Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Digital back for your SLR
Old 09-21-2018   #1
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,474
Digital back for your SLR

It's not only not as good as current digital cameras, it's not even as good as film. I'm not sure I understand what would tempt anyone to use it.

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/21/im-...in-production/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-21-2018   #2
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,933
A marginal solution to a problem that didn't ever exist.
$205 can buy a good amount of film. 400ft of Eastman 5222, for one.
Or a decent plane ticket if one shops smart and catches a good deal.
Or split that cost between rolls of film and develop only with scanning.
This looks like a bad tool to make photography not only not fun and very inconvenient, but also worse than Holga, Lomo, Lubitel, Seagull, all on the days when the production line was either absent or too drunk to care.
Urban Outfitters will grab something like this and sell it to kids for the easy cost of $499.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #3
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,629
Don't we already have a thread for this ? "sharpness is a bourgeois concept "
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #4
Ricoh
Registered User
 
Ricoh is offline
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 169
Sacrilege! If anyone desires a digital camera just go out and buy one instead of mutilating our precious film cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Exactly!
Old 09-22-2018   #5
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
 
Darthfeeble's Avatar
 
Darthfeeble is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Logtown, California, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,474
Exactly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoh View Post
Sacrilege! If anyone desires a digital camera just go out and buy one instead of mutilating our precious film cameras.
I thought that too, on top of all the other things it doesn't do, it does make the classic looking cameras butt ugly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #6
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
I'd go for one at that sort of price, just to use my 135/1.8 Pentax-fit lens.

On my reading, the camera is hardly "mutilated".

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #7
Ricoh
Registered User
 
Ricoh is offline
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 169
If I've read correctly it means removing the back. That's what I meant by mutilation. Ok a bit dramatic of me, but it could mean the death to a number of analogue cameras when the main body and back go separate ways.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #8
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,629
^ Weren't there literally millions of those camera models made ? Just sayin'. Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #9
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,580
If someone ever comes up with some type of insert into the film cartridge chamber that just records via a sensor over the film plane and has to be set to an ISO before inserting ... then needs to be removed like a card to extract the files I'd be interested. This setup doesn't do it for me!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #10
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,491
Keith: I am sure that you agree that what we have is an adaptation that is ugly and ineffective.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #11
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
Keith: I am sure that you agree that what we have is an adaptation that is ugly and ineffective.

It's awful ... I agree totally Raid!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #12
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,379
Kickstarter is the modern version of the Pet Rock (along with the confirmation that a sucker is born every minute). I have seen so many loony tunes ideas on there, and what is sad is that people buy into those ridiculous ideas. Agreed, this "re purposing" of a perfectly good film camera into that hideous glob we see on the link should shame the makers into stopping production, but hopefully not too many people buy into this loser idea.

I don't have any holier than thou feelings about destroying a film camera though, not for any reason. There are millions and millions of them around, and it's just a consumer item. Plenty more where they came from. If the world suddenly lost all it's film cameras, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to build one. In fact, in a better world, no one would be allowed to own a camera they didn't build. That would sure cut down on the crappy images we are surrounded with. Sometimes less really is more.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-2018   #13
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,680
Is it really $205!?!? I would hate to ruin my beloved Spotmatic but I could buy my sons K1000 that I gave him in High School. But knowing him he would hold out for a major price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-23-2018   #14
santino
eXpect me
 
santino's Avatar
 
santino is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Autriche
Posts: 1,051
Why are the pictures blurry ? Does it capture the picture off a focusing screen? Looks weird.
__________________
Vivent les télémétriques ! -
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #15
dtcls100
Registered User
 
dtcls100 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 454
How does one even focus the resulting monstrousity? The huge bulge in the back will prevent one from accessing the viewfinder.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:10.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.