DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

WE WANT Digital Back for the Nikon F5

I

innocent

Dear Forum members,
Isn't it about time Nikon offered her faithful followers a digi back for the F5 than tp tactically compel us to change flash guns, lenses, and camera bodies every other year with no significant improvement in image quality and handling resulting thereof. If Nikon actually had good intentions for us customers then why D2H when a digiback for the F100, F5 with 11mp would have done the job and served the needs of both film and digi enthusiats. I hope a Nikon rep reads this!
 
Don't expect any digital back for the F5. It is not so simply to just put a digital back on a film camera. Just as the F5 was designed from the ground up to be what it is, digital cameras have to be done the same way. The engineering of the internals and the placement of components within the body have to be completely overhauled when going from a film technology body to a digital technology body.
 
I've never been too concerned with the technicalities of camera manufacturing--I've used F3HP's for 20 years-but cameras with interchangeable digital and film backs are available. I have a Rollei 6008AF MF camera with both film and digital backs and digital backs are available for most newer MF cameras. Sooner or later, some 35MM manufacturer will make a camera with switchable media backs.
 
Hi,

It's not only possable but rather practical to do this. Kodak did it for their first few DSLRs on the 8008 and the N90 (of which I have several and still use them).

It would add about 1.5" to the height of the camera and slightly more thickness than a data back but is definatly possable with up to about a 1.3x or even possably a 1.2x imager with current technology. The user interface would be somewhat more difficult than a "from the ground up" DSLR but still quite usable. Most of the interface could be thru the databack contacts.

Ron Schroeder Brookhaven National Lab Building 911A Upton NY 11973 631 344-4561
 
Sorry, it just ain't gonna happen. Not that I wouldn't like to see it, too - but the technical hurdles are just too great.

For instance - the back would require the CPU and storage circuitry, so it could not be as slim as the relatively simple pressure plate that you have for film - even if clever use were made of the unused cavities in the film body.

More critical, though, is that the imaging chip itself (CCD, CMOS, whatever) is a delicate beast - and you probably wouldn't want to scratch it or the anti-aliasing filter on top of it. And that doesnt' consider the liklihood of dust gathering on the surface of the ship - already a problem in DSLRs when the lens is removed - here you'd be dealing with, essentially, a naked chip.

So give it up - Contax claims they'll have something but that's a year out, at best. In the medium format world (where, by the way, the CCDs are often 24x36mm in size), the camera bodies are already designed with the notion of interchangeable backs - so a dark slide is incorporated in the design. How would you put a similar dark slide mechanism on something that needs to fit on the back of an F5 or F100?

BobF
 
> Hi Bob' thanks for your contribution which sounds compelling but not convincing. I use MF-28 for my F5, therefore a provision for an interchangeable back already exist in both F5 and F100. As far as the technology goes, I wonder if Nikon or anyone else can sustain the argument of impracticability of a digiback for the F100 and F5 Nikon series. For an instance no additional CPU is required nor any ground breaking science needed to put a digiback on an F5 or F100. I will address this technical question in more detail when a response is received from Nikon.

Regards Inno' Okorji
 
Innocent:

I think Nikon should listen to you.

As I am sure you know, Kodak and Leica are working on a digital back for Leica now.

Perhaps Kodak could apply the technology learned in there venture with Leica to other cameras that have the potential (existing electrical contacts) for digital backs. I also wish they would make one for OM SLR's too.

I do believe that is more of a marketing issue than a technical one.

I also like your style.

Regards

Gilbert
 
Gilbert

I agree that it is probably a marketing issue. It would be much easier and cheaper to design a whole package like the Kodak 14n or the upcoming D2X than to make the back as an add-on.

Consider too, that the Kodak is built on a fairly low cost platform, making about 93% of the cost, the digital electronics and software - based upon retail prices. Its reviews have been somewhat less than glowing.

Retrofitting the digital electronics to an existing camera to the level of integration of a purpose-built digital, could well push the cost of the back way beyond the Canon 1Ds unless grave compromises were made. I would expect buyers to be reluctant to put out that kind of cash for a functional - but jury-rigged - compromise. An owner of a $2,000 camera body is unlikely to settle for generic 6MP consumer-level quality.

The market for Nikons and Leicas are very different. The F5 is the province of pros and high-end enthusiasts. On the other hand, a large portion of Leica buyers never take a picture. This is more true certainly of collectors of the rangefinder models than the SLRs.

Furthermore, Leica may well have thought ahead and built the integrating contacts into the recent camera bodies, to make the integration more seamless. Even so, those who shoot or collect Leica seem a lot less concerned with cost/benefit ratio.

So the question becomes, "How many F5 owners would pop for a $10,000US conversion, rather than going with the D2X, Kodak or next Fujifilm?"

Of course the number of projected sales would have a huge impact on the initial price of the part, perhaps as much as a +/-$2,000US spread for this level of camera.

It might be possible for Nikon to make factory conversions of F5s to digital, and in so doing make a fully integrated design. Trying to build an acceptable interchangeable back for a platform of this type without making fatal compromises, could push the cost into the stratosphere.

Certainly it could be done as a retrofit, but would the cost outweigh the benefits?

larry!
 
> Hi Bob' thanks for your contribution which sounds compelling but not convincing. I use MF-28 for my F5, therefore a provision for an interchangeable back already exist in both F5 and F100. As far as the technology goes, I wonder if Nikon or anyone else can sustain the argument of impracticability of a digiback for the F100 and F5 Nikon series. For an instance no additional CPU is required nor any ground breaking science needed to put a digiback on an F5 or F100. I will address this technical question in more detail when a response is received from Nikon.

Innocent, let me convince you, then.

The interchangeable back on your F5 (and my F100 and F2), for that matter forms a light-tight seal when you attach it. However, an *interchangeable* back, as on a medium format camera, has a removable slide just in front of the film. So, when you load that Hassy back with 220 film, the metal slide prevents light from hitting it. After you attach the back to the body, you remove the slide and the film is exposed to the light coming through the lens.

Now, look at your F5 and show me where you would place a similar slide, without doing a bunch of machining to cut a slot in the base of the F5 just in front of the film plane. To reiterate, the need for a similar slide on a CCD might not be for light exposure, but rather to prevent exposure to the elements when this illusory back is removed from the camera body.

As for your assessment that the body already has a CPU - you are right, there's a CPU in there. It's the wrong one for a digital camera, however. The CPU in the F5 controls the auto-focus and exposure mechanisms, and can be programmed with the various custom functions. It does not have capacity or programming to deal with an imaging chip. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

So, let's see...first you need to cut a slot in the F5 body, then remove the electronic guts or else put the additional electronics in the base portion of the back. SOunds like a lotta work, eh?

BobF
 
Back
Top