What's new
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

> Okay, let's see. You're probably right about the F5's existing CPU > being acceptable for use as far as the mechanical stuff goes (auto > focus, etc) but you still need to add another CPU to handle the > operations of the CCD itself. Oh, and memory - where do you propose > the smartcard would go - or would you say a cable attachment to a > belt-clipped digital image tank is the way to go? The point is, there > are a bunch of things that would have to be stuffed in this miraculous > digi-back, and they would take real space...in effect, think of the > old Polaroid film holders that Nikon had for the old F's - huge clunky > things that were as large as the main camera body to contain the > mirrors and polaroid film. Well, with a digiback, it wouldn't have to > be as big - but how excited are you over the notion of adding another > inch or two (or more) to the height of your slim and svelte F5? Or > would you add those cubic inches to the back of the camera, preventing > your eye from getting near the viewfinder?

Of course I am right about the F5 CPU capability. Now Bob, tell me, when an additional peripheral is added to a desktop computer do we always add an additional CPU? I bet you know the answer. I will certainly come back on this point when Nikon has responded to my e-mail. Where there's a will there's always a way, and I can, without any rigorous research think of more than one way of effecting a digiback or if you will a digipack for the F5. > > I giggle at the Leica reference someone made before - I also recall > the SLR adaptor they made for their rangefinder cameras a couple of > decades ago. A really clever engineering kluge, it was - mounted > between the lens and the camera body with a viewfinder tube that > allowed the user to see the reflected image. How often did you see > those puppies used? But obviously the intent was to give the owners of > the hugely expensive Leitz lenses the ability to use them on an "SLR", > even if that device was manual stop down and even required manual > mirror flip. > The issue here is about Nikon F5 and Bob, technology as you it then have advanced significantly. Remember the size of the first set of mobile phones just about a decade ago, and now we have slim fits and so on.

> As for Nikon only considering its own "economic gain" - yeah, that's > what that darn capitalistic philosophy will do to a company - make it > feel the need to not produce money-losing items. Don't you hate it > when that happens? > I always agreed to any such view that the whole question of Nikon not developing a digiback for the film SLRs is for their economic gain no matter how twisted its presentation. Makoto Kimura the President of Nikon is on evidence as stating that, and I quote " It is essential that businesses generate a sufficient level of revenues, accomplished through the deliberate targeting of profitability" and many more of such comments on the same line. Therefore, it remains true, it would appear, that all the talk about the technical impracticability of a digiback for the F5 is questionable. Profit and more profit is not always what a capitalist society stands for. A capitalist society also stands for value for money, resource maximization, and above all morality, probably not the Japanese style of doing business!!

> Not to rain on your parade of silliness - have you any idea of how > many pros have sold or shelved their F5's and have gone to digital? So > the F5 market is ever-shrinking - and that, of course, is naturally > the kind of market any company wants to produce new products for. What > with engineering and tooling costs being nothing, it's obviously an > issue of management shortsightedness at Nippon Kogaku that they > haven't realized the potential tin mine of opportunity in creating > digital backs for the F5. > I certainly sympathize with those Pros who have sold their Film SLRs. It would be absurd to see a come back of the film SLR albeit in a rejuvenated and versatile form, that would undermine their judgment, wouldn't it? About Nikon's shortsightedness, I don't think thats an explanation. It would be more like turning a deliberate blind eye to the issue. However, lets wait till Monday or so when Nikon will respond to my e-mail.

> Really, kids - for all this whining, have you noticed that when the > D2H comes out there's not an option to have new back for the D1's? And > for gosh sake - they are cut from far more similar cloth than the Dx > and the F series. Or go cry to Kodak - after all, it's really in their > interest to keep the film industry going - why not ask them to make a > film back for their 14n? Oh, yeah, 'cause you can't remove the back of > the 14n...can you guess why? But then again, why take heed of the > realities as seen by the pro market and another captain of the > photographic industry? > By the way, what's in the new kit Nikon have introduced for the DX1?

> Well, everyone is entitled to their hopes and dreams, and I certainly > don't want to be accused of crushing them, Innocent - no matter how > completely unfeasible they are. I'm just trying to apply some simple > logic to the issue. Remember, there's engineering and there's Product > Management - the former asks "can it be done?" while the latter asks > "should it be done?" Any product manager at Nikon (or Kodak) knows the > answer to that question. > Point taken

Refering to other comments, I'll be prepared to pay the equivalent of a DX1 for a digiback for my F5 any day!!! because that's the most sensible thing to do. I will then not go running around for the DX lenses and the like.

Inno' G Okorji > >
 
Could you folks talk on your private email - you are spamming up email boxes to the tune of 30 emails per hour about this stupid digital back for Nikon F5
 
> > Bob, let's hope this time, my response is separated from yours! my > apologies. Did I hear someone complain about spam? Please correct me > if I'm wrong, my view is that when you sign up to a discussion forum > you you will most certainly be receiving mails from such forums that > are not deemed to be offensive. > > >>> Okay, let's see. You're probably right about the F5's existing CPU >>> being acceptable for use as far as the mechanical stuff goes (auto >>> focus, etc) but you still need to add another CPU to handle the >>> operations of the CCD itself. Oh, and memory - where do you propose >>> the smartcard would go - or would you say a cable attachment to a >>> belt-clipped digital image tank is the way to go? The point is, there >>> are a bunch of things that would have to be stuffed in this >>> miraculous >>> digi-back, and they would take real space...in effect, think of the >>> old Polaroid film holders that Nikon had for the old F's - huge >>> clunky >>> things that were as large as the main camera body to contain the >>> mirrors and polaroid film. Well, with a digiback, it wouldn't have to >>> be as big - but how excited are you over the notion of adding another >>> inch or two (or more) to the height of your slim and svelte F5? Or >>> would you add those cubic inches to the back of the camera, >>> preventing >>> your eye from getting near the viewfinder? > >> >> Of course I am right about the F5 CPU capability. Now Bob, tell me, >> when an additional peripheral is added to a desktop computer do we >> always add an additional CPU? I bet you know the answer. I will >> certainly come back on this point when Nikon has responded to my >> e-mail. Where there's a will there's always a way, and I can, without >> any rigorous research think of more than one way of effecting a >> digiback or if you will a digipack for the F5. >>> > >>> I giggle at the Leica reference someone made before - I also recall >>> the SLR adaptor they made for their rangefinder cameras a couple of >>> decades ago. A really clever engineering kluge, it was - mounted >>> between the lens and the camera body with a viewfinder tube that >>> allowed the user to see the reflected image. How often did you see >>> those puppies used? But obviously the intent was to give the owners >>> of >>> the hugely expensive Leitz lenses the ability to use them on an >>> "SLR", >>> even if that device was manual stop down and even required manual >>> mirror flip. >>> > >> The issue here is about Nikon F5 and Bob, technology as you it then >> have advanced significantly. Remember the size of the first set of >> mobile phones just about a decade ago, and now we have slim fits and >> so on. > >> >>> As for Nikon only considering its own "economic gain" - yeah, that's >>> what that darn capitalistic philosophy will do to a company - make it >>> feel the need to not produce money-losing items. Don't you hate it >>> when that happens? > >>> >> I always agreed to any such view that the whole question of Nikon not >> developing a digiback for the film SLRs is for their economic gain no >> matter how twisted its presentation. Makoto Kimura the President of >> Nikon is on evidence as stating that, and I quote " It is essential >> that businesses generate a sufficient level of revenues, accomplished >> through the deliberate targeting of profitability" and many more of >> such comments on the same line. Therefore, it remains true, it would >> appear, that all the talk about the technical impracticability of a >> digiback for the F5 is questionable. Profit and more profit is not >> always what a capitalist society stands for. A capitalist society >> also stands for value for money, resource maximization, and above all >> morality, probably not the Japanese style of doing business!! > >> >>> Not to rain on your parade of silliness - have you any idea of how >>> many pros have sold or shelved their F5's and have gone to digital? >>> So >>> the F5 market is ever-shrinking - and that, of course, is naturally >>> the kind of market any company wants to produce new products for. >>> What >>> with engineering and tooling costs being nothing, it's obviously an >>> issue of management shortsightedness at Nippon Kogaku that they >>> haven't realized the potential tin mine of opportunity in creating >>> digital backs for the F5. > >>> >> I certainly sympathize with those Pros who have sold their Film SLRs. >> It would be absurd to see a come back of the film SLR albeit in a >> rejuvenated and versatile form, that would undermine their judgment, >> wouldn't it? About Nikon's shortsightedness, I don't think thats an >> explanation. It would be more like turning a deliberate blind eye to >> the issue. However, lets wait till Monday or so when Nikon will >> respond to my e-mail. > >> >>> Really, kids - for all this whining, have you noticed that when the >>> D2H comes out there's not an option to have new back for the D1's? >>> And >>> for gosh sake - they are cut from far more similar cloth than the Dx >>> and the F series. Or go cry to Kodak - after all, it's really in >>> their >>> interest to keep the film industry going - why not ask them to make a >>> film back for their 14n? Oh, yeah, 'cause you can't remove the back >>> of >>> the 14n...can you guess why? But then again, why take heed of the >>> realities as seen by the pro market and another captain of the >>> photographic industry? >>> > >> By the way, what's in the new kit Nikon have introduced for the DX1? > >> >>> Well, everyone is entitled to their hopes and dreams, and I certainly >>> don't want to be accused of crushing them, Innocent - no matter how >>> completely unfeasible they are. I'm just trying to apply some simple >>> logic to the issue. Remember, there's engineering and there's Product >>> Management - the former asks "can it be done?" while the latter asks >>> "should it be done?" Any product manager at Nikon (or Kodak) knows >>> the >>> answer to that question. >>> >> Point taken >> >> Refering to other comments, I'll be prepared to pay the equivalent of >> a DX1 for a digiback for my F5 any day!!! because that's the most >> sensible thing to do. I will then not go running around for the DX >> lenses and the like. >> >> Inno' G Okorji >>> >>>
 
Posted by Helen Hughes (Nele) on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:48 pm:

> Thanks, Bob, I'm new to this. Here's my 2cents for improvements in Nikon's digital SLR bodies that's probably much simpler than a digital back for non-digital bodies:

Why doesn't Nikon put a DUST-blocking dark slide for changing lenses (at the front of the camera, like the Mamiya 7II) on DSLRs???

-----------------------

Helen, what you are describing is what I mentioned in the first place - the dark slide that covers the interchangeable backs on medium format cameras. but stop and look at a 35mm SLR body - where would you put that kind of a slide? In the body, perhaps a slot in the base where the slide could fit? That's why I said the F5 would need retooling - but was rebuffed.

Those of you wishing for a digital back to replace the pressure plate on your F series camera - keep dreaming. It just ain't gonna happen. The effort required far far outweighs the value.

BobF
 
Posted by Innocent (Innocent) on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 10:00 pm:

[Innocent] Of course I am right about the F5 CPU capability. Now Bob, tell me, when an additional peripheral is added to a desktop computer do we always add an additional CPU? I bet you know the answer. I will certainly come back on this point when Nikon has responded to my e-mail. Where there's a will there's always a way, and I can, without any rigorous research think of more than one way of effecting a digiback or if you will a digipack for the F5.

Somehow I knew you were going to bring up the PC as an ex&le. Bad ex&le, Innocent. PC components are not nearly as mechanically interactive as a camera's various parts. If you stick a different HDD in your PC, and you're off by 10 micrometers, will it still work? Yet, there are known issues in the land of PC of electronic incompatibilities - certain brands of RAM don't work in some computers while other brands of RAM with the exact same specs on paper are fine. And this I learned from a honcho at Viking, a company that makes RAM.

I repeat - Product Management is the art of answering the question "should it be done", not "can it be done". With unlimited funds, I have no doubt that it can be done - but would you be willing to pay the huge cost they'd need to charge to cover sales to the few people ridiculous enough to want such a thing?

[Innocent] The issue here is about Nikon F5 and Bob, technology as you it then have advanced significantly. Remember the size of the first set of mobile phones just about a decade ago, and now we have slim fits and so on.

My point about the Leica SLR "adapter" was simply that things can be created which in fact are not marketable. Like this digiback idea.

[Innocent] I always agreed to any such view that the whole question of Nikon not developing a digiback for the film SLRs is for their economic gain no matter how twisted its presentation. Makoto Kimura the President of Nikon is on evidence as stating that, and I quote " It is essential that businesses generate a sufficient level of revenues, accomplished through the deliberate targeting of profitability" and many more of such comments on the same line. Therefore, it remains true, it would appear, that all the talk about the technical impracticability of a digiback for the F5 is questionable. Profit and more profit is not always what a capitalist society stands for. A capitalist society also stands for value for money, resource maximization, and above all morality, probably not the Japanese style of doing business!!

I'm not clear what planet you're living on, Innocent - but capitalism is, precisely, only concerned with profit. Ask a business professor. Ask a CEO. Morality is a nice thing, but it's not what the shareholders really care about. And that has absolutely nothing to do with Japan - where, if anything, the corporate world is more sensitive to non-profit motivations than are American firms.

[Innocent] I certainly sympathize with those Pros who have sold their Film SLRs. It would be absurd to see a come back of the film SLR albeit in a rejuvenated and versatile form, that would undermine their judgment, wouldn't it? About Nikon's shortsightedness, I don't think thats an explanation. It would be more like turning a deliberate blind eye to the issue. However, lets wait till Monday or so when Nikon will respond to my e-mail.

Well, now I have to question your understanding of the world. Yes, that's it, Nikon is concerned with the professional world being ticked off at them for introducing this magnificent device, so much so that they'd sell their gear and put Nikon out of business. So let's see...Nikon could do it if only they a)weren't so concerned about profit and b) didn't worry about upsetting the pros...is that your point?

> [Innocent] By the way, what's in the new kit Nikon have introduced for the DX1?

Sorry, I don't know what you're asking here.

> [Innocent]Refering to other comments, I'll be prepared to pay the > equivalent of a DX1 for a digiback for my F5 any day!!! because that's the most sensible thing to do. I will then not go running around for the DX lenses and the like.

Innocent - the DX lenses exist due to the less-that 24x36mm format of the sensor in the D series of cameras, leading to the so-called multiplier or cropping effect. You are aware of that, right? So a 50mm lens on a D1 or D100 appears like a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. Sports and nature shooters who use telephotos are pleased with this, but those who need wide-angle lenses are stymied as their 20mm lens effectively behaves like a 30mm on their D100. So Nikon made the 12-24 to be more or less the equivalent of the 16-35 (or 48) zoom on the film versions. Or would you prefer a "full frame" 24x36mm CCD in this miraculous digiback of yours? If so, prepare to pay - that's actually the size of the CCDs in some of the medium format digital backs and those puppies go for $10,000 and up.

Perhaps Nikon's response will prove me entirely wrong - hey, maybe nobody else ever even thought about this idea at all! Yeah, keep believing that - and if Nikon doesn't respond at all you can believe it's because their legal department doesn't want them to acknowledge your idea when they introduce their new digital back!

BobF >
 
> I'd be happy to, but alas, this retarded system not only forces one to > perform arcane stunts to properly respond to a message - it also does > not give the e-mail address of the sender as others (like Yahoo) do.
 
About the F5 embedded processor being adequate for both camera operation and digital image processing.

With full recognition that embedded processors differ from desktop CPUs, many are built on the same core. At the time the F5 came on the market, the hot (literally) workstation processor clocked at a searing 133MHz. Considering nothing but clock-speed, currently the top desktop processor is clocking at roughly 24 times that speed. Considering that 18 months pretty much constitutes a generation in digital technology, the processors in the F5, are pretty ancient.

Processing speed IS an issue with digital cameras. With current desktop and embedded processors, clock speed is only one of the factors, with many other improvements in throughput. Furthermore, the embedded processors in the F5 may be carrying pretty much a full load, simply servicing the camera itself.

You may be patient, but I would be unimpressed by a digital camera operated at 1/24th the speed of the competition - or worse.

If I remember correctly, there are already three embedded processors on board – two eight-bit and one 16-bit - each with specific tasks. Assuming that the 16-bit processor is the one that would be used, you can double the time of processing from 24 times to at least 48 compared to 2003 processors. Be prepared to be very, very patient between shots.

Co-processing is common in digital electronics, and as long as there is communication between camera and the back, an embedded processor in the back could handle the digital imaging duties while the current processors handle the rest of the camera. Tricky, but certainly possible. This could bring it up to speed.

The Leica designers evidently built the R9 with digital conversion in mind, so the connections are in place. At the time the F5 was released, Nikon's digital camera was the CP100. I doubt that any consideration was given to an eventual digital upgrade to the F5, therefore the body would likely have to go back to the factory for extensive modification and retrofitting.

If a hybrid is desired, wait for the Nikon F6 - if it should ever be built.

larry!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top