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!

Contax Digital in YC Mount

Thanks Austin,
I appreciate your time and for the most part can go along with your views especially as you and not I are the technical expert.

However, the 'No Need' aspect bothers me. I can see that film will be available for many years as will commercial processing. After all, it is only recently that long obsolete film like 110 was withdrawn from general sale. What I cannot rationalise is that there will be literally millions of film cameras still in circulation including classics like my Contax ii and Contax D. Now, they all have the same size film chamber and if you place a sensor or indeed piece of film right up against the spring loaded film plate it should be in the right place to be correctly focused. Given the universal size of the innards of these cameras, their vast numbers and the fact that there would be no license or other hindrance to stop anyone making something to fit any / every brand I would have thought that the potential for profit would be immense?

I certainly would consider a digital insert for my old cameras if it was of a sufficient image quality and low enough cost. The first part would be covered with general generic improvements and the second by economies of scale.

Maybe I am whistling in the wind, but how many others would buy such a device for their film cameras?

Clive
 
> Maybe I am whistling in the wind, but how many >others would buy such a device for their film cameras?


Clive,

I would buy such device for Contax film cameras ! And I know some people who whould do the same.

I absolutely love the idea of digital back and I don't want to "sponsor" developing industry of these digital disposable cameras. I'd prefer to give money to manufacturers for making more powerfull chips and developing software, embedded into reinstalled or upgradable digital back.

I hope Leica will be successful on its way to digital back for M system.

Also I hope that administration of this site will start Public Quiz and we'll get public opinion on this matter.

Yuri Shchedov
 
>Posted by Clive Kenyon on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 10:35 pm: > >Thanks Austin, > I appreciate your time and for the most part can go along with your >views especially as you and not I are the technical expert. > >However, the 'No Need' aspect bothers me. I can see that film will be >available for many years as will commercial processing. After all, it >is only recently that long obsolete film like 110 was withdrawn from >general sale. What I cannot rationalise is that there will be >literally millions of film cameras still in circulation including >classics like my Contax ii and Contax D. Now, they all have the same >size film chamber and if you place a sensor or indeed piece of film >right up against the spring loaded film plate it should be in the >right place to be correctly focused. Given the universal size of the >innards of these cameras, their vast numbers and the fact that there >would be no license or other hindrance to stop anyone making something >to fit any / every brand I would have thought that the potential for >profit would be immense? > >I certainly would consider a digital insert for my old cameras if it >was of a sufficient image quality and low enough cost. The first part >would be covered with general generic improvements and the second by >economies of scale. > >Maybe I am whistling in the wind, but how many others would buy such a >device for their film cameras? > >Clive

Seems to me that most Contax owners (or owners of any fine camera) would like to have a "digital film insert" mechanism, as would I.

Austin cites several good reasons why this is not likely to happen. Let me add some more which have turned up in various discussions with vendors:

Two additional technical issues, in addition to those mentioned by Austin.

1. Protecting the photo sensor elements from dirt, dust, damage, etc. Many digital cameras don't use interchangeable lenses, and they say it is for that specific reason. If your sensor gets a dust speck on it, back to the factory. Maybe a dust slide, as in the view cameras would help, but even a dust slide would sometimes actually introduce dust. Getting a speck of dust on a single frame of film is a transient issue; getting it on a photo element is permanent, at least for the typical user.

2. Most, perhaps all, sensors (possibly Foveon excluded) prefer the light to strike the sensor elements at a normal angle. By now most all digital camera manufacturers with non-interchangeable lenses include an added lens element to make that happen.

On the marketing end:

1. Cost. You can make a complete camera for not much more than the digital sensor, storage, and processing elements.

2. Cost-sales. The incredible variety of cameras which exist today just don't make the economic numbers work. If it did we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

For the future:

1. The technology is changing rapidly and will probably will continue to change. Would you be willing to pay $300-$500 for a back for your existing camera which might be worth $200 on the used market, only to find your $300-$500 investment obsolete in 6 months?

2. Moore's law. http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm His law says that semiconductor devices double in capability (however you measure it) in 18 months. Making a rough guess, this seems to be happening in digital photography on a 6 month cycle. Maybe that will slow to a year (artificially adjusted to match the major photo show dates) or to 18 months in the future, as the technology growth stabilizes.

No intention to sound negative, but I'm trying to be realistic.

DAW
 
Hallo,
My girlfrend would like to buy contax. She does not know which one. Please, help her. She likes only negatives and certain objects, like angels. And she does not know to much about cameras. Something like autofocus. Thanks. jack
 
Hello Jacek,

If you can tell us more, I know someone here will help you

You say she likes to photograph certain objects, like angels. Are these statues of angels the size of a person? Or are these small collectible angels smaller than deck of playing cards? The answer will make a difference in what type of lens she might need on the camera.

Will she be taking photographs in the outdoors in sunlight? Or will she be inside a building where it isn't very bright?

Are there any other things she might like to take pictures of?

Depending on the answers to these types of questions, she might be very happy with the Yashica T4 Zoom. It is a 28-70mm zoom lens, point and shoot camera with a small built in flash. It does have a zeiss lens, which is the brand of lens all Contax cameras have. The cost is quite a bit less and it will be easy for her to learn to use it. US cost is about $149 right now I think. One of the people in the discussion group has done very nice work with the Yashica, and if I can find his web site again I'll post a link. (Craig Norris if you're reading, would you post the link?) It is a small camera, but it is very well made.

Good luck
happy.gif
-Lynn
 
>I hope Leica will be successful on its way to digital back for M >system leica will introduce a digital back for its leica-R-System. lens-multiplicator will be 1.7!
 
> Leica will introduce a digital back for its leica-R-System. lens-multiplicator will be 1.7!

sorry, it was misprint. I meant R-system of course.
 
You're welcome, Craig. I remember liking your work when you posted a long time ago. Now that I've had a chance to look through your whole site, I'm even more impressed. Kudos on the very consistently beautiful work. The section of your site showcasing your students work is really a nice touch. They do very well! As I have said before in this forum, and I will no doubt say again, I like being able to look at the work of photographers who are better than me - and there a lot of you out there. Sometimes seeing the work of others makes me think about new ways of seeing. -Lynn. PS: I noticed you shot Astia in some cases. Do you find Astia to be very different from Sensia 100? I have never tried Astia, but have used Sensia. Recently I read where some photogs are saying Astia is the same as Sensia. Based on what I saw of your images (granted they're online) I'd say that Astia and Sensia have different characteristics. The Astia images had a sort of watercolor feel, smooth, creamy. Is it just me?
 
Back
Top