Well, the main thing. A 24x36 sensor is bigger than the sensitive part
of the 24X36. It will not fit in the opening of a 35mm camera. That is
why the Leica sensor back is less than full frame. There are edge
sensor that do things like provide input to the imaging engine for
things like white balance. So a back would have to have a sensor less
than 24x36. Ideally the body and back would work together for things
like metering. So the body should really be designed at the same time
with a back in mind. There are rumors that the Nikon F6 was designed
that way and there may be a sensor back on the way. Don't know.
Cost is not inconsequential because of economies of scale. For instance
a 16 MP 36 x 36 Kodak back for a 645 camera costs $12,000. A 14MP 24x36
sensored Kodak camera costs $5000. A 16MP Canon 1Ds Mark II with 24x36
sensor costs $8000. Now there are not many people who would be willing
to shell out $10,000 or so for a less than full frame back that would
sorta work on their old camera when they could buy a fine fully
integrated and engineered full frame digital camera for much less. Well
except for some of those Leica people and, I bet, not many of them.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Feb 22, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Curtis P. Hedman wrote:
>
> Inquiring minds would like to know... what are the technical reasons
> why
> nobody has come out with digital imaging backs for existing 35mm manual
> focus SLR bodies? I can understand that cost might well be an issue,
> but
> what are the technical reasons the preclude mounting a 24x36mm focal
> plane
> array in the appropriate location within a custom-designed back? Such
> things exist for 2-1/4 square systems... One thing I thought of was the
> physical "head height" above the actual imaging plane of the detector
> might
> interfere with the focal plane shutter. Another is the bit about the
> angle
> of acceptance of the pixels (wells versus a layer surface). As I
> recall,
> Kodak's first SLR digitals were modified Nikon or Canon bodies,
> essentially
> just putting an imaging array at the right location behind the
> shutter. I'm
> just a little surprised that nobody has seen fit to cobble together an
> imager and processing electronics with an odd data back - just to show
> it
> could be done! So I figure there must be some hard technical issues...
> anyone have any thoughts or comments? I suppose (just for fun) one
> could
> disassemble a low cost digicam, buy a replacement back from Camtech,
> and
> kludge the bits together just to see what would happen... anyone care
> to
> try????
>
> Curt
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|