Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital M body
From: John Campbell <jkcampbell@mmm.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 08:35:40 -0500
References: <4.2.2.20000709105342.00bceec0@www.snapdragontech.com>

All due respects to Bob Shell putting a sensor in place of film may
not be as "impractical" is it seems. The Leica M body might very well
be eaiser than others. Why? First the removable back door could be replaced
with an aftermarket "door/ccd sensor" maybe even with an LCD screen on the
outside. 
Secondly the removable baseplate. The rest of the electronics could be 
in a housing below the body much like the Leica winder. Is for the thickness
of the sensor compared to film, CreoScitex has already announced a 6 megapixel
sensor the size of a 35mm frame and ultra thin. Check it out at:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews_jun2000.html#cmost
JC

At 12:38 PM 7/9/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Michael,
>I like so many others is also searching for the holy grail of digital --
>a digital recording device in the shape of a 35mm cassette with the
>sensor area the shape of film in the film gate.  Bob Shell gave a very
>good explanation last month on the Contax mailing list why this is
>currently impractical.  I don't have all the technical details
>memorized, but it boils down to the unfortunate fact that even if a CCD
>chip of the correct size were available at a reasonable price, it
>wouldn't fit in the film gate of most cameras.  First off, it is thicker
>than film.  Second, there are all sorts of wires coming off the chip on
>all sides.  This makes it bigger than the film gate.  Perhaps at the
>rapid pace of technology development it won't be too many years until we
>get such a device.  Until then, I am going to be getting a semi-digital
>setup consisting of my existing film cameras, a good service to scan
>slides and negatives (35mm and MF) to Kodak Photo CD format, a more
>powerful computer, Photoshop, and an Epson printer (perhaps one of the
>new ones with more permanent inks). 
>
>I have a big investment in top quality Leica and Zeiss lenses. It
>wouldn't make sense to use this sort of glass on a small resolution CCD
>sensor.  Cheap lenses work well for that.  In fact, I had a photo ID
>card made a couple months ago and I was curious at the little digital
>camera the place was using.  I couldn't see who made the lens, but on
>the front it boldly proclaimed "Glass Lens".  Now, THAT, is scary!
>John 
>
>"M.E.Berube - GoodPhotos" wrote:
>> 
>> At 12:01 AM 7/9/00 -0700, Austin Franklin wrote:
>> >one does not need to spend $2000 for a lense that will give
>> >the best possible results with a 640x480 CCD...perhaps around $40 would be
>> >sufficient.
>> 
>> Despite siliconfilm (-formerly imagek-) being thus far vapor-hardware, my
>> initial post was that I would rather see a digital solution for the
>> camera's that I already carry, than to have to carry yet another body with
>> me if I wanted to capture digital images from the snap of a shutter. IF
>> such a solution cost much more than a Fujileica Digilux, I would as soon
>> get one of those as a toy.
>> 
>> Regardless, I completely agree with Mark that a good scanner is the best
>> way to go when you want a digital image of any quality at the technology's
>> current point of development. Considering how long it has taken the best
>> digital technology to advance to just over half the image quality of the
>> cheapest disposable 35mm camera (pixel-wise), the quality scanner route is
>> likely the best way to go for a while. But still, an affordable working CCD
>> option for my M would be a cool toy.
>> 
>> Carpe Lumen,
>> Michael E. Berube
>> http://www.goodphotos.com
>
>

In reply to: Message from "M.E.Berube - GoodPhotos" <meb@goodphotos.com> (Re: [Leica] Digital M body)