| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2004 09:56:13 AM · #1 |
Is it possible?
I mean, take a used 35mmSLR (like this one) and and the guts of a digital camera (like this one) and make a dSLR.
I figure you use the exposure and focusing of the SLR body. The digicam sensor replaces the film - the only issue isee (beyaond physically mounting hte parts) is getting the 2 shutter buttons to work at the same time...perhaps a relay driven off the flash?
I can't be hte first one to think this up. i have to assume it has been tried - anyone have any thoughts on this idea?
If it can be done, you'd get a dSLR for $100 (using hte examples above) and you could upgrade the electronics in teh future (if you built in once...).
Message edited by author 2004-12-16 09:56:37.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:03:21 AM · #2 |
//www.edigitalphoto.com/accessories/0006edp_silicons/
This is something that was tried a few years ago, but according to the lastest edition of Pop Photo Magazine, the company, Silicon Film, went bankrupt in September of 2001. Interesting concept just the same.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:26:26 AM · #3 |
I read something about that recently, basically a Q as to what happened to the company.
I was thinking more like a digital back.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:31:58 AM · #4 |
| There are already camera backs, but they tend to be very high-end components -- see this thread. Actually, camera backs for 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras were the first digital cameras. All these compact goodies we play with today came along a lot later. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:49:58 AM · #5 |
I wouldn't think that the sensor from a point ans shoot would not work because the sensor is so much smaller than the image circle produced by the camera lense. That's what makes a DSRL so much better, it's the size of the sensor. This not only caputres most (or all) of the image circle but the added size dicipates heat better, which reduces or eliminates noise.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:54:21 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by K-Rob:
I wouldn't think that the sensor from a point ans shoot would not work because the sensor is so much smaller than the image circle produced by the camera lense. That's what makes a DSRL so much better, it's the size of the sensor. This not only caputres most (or all) of the image circle but the added size dicipates heat better, which reduces or eliminates noise. |
If you could get it to work, I think even an small P&S sensor would benefit from the (presumably) better optics you could get with halfway decent SLR lens. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:56:29 AM · #7 |
| If you're going to be cobbling together parts, how about attaching a camera/sensor directly to a telescope? |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 10:57:28 AM · #8 |
I thought about the image sensor size, and yes, the quality in that regard will be less. If the sensor is kept at the same plane as the 35mm film, then it HAS to be in focus. As to how much of the image is falling outside the sensor...hmmm..had not considered that. Might be a deal breaker that part. Can be worked around, but not by a home hacker as I bet a lens would be needed to bend the light (image) to the size of the sensor....this might explain why i can find no info on this anywhere.
Now how to get 4 sensors to work together...12mp slr...and a big sensor..
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 11:00:59 AM · #9 |
As it is most DSRL sensors are smaller than the image circle and that's where the "Crop Factor" comes in to play. ex: DRebel = 1.6x, D70 = 1.5x. PUtting a P&S sensor on a SLR would probably make it something crazy like 5x. Which *might* be cool because you'd make a 200mm lens a 1000mm. =D
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 11:05:29 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you're going to be cobbling together parts, how about attaching a camera/sensor directly to a telescope? |
There are a number of people that actually do this - sort of - by using webcams. One site is here but there are lots of others. I tried it for a while - you basically take off the lens, make yourself an adapter to fit in your eyepiece socket and then use a program like Astrostacker to compile an image.
It's fun, high tech, and cheap! |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 11:05:38 AM · #11 |
yeah, BUT when you look thru the viewfinder, without some correction issues, you'd see what a whole 24x36 film frame would see, not the 6x9mm (or whatever size) the actual sensor is. You'd not be able to determine how to frame shot - AND there would be no crop factor without that last lens that i have no ability to design let alone make.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 11:06:52 AM · #12 |
| You probably could convert film SLRs to DSLRs fairly easily if you had the cooperation of the manufacturer, but then they would not be able to sell as many new DSLRs. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 11:26:53 AM · #13 |
I'm jsut looking for a cheap alternative to dropping a grand i don't particulalry have lying about.
What about an 'old' D30? I see them on ebay for $400 or less...that i might be able to do.
Was sitting down with my wife last night working on a 2005 budget...depressing. Also, last night at work sucked. At times, working for tips is not any fun.
Message edited by author 2004-12-16 11:27:09.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 07:28:36 PM EDT.
