It's about money. There isn't anyone willing to invest several million dollars
to develop and tool-up a plant to produce such an animal.
What bodies do you support? There have got to be 30 or 40 that are viable
candidates. It'd be a nighmare. You can't just replace the film cartridge,
ala the phantom eFilm product, because the depth of the sensor and associated
filters is too deep to allow a film back to close. So you have replace the
back. That means you have to target only cameras whose backs come off. Look
at Leica, they have taken 3 years for their version and it will cost $4,500!
What a joke!!
If I were thinking about the installed base, I'd consider Canon OS, Nikon, and
Minolta, all with AF. Olympus OM's are a fading minority of actively used
cameras, especially with those people that would invest. But why buy a
$750-1,0000 back when you can buy a brand new, $800 Canon Rebel XT or $900
Nikon D70? It doesn't make sense, especially when the lenses are
interchangable.
IMO, with today's technolgy, it's a concept whose time never came and has past,
all at the same time. There could be a manufacturer who is willing to create
one as a pet project, but that's the only way that it will ever come to market,
IMO.
Skip
----- Original Message ---------------
Subject: [OM] Why no digital backs for existing 35mm SLRs?
From: "Curtis P. Hedman" <Curtis.P.Hedman-1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:34:16 -0600
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>Inquiring minds would like to know... what are the technical reasons why
>nobody has come out with digital imaging backs for existing 35mm manual
>focus SLR bodies? I can understand that cost might well be an issue, but
>what are the technical reasons the preclude mounting a 24x36mm focal plane
>array in the appropriate location within a custom-designed back? Such
>things exist for 2-1/4 square systems... One thing I thought of was the
>physical "head height" above the actual imaging plane of the detector might
>interfere with the focal plane shutter. Another is the bit about the angle
>of acceptance of the pixels (wells versus a layer surface). As I recall,
>Kodak's first SLR digitals were modified Nikon or Canon bodies, essentially
>just putting an imaging array at the right location behind the shutter. I'm
>just a little surprised that nobody has seen fit to cobble together an
>imager and processing electronics with an odd data back - just to show it
>could be done! So I figure there must be some hard technical issues...
>anyone have any thoughts or comments? I suppose (just for fun) one could
>disassemble a low cost digicam, buy a replacement back from Camtech, and
>kludge the bits together just to see what would happen... anyone care to
>try????
>
>Curt
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|