35mm to Digital conversion kit?

Matteo Escobar

Matteo Escobar

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
4,144
You guys are a knowledgeable bunch, so I might as well ask here.

Is there such a thing as a digital conversion pack to turn a 35mm SLR digital? I've always enjoyed taking pictures, and right before the whole digital thing took off I dropped about $1500 into a manual Nikon. It's a really solid, nice camera but no use to me with film.

Is there such a thing as a digital conversion kit?
 
Don't know about the conversion kits, but you can use the lens on a digital camera base. At least that is what I have heard, the sharpest guy on the forums on cameras, I know of is Sharp by Coop, you might send him an email.
He has always responded to dumb questions to me. Good Luck
Jim
 
Unfortunately, all you can do is buy a digital body and use your manual lenses on it, which may or may not be 100% compatible (with Nikon it depends on how old the lenses are and what chips are in them).

Another option is shooting 35mm and scanning, but that gets really expensive fast, and IMHO a digital body is better for cheaper...

David
 
Matteo, Which Nikon was it, and do you mean completely manual as in an old no electronics model?
 
There is such a thing as a digital back for some cameras although they are usually for the large format hasselbads and the like. These are definetly a possibility technologically but probably not in the business interests of the manufacturers to mass produce them as it would discourage us to buy new cameras. They are out there though - do a google search on digital backs and see what you turn up.

The good thing about Nikon is that your old lenses will most likely be compatable with the new digital SLR body that, eventually, weeping in defeat, you will be forced to buy.

Bite the bullet and do it Matteo - my D80 is one of the favourite things in my life. Keep the 35mm though. Film photography still has it's place.
 
Shoot the images on film. You can easily scan the processed negatives into a digital format.
 
Digital is great, but I still use my cheapo-ultra-basic Nikon F10 because (a) it's paid for, (b) I can take a heck of a lot of pix with 35 mm film and have it scanned for about $1 a roll, for the price of a quality digital camera, (c) image quality is better without the algorithmic compression and subsequent distortion by the digital software (especially electronic zooming), and (d) it works from -45 to +45 C. whether or not the battery is fresh. Try using your digital in -45 weather...
 
Ansel Adams managed just fine without the aid of a D80 or D200. Of course, had they been available in his era, he'd have probably made good use of one. He had the skill of being able to visualize the shot before he clicked the camera coupled with the vast imagination which underscores breath-taking photography.

Many of us have sunk a pretty penny into standard SLR cameras. Such is life. I'd suggest you purchase a digital body (as referenced above) and see if your lenses can be utilized on that platform. Just bite the bullet.

Once you get used to digital shots and 4 gig chips or better, you'll have a great time taking photographs while forgetting about the cost of the conversion. Digital SLR's are here to stay. They are easier, simpler and more efficient than older designs.

Remember this: we once used manual typewriters. Back in the day, such a complicated mechanical machine was the best answer we had at hand, but today, they are nothing more than relics to remind us of a better, simpler day.
 
Alberta Ed said:
Try using your digital in -45 weather...
Click to expand...
My Canon 1Ds Mk II is rated to work at that temperature. Unfortunately, the coldest I've used it is around 10 F, and it worked fine.

As for cost, at only $0.15 average per print, with the ability to print only the shots you want. In the long run, digital will produce a better album for lower cost. That $1 scan is done at very low resolution. Anybody who drops $1500 for a Nikon body will want to look at higher resolution scans.
 
I have used my 5D in about -5°F. Lithium batteries don't like to hold a charge very long in that cold, but if you keep them warm, no problem!
 
I'm still fence-sitting on buying digital. I've gotten all of this good-quality 35mm SLR equipment (Minolta X-700), and upgrading to digital would be an incredible expense. Plus, for backpacking and working outdoors if one of my cameras gets ruined, it's less than $100 to buy another just like it. Ruin a high-end digital, and it's a lot of money down the toilet.

Still, I would like to have a Nikon D-something at some point in the future.

-Bob
 
As a semi-professional "fine art" photographer and also as a dad taking pictures of his first baby, I use film. I

I have had to many losses of digital media that I don't want to risk losing any of my precious pictures. Also, in a hundred years the negative will still be viewable, what about the digital RAW file?

Chad
 
ChadHahn said:
Also, in a hundred years the negative will still be viewable, what about the digital RAW file?
Click to expand...
That depends on the level of archiving you do with the data. I save all my images onto DVD. That should last 10- 15 years. And if I made another copy, that will last another 10 to 15 years. The data itself should still be usable as long as I keep it on a viable media. Given in a 100 years, RAW will be considered a very archaic technology.
 
I always thought this would be a good idea. A Digtal back for all those F2-f3 etc. type cameras.

Of course it would have to be made by someone not in the digital camera making business.


PAul
 
Remember this: we once used manual typewriters. Back in the day, such a complicated mechanical machine was the best answer we had at hand, but today, they are nothing more than relics to remind us of a better, simpler day.
Click to expand...

And yet Kurt Vonnegut's last book was still typewritten and hand edited. I've never upgraded my 30 year old Pentax because...well...why ? It does what I want, I get the pix I want and I can't be bothered with a new learning curve.(Man I sound old!) I do like the capabilities of digital editing software though...
 
The only digital backs to convert a film camera that I know of are Hasselblad and Mamiya. The Hasselblad will run 15k for the setup and the Mamiya is now about 10K, both for entry level digital medium-format.

My advice is to see if your Nikon lenses will fit an older but capable D70 and take your losses like every other film camera buyer who now wants digital. :(

Or stay with film for all the very good reasons posted. :)

Coop
 
pcnorton said:
I always thought this would be a good idea. A Digtal back for all those F2-f3 etc. type cameras.

Of course it would have to be made by someone not in the digital camera making business.


PAul
Click to expand...

You understand what I'm getting at. The technology is there, and it would sell. To be able to turn your old-school 35mm SLR into the top of the line digital is a great idea.

I have a practically new Nikon FM2 with an MD-12 motor drive. I would pay $600-$1000 to turn it into a 10 mega-pixel camera. Even if it didn't have all of the features of a new digital camera.
 
Matteo Escobar said:
The technology is there, and it would sell. To be able to turn your old-school 35mm SLR into the top of the line digital is a great idea.
Click to expand...
I disagree. With current technology, it could also be very bulky. With very little room in the film bodies (there's only so much room in those two film wells), and needing to fit the CCD/CMOS sensor exactly where the film plane is, and all the associated electronics, into as tight a space as possible, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a bulky back. One immediate disadvantage will be moving the contact from the viewfinder back futher.

The advantage of the MF digi backs is that the existing film back cases have enough room to allow engineers to build the digi-back. All without changing the form factor of the camera.
 
With very little room in the film bodies
Click to expand...
No kidding. I bought a top-loading camera bag. Being a modern bag, it's designed for Pro Digital SLR cameras. My poor little X-700 just swims around in there.

If someone did build a digital back for a film camera, it would cost more than just buying a digital camera.

-Bob
 
i know that the leica R (their reflex cameras) had digital backs. you swung the film back with pressure plate off of the camera and put your digital module on it. otherwise, it's as everyone else has described -- you can get digital backs for medium format systems. those systems, though, have always been modular so it wasn't much of a leap for them to do that.

i had a leica m6 for a minute or two. . . and really loved it. now, though, i'm shooting digital more than anything else. there's just a lot more that can be done with it. with reasonable steps taken, you'll not really have to worry that much about losing images and the whole "whose images will be around in 1,000 years" question.

so. . . for what it's worth. . . my darkroom has jugs full of expired chemistry sitting on shelves while i just bought an external harddrive to back-up all my photos.

so it goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top