the
film completely).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:17:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> AFAIK, the last back Kodak made for the N90s was the 6 Mpx DCS 460
> (in 1995). If anyone know of a newer digital back for the Nikon
> N90s - then I am /very/ interested.
>
> The current crop of Kodak DSLRs are based on the Nikon F80 (DCS Pro
> SLR/n, F-mount), or the Sigma SD10 (DCS Pro SLR/c, EF-mount) - but
> the newers cameras are rebuilds - it is no longer a "digital back"
> that has been adapted to replace the film back as was the case with
> the older cameras.
>
> If you want a Kodak DSLR with a Nikon Fx body, then the DCS 660 or DCS
> 760 are the models to get. Both are based upon Nikon's F5 body, and
> have the same 6.3 Mpx sensor with 1.3x crop.

I think I want the DCS-660M, actually. Except none seem to be for
sale anywhere; which probably means that if one *were* available it'd
be out of my price range. I'd also like to verify that it actually
*gets* the considerably improved sensitivity that absence of the color
filters ought to give it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 11:50:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) writes:
> In article <d5r420$efm$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>Aaron Blacksmith wrote:

>>> Is there any powerful digital back for F3? It would be a splendid
>>> thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a far better camera
>>> than the toys that are sold today.

> Kodak made a back to convert the N90s to a 1.3MP digital for the AP
> -- called the NC2000e/c -- and several other variants for other
> markets. I've got two of these -- one with a N90s body, and one
> with a plain N90 body.
>
> I think that they're still making backs to convert the N90s (and
> perhaps others) to digital.

AFAIK, the last back Kodak made for the N90s was the 6 Mpx DCS 460
(in 1995). If anyone know of a newer digital back for the Nikon
N90s - then I am /very/ interested.

The current crop of Kodak DSLRs are based on the Nikon F80 (DCS Pro
SLR/n, F-mount), or the Sigma SD10 (DCS Pro SLR/c, EF-mount) - but
the newers cameras are rebuilds - it is no longer a "digital back"
that has been adapted to replace the film back as was the case with
the older cameras.

If you want a Kodak DSLR with a Nikon Fx body, then the DCS 660 or DCS
760 are the models to get. Both are based upon Nikon's F5 body, and
have the same 6.3 Mpx sensor with 1.3x crop.

> I think that the N90(s) was selected because of the 10-pin connector
> on the front of the body, giving easy interconnection to the various
> information in the camera, including frame numbers, and easier
> integration between the camera body and the digital back.

True. In fact, it is fairly trivial to adapt the DCS 460 back into a
top class film camera by replacing the digtal back with MF-26 multi-
function back.
--
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:39:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
> I think I want the DCS-660M, actually. Except none seem to be for
> sale anywhere; which probably means that if one *were* available
> it'd be out of my price range.

So we are two. I would actually settle for a DCS 460m, but that
one is just as elusive. I'm even desperate enough to consider
(but so far just consider) getting a Sigma SD10 for B&W work.

Apart from the Sigma SD9 and SD10, and the vintage Kodaks - do there
exist any other DSLR that do not have a Bayer colour mask in front of
the sensor?
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 11:18:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1Akge.137042$dP1.483165@newsc.telia.net>,
Aaron Blacksmith <Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:
>I think F3 has the optimal functionality when you want a MF camera. The
>quality is outstanding (only the F2 and the Leicas). A digital back with a
>full size sensor would make it superior.

Is the F3 a MF camera? I thought that it was a 35mm SLR, like
the rest of the F series from Nikon.

Perhaps I should point out why you are unlikely to find a
full-frame digital back for an unmodified 35mm film camera.

1) The film camera must have a physical frame very close to
the film plane. At a greater distance, the edges of the image
would be blurred, and you also need physical support of the film
to hold it flat.

2) A sensor must have readout connections -- which are made along
the edges, and a protective cover, which is a millimeter or two
above the surface of the sensor (and is often also an
anti-aliasing filter).

3) A full-frame sensor thus must have the readout connections
outside of the frame, and the protective cover/anti-aliasing
filter would thus hit the physical frame of the film support,
thus forcing the sensor back and out of focus.

4) All conversions which I have seen (mainly the NC2000e/c which
was a Kodak conversion of the N90s to digital for the AP) have
the sensor rigidly mounted to the back, and projecting into the
physical frame of the film support and guides. If it were full
frame, this would not be possible.

5) Thus -- for a full frame sensor, you would need to machine away
part of the film support -- which is also support for the focal
plane shutter. At this point, you have an F3 (or whatever other
camera) which is no longer capable of using film.

If anyone knows that my suggestions and opinions above are
wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, please amend your suggestions to
accept a less than full frame sensor, or a destructively modified (e.g.
non-reversible) camera body no longer capable of using film.

For MF cameras like the Hasselblad, the film plane is part of
the removable back, so a full-frame sensor is possible in a special back
with those, with no modification to the body. (Though you might need
some additional mechanical or electrical linkages to tell the focal
plane when to transfer the image from the sensor to bufferer memory, and
finally to the media of choice.) I believe that the presence of the
10-pin connector on the Nikon N90s was why it was used as the starting
point for several conversions by Kodak.

How much could the F3 body relay to the back for inclusion in
the exif data?

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:52:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>> I think I want the DCS-660M, actually. Except none seem to be for
>> sale anywhere; which probably means that if one *were* available
>> it'd be out of my price range.
>
> So we are two. I would actually settle for a DCS 460m, but that
> one is just as elusive. I'm even desperate enough to consider
> (but so far just consider) getting a Sigma SD10 for B&W work.
>
> Apart from the Sigma SD9 and SD10, and the vintage Kodaks - do there
> exist any other DSLR that do not have a Bayer colour mask in front of
> the sensor?

Not yet, to my knowledge. The SD10 would presumably have the (minor)
resolution advantage, but I don't believe it has the sensitivity
advantage, which is the main benefit I'm hoping for.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:56:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d5u3sh$4ve$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>5) Thus -- for a full frame sensor, you would need to machine away
> part of the film support -- which is also support for the focal
> plane shutter. At this point, you have an F3 (or whatever other
> camera) which is no longer capable of using film.

Mounted slides are not full-frame either. Losing a millimeter or so should
be no problem.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 9:19:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <7qaao1g6rnpg35llefjg914lb2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>In article <d5u3sh$4ve$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
>DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>5) Thus -- for a full frame sensor, you would need to machine away
>> part of the film support -- which is also support for the focal
>> plane shutter. At this point, you have an F3 (or whatever other
>> camera) which is no longer capable of using film.
>
>Mounted slides are not full-frame either. Losing a millimeter or so should
>be no problem.

It may well be significantly more than that.

You first need the border of wire bonding pads around the active
area of the sensor -- probably with an inner border of amplifiers for
each line.

Then, you need the surrounding row of wire bonding pads on the
substrate to which the sensor is mounted.

And the wire bonds need to be made between those (with 0.001"
diameter (0.0254mm) wire -- usually gold.)

And then, there needs to be the seal where the glass cover with
the anti-aliasing filter included. That seal alone will probably be on
the order of 2mm thick -- or 4mm added to the border of the sensor.

I could probably open up the back of my NC2000e/c and determine
how much border there is on that one -- but since it dates back to
around 1995 or so, there have probably been improvements in the
technology.

I'm certainly not going to disassemble my D70 to see how much
border there is on its sensor. Someone else want to volunteer one?

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d60h8o$6e2$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <7qaao1g6rnpg35llefjg914lb2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
>Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>Mounted slides are not full-frame either. Losing a millimeter or so should
>>be no problem.
>
> It may well be significantly more than that.
>
> You first need the border of wire bonding pads around the active
>area of the sensor -- probably with an inner border of amplifiers for
>each line.

I opened up a Pentium 133 processor. Those wires are really on the edge of the
chip. With CMOS, you can probably do buffer amplifiers on the sensor itself
(and small enough that you can'tsee them with a naked eye).

> And then, there needs to be the seal where the glass cover with
>the anti-aliasing filter included. That seal alone will probably be on
>the order of 2mm thick -- or 4mm added to the border of the sensor.

I don't think that you can put 2 mm glass in front of the focus plane without
hitting the shutter.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:41:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <5kcm9rg6ugfpe200e1rpdfgc95@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>In article <d60h8o$6e2$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com>,
>DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>> And then, there needs to be the seal where the glass cover with
>>the anti-aliasing filter included. That seal alone will probably be on
>>the order of 2mm thick -- or 4mm added to the border of the sensor.
>
>I don't think that you can put 2 mm glass in front of the focus plane without
>hitting the shutter.

I was not suggesting that the thickness of the glass was 2mm,
but the seal would cover a 2mm border around the sensor and pads on the
substrate. A narrower seal would be more likely to open up under
thermal stresses (as the camera heats up and cools to match the
environment), letting air and other contaminants into the focal plane
sensor itself.

O.K. I've just opened the NC2000e/c (built on a Kodak N90s, as
I have mentioned before), and measured both the step from the
surrounding reference plane (aluminum) to the top of the sensor cover
(1.6mm), and the distance from the camera body's film plane to the
shutter (barely touching at 2.5mm), so a 2mm thick cover plate (plus a
little spacing to clear the sensor surface would fit without problems.

While I was at it, I took some quick and dirty photos of the
sensor and its surrounds. You can see them, with some comments at the
following URL:

http://www2.d-and-d.com/misc/SENSOR/index.html

I retain my conviction that a reversible conversion of a film
camera to a full 24x36 digital frame size is possible.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 9:55:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:

>In article <d5u3sh$4ve$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
>DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>5) Thus -- for a full frame sensor, you would need to machine away
>> part of the film support -- which is also support for the focal
>> plane shutter. At this point, you have an F3 (or whatever other
>> camera) which is no longer capable of using film.
>
>Mounted slides are not full-frame either. Losing a millimeter or so should
>be no problem.


Leica and Imacon have faced precisely this problem in the design of
the Digital Module-R for Leica 35mm SLRs (R8 and R9 to be precise).

The best focal length multiplier that could be achieved was 1.3X.

There is no reason to believe that any company could achieve a lower
multiplier in a back for the Nikon F3, or any other 35mm SLR.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 4:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Aaron Blacksmith" <Aaron@___Nospam.com> writes:

> Is there any powerful digital back for F3?

Well, the original Kodak DCS (no number) used an F3 body. But you
don't want it; it had a separate case with the disk drive and
electronics, and offered only 1.3MP. See
<http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/&g...;
or
<http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9306cs.html&gt;.

> It would be a splendid thing for all F3-owners. Besides, the F3 is a
> far better camera than the toys that are sold today.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
!