NikonWeb.com

I don't have any of the models mentioned on this site. However, I wonder if any of these cameras have features that the current digital SLRs lack. It could be anything, small, cool details that have got lost on the way to the megapixel monsters of today.

Just curious.

-åsmund

Hi,

Well, they have the Reduction Optical System, as the official Nikon name is for it, built into the body itself.

I call it an optical reducer. You can think of it as a reverse teleconverter. Instead of expanding the exit pupil of the master lens to make it appear longer in focal length, it contracts the exit pupil, making it appear shorter.

This forces the light from the master lens, which is meant to fit the area of 135 film, down to the size of the 2/3" CCD they used (from a video camera application, I suspect). This gives the appearance of the camera being 'Full Frame'.

Not that they're aren't drawback to this scheme. There are. Which explains why the follow-on D1 didn't continue using an optical reducer.

Otherwise, there isn't anything I can think of. The newer DSLRs all have more features than a E series does.....

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

Hi Åsmund and welcome aboard.

Good question.

First thing that springs to mind is the optical reducer Stan mentioned.

Here's my take: Since the CCD sensor of the early digital cameras (and most current models, for that matter) are smaller than 35mm film, you'll get a cropped image. Your 50mm lens will suddenly behave like a 75mm. Or a 100mm (or whatever) depending on the camera's 'crop factor'. Usually a good thing if you need a telephoto lens, not so good if you want a wide wide-angle. This is one of the most debated topics in digital photography forums. A 50mm will not magically become a 75mm lens -- you'll only get a cropped image -- but that's a different discussion.

When digital people speak about 'full frame', they mean a sensor that's 24x36mm. All current Nikon DSLR models have a 1.5x crop factor, while Canon have a few full frame cameras (which have their own issues. You give some, you take some).

To avoid the 'crop factor', Nikon and Fujifilm included an optical reducer in their first models (E2 and E3-series). Unfortunately, the reducer steals light, and puts more glass in the optical path, reducing the final image quality. The optical reducer was probably a good idea at the time, but nobody cried when they decided to drop it. Sometimes, people advertise these old things as 'Nikon full frame digital SLR!!' on eBay. Funny for those of us that know better, not so funny for those that are tricked into buying what most people today will consider a useless camera.

Ok, enough talk. To answer your question (finally): I can't really think of any 'small, cool details' that are lost on the way.

Jarle

I can think of big reason why there are so cool, as they said in Japan, Its a Whale of a camera!!.
Kiu

Hi,

Yeah, they're big, all right!

The optics inside the body make the thing stick out forward (in the direction of the lens mount) quite a ways further than a 135 film camera. The end result is something that looks a lot more like a 645 medium format body than a 135 format one.

Another difference is due to the sensor itself. The vidicam CCD has a 4:3 aspect ratio, not the usual 3:2 of 135 film, or any of the other DSLRs based on 135 cameras (Kodak, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc). I don't know if that's a 'cool' feature or not, but I use it to great effect since I actually use my old beast to shoot product images for a web store.

Most PC screens out there are 4:3, so I can crop the images optically in the viewfinder and not have to do it later. Plus, the thing makes an SXGA sized image, so all I have to do is perform a 4:1 reduction to make the VGA sized image I want for the website.

In other words, I have to perform a lot less work to produce web images with the old E2 than I would with any of the other DSLRs out there. I think that's pretty cool, but then I'd not be surprised to find that I'm the only one that thinks so!

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

I'll mention a feature from the DCS 200/4xx series... removable digital backs. Granted, those early digital backs were "grafted" on to the Nikon N90/s (and likewise the Canon EOS-1V for the DCS 1/3/5) and were only sold with a new body... but I think Kodak missed the market of selling backs to people who already owned a N90 or later, w/ the DCS 620, the Nikon F-5

I still think today there would be a great market for a 6-8mp $1000 digital back that would mount to a F-5 (or the new F-6) that is removable/ interchangeable with the film back. (Like the medium format backs from Leaf, Phase One, etc). The back could get by with just having the chip, LCD, battery, storage card, and CPU/software built into it... but given today's miniaturization I think you could make one that wouldn't be much bigger than the MF-28 back +vertical grip. The only issue might be the quality control to ensure that the mounting distance of the digital chip stays at the correct spot relative to the focal plane of the body and lens part. (maybe some sort of mechanical "calibration" feature to adjust the digital chip to be in line with the focal plane of the body?)

I think there were some issues regarding licensing of the F-5 (or maybe the newer F6) body chassis from Nikon that prevented Kodak from continuing their manufacturing of similar backs... oh well.

This was discussed in another post on this forum, I think, or elsewhere so what I'm mentioning isn't entirely new... but I still don't understand why nobody has tried to market a digital back for the 35mm SLR line. Think about it... all we really need to replace in a film camera to make it digital is the 24mmx36mm piece of film that sits at the focal plane of the camera- swap that out for the digital chip; and then provide an interface on the back for controlling the camera's operation with chip's function and software. (the camera at it's most basic only has to pass 2 things to the digital back: when to "Start" and "Stop" capturing the image from the digital chip.. Everything else is external to the actual chip. (remember, original 35mm film didn't need any information passed to it... it just captured whatever light was exposed to it base on the lenth of the exposure via the shutter box)

All you would need to do is to license the chip from Sony; standardize on a generic battery/storage card/and LCD control panel ; fabricate the outer housing and circuit board to hold everything together; and write the control interface software that can interface with the camera body to accept the necessary control inputs from the camera body- ie, the shutter release, exposure time, and desired options for software balance, raw processing, time stamp, etc... all the bells and whistles occur after the image has been captured.)

Anything related to the lens (f/stop, focus, etc) still remains controlled by the camera body itself, not the digital back.

I know, this sounds simple and I'm sure someone will correct me to let me know of all the hidden details I'm missing.... but at least in concept is seems pretty doable.

Comments, anyone?

Hi,

Actually, this has already been done. Leica has done just this with their Digital Module-R. It mounts onto newer R8 or any R9 film SLR simply by removing the film back and replacing it with the DMR.

Older R8's need to o back to Leica for a modification of some sort related to mounting the back. So, there's something they did to the cameras along the way to allow the scheme to work.

One thing I note, is that the size of the imager used in the DMR was limited to the APS-H format (aka 1.3x FLM like the older Kodak 6 MP DSLRs). Full frame won't fit properly.

See, the sensor must have circuitry around the perimiter of the photodiode array (the sensing area) to work. OK, you say, film is always wider than the imaged area too, so what's the deal. Well, film senses on it's surface, or close enough to it as to not matter.

An electronic sensor has it's active elements buried fairly far down inside. There's a lot of stuff on top, like IR filter, bayer array and silicon covering. So, you have to align the sensor such that the active area winds up at the level of the film rails, at the focal plane. That means the sensor has to actually stick forward of the film rails, inside the opening.

So, we see where we have to limit the sensor to APS-H format or possibly the APS one (1.5x FLM) for it to fit. No big deal, right?

Maybe not. But, may be it *is* a big deal. I wonder if some of the film SLRs have their shutters closer to the focal plane than others. I'll bet that there is an issue where many cameras have shutter assemblies that are too close to where the sensor face would have to be. There have been a lot of different materials used for shutter blades. Some are stiffer than others, while some are thicker than others. Not to mention hundreds of mechanical schemes to get the fool things to work.

I think this is the major problem. I think this is why Kodak chose to use only a few camera body models. They picked ones that either didn't have an issue, or ones that the OEMs were willing to alter to allow the sensor to fit.

Otherwise, the scheme *does* appear to be rather simple. You can argue that you need to have communications bewteen the body and the back for automatic operation. However, there are many FSLRs that offer this, so no real problem.

But, even if you didn't have any fancy electrical communications, all you really need is the old fashioned strobe PC socket to fire the back. Use a simple cable to hook it up. *You* could set ISO on the camera *and* the back manually, and in this case, the back would be no different, as far as the camera was concerned, than film. However, just like the old days, you screw up the ISO settings, and you screw up the shots!

No, I think the entire technical issue is one of mechanically fitting the sensor into the body such that the active elements line up with the focal plane and don't interfere with the shutter blades.

But, let's say that all this could have been taken into account when designing the F6, much like Leica did with the later R8 and the R9. So, let's say that the F6 *can* take a digital back. Now where is it?

Well, I can also see an economical issue. A D-back plus film body will cost more than an entire DSLR. All of the same costs exist in both, plus we now have an entirely new mechanical package added to the list - that of housing the back itself.

Look at the price tag of the Leica DMR: $6000 (the R9 is another $2500). Now, Leica is a low-volume outfit, so we can't use those prices directly. We can lower our price by half if we piggy-back, say, the D2X D-bits into a F6-NDB (Nikon Digital Back for F6). That's still $3000 for the NDB and, what?, $2000 for the F6. That's as much as a whole D2X to begin with.

Which would you choose given the same price tag: Integrated D2X or piecemeal F6-NDB?

Personally, I'd choose the F6-NDB, but I'm a known looney, too!

Now, we have to raise the NDB price if we don't sell as many NDB's as we do D2X's. Perhaps the NDB needs to be $4000 because it isn't as popular. That'll make it even less popular. Now, which would you buy if there were a $1000 price difference? How about $2000?

The whole thought process derails at this point. We don't know what the actual costs would be, so we can't begin to figure out just what would happen in the marketplace with a NDB.

I bet a box of donuts that the Nikon Marketing group has the same problem, and they have more data to go on. So, for now, there's no NDB....

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

Stan,

Good analysis of my suggestion... obviously there would be a limited market for a digital removable SLR back... but a key point here is think of the installed user base of Nikon F5 users! I'm sure if youre looking to buy new, you wouldn't go buy a new F-5 and a new back; but if you already had an film-based F-5 (already paid for) and wanted to go Digital SLR, wouldn't a $2000 for a Digital SLR back be reasonable? instead of $3999 for the new D2x? You're correct, though that if the price was more than $2000 it's no longer economically viable. I'd settle for a less functional SLR back even- (like the Canon 10d or D100 in quality) if it mounted to my F5 body.

Another issue... digital sensor/chip obsolescence VS the film body longevity. Nikon replaces film bodies about every 10 years... but the digital backs are replaced or superceded by newer versions within about 1-2 years after introduction. Look at the number of people that still use the Kodak 720/760 series... and think if all of them had a chance to swap out the sensor that's in that body for a 2005 version (actually, 720 isn't the best example, because it's still a pretty big body...I'd want a lighter one...) but why get rid of the perfectly good SLR body just because the sensor is obsolete.
I know, that would cut into sales of a new D2X/ or D2H...etc.... but again, I'm writing this from the user side, not the manufacturer. Why couldn't Nikon come out with DSLR back to fit the F6 body, they could just use digital guts of a D2X and make a new housing/connection for the back.


I read "Wired" magazine and saw in last months issue a whole article on custom fabrication shops- web link is here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/fablab.html

In addition to the featured shop "Emachineshop.com" there are other similar electronic or chip factories that can custom manufacture almost anything you need to the precision and tolerances you specify... all you have to do is design the thing, send them the CAD files and specifiy how many you want produced. This could easily handle the manufacturing of everything except the digital sensor and the circuit board.
In an older Wired article, it discussed how Microsoft hires a company in Mexico to produce all of their x-boxes... and when that Mexican company isn't making X-boxes, they make something else... (like DCD players, or MP3 players, etc) so the fixed capital cost for machinery, production equipment, etc is minimal for Microsoft- and can be spreadout over 100's of different products, not just 1 series of camera backs.. I don't know if Nikon or Kodak makes everything in-house, but I would think they could build a 8mp digital back equal to the D2X and market it for $2000 and still make money; or a 4 or 5mp back equal to the D100 for $1000 and do the same.

PS, the Nikon N90s was NOT modified in any fashion to use with the DCS 420,460, or NC2000 backs... (no mods to the film rails) the only physical cosmetic differences were that it had a different battery holder that had 2 wires to connect to the rechargeable battery pack in the DCS back; and the viewfinder was modified with a black square to indicate the reduced field-of-view of the 420/460. I've taken DCS4xx bodies apart, slapped a film back and MS-9 battery holder on the N90 body, hit the "counter reset" buttons and started shooting film! (later I replaced the viewfinder with the standard E version... but that's not necessary)

The DCS 1,3,5 (Canon based) are missing the film take-up reel and the motor to advance/rewind the film... otherwise they are also similar) I think Kodak got smarter with Canon and told them to save a few dollars and leave those pieces out... but otherwise it's just a generic EOS-1N.

Finally, just how much space do you need at the edge of a CCD chip for the edge contacts? I'd guess 1mm to a side, so you should still be able to have a 22x34mm sensor, about a 1.1 ratio)

Just random ramblings...

Hi,

Yes, I was looking for a set of NDB's (like a D2H and a D2X version) to appear at the same time as the F6. Like you, I figured that it was time for Nikon to embrace a high-end DSLR philosophy incorporating digital backs. This would allow modularity for the working professional.

I don't think that a back could ever be produced more economically than an all-up DSLR, just from the costs associated with the precision machining necessary for a back to mate up with the body. You do need precision on both halves for this to work. All all-up body saves a lot of cost in the end.

However, working pros that saw the utility of a modular system would be willing to pay more for the capability. They use these things as tools to make a living, so the costs are easily justified. Look at the guys buying into the Leica system since the DMR came out.

Actually, I wish that Kodak had put the next generation chip into the F5 based DSLR and produced what would be essentially a twin to the DMR. Instead we got the 14n as they were aiming for a low-cost full-frame DSLR instead of a 10-11 MP APS-H high-end model. Sigh.

Nikon could come out with a NDB at any time. They have to see where it would sell enough units at a price that makes a profit first. I'm certain that they anaylzed all of this, and didn't see enough return for their investment, and so we haven't one.....

Yeah, we have one of those electronic prototyping systems here in-house. We use it for our prototyping needs. They're OK if you don't need high precision. We got rid of the machine shop and machinists and went to one of these things to save money. It does, but when I need something high-precision (less than .005" tolerence), then I go home to my own machine shop and make it myself, manually. Oh, and the things are useless for production. They're way too slow.

We also use contract manufacturing outfits. One's in Mexico, one's in Malaysia and one's in China. They work out fairly well, cost wise, but they have no vested interest in the products that they produce. You have to have everything they do in a written contract, and if something isn't covered, then they do as they like. That'd be whatever costs them the least money, and they don't care at all about the quality of the finished products. As long as they pass whatever final tests you contract for, that's what they do. If you need to alter that, too bad. They won't do a thing different until the contract's changed (meaning you pay them extra).

We had enough trouble that we reverted back to our own plant for some products. They just won't deal with things that require what I refer to as 'fussy work'. It's just crank up and run for them, and I don't blame them. They're in business to do just that. They'd have a hard time with precision camera bodies and digital backs. They'd be great for snap-together all-in-one digicams, though.

I really do not think that Nikon could make a digital back for less than $3000. Not given the precise nature of the casting and machined rails one needs to ensure alignment with the film body. I think that it would cost the same as the D2Hs if they had it's imager in it. Slightly more with the D2X imager. So, we're back to the same price point as the D2X when we add in the F6 body.

Right. The F90 was unmodified in the Kodak line. I also had a 460 back when they were just coming down in price with the advent of the 660. I also had the 620x, 660, 720x and 560, and have had all of them apart for one thing or another. This is why I mentioned the thought that some film cameras didn't need modifications, since the F90 was stock. The F5 was certainly modified quite a bit, though.

You need around 4mm edge clearance vertically and around 5mm horizontally for the sensor chip. There's live circuitry outboard of the photodiode array, and then the wire bonds. So, that limits one to around 20mm x 30mm, give or take a mm or two depending on just exactly how any given chip is done.

Not that I think any of these technical issues are what's keeping us from our digital back. I think it's just a business decision that there just isn't enough of a market to warrant having one. If one is making good money with an all-up unit, why would one want to compete with oneself by offering a unit that makes less money in the end? The answer is, of course, one wouldn't. And I think therein lies *our* answer........

Personally, I'm following the Leica DMR with great interest. If the thing is sucessful for them, then perhaps that'll change some other folks' minds!

This brings up a whole different topic: Manual controls.

I really want a DSLR without buttons and menus. I want one with knobs and dials and (aperture) rings. Give me an FM3D! Please. Pretty please? With sugar on top?

Hey! Make it a digital back that looks like a data back with motordrive. I'll even pay a D2X price for the back (FM3A available seperately). Now can I have one????

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

Stan,

Thanks for your insight into the custom fab shops overseas... I realize now that they aren't the answer I thought they might be when looking for a way to make a DB... but in concept they sound neat.

Is your company using one of the 3-D prototype machines that "sprays" a plastic-like resin through the nozzle of a "ink" jet - like device? I've read about those, never seen one in person.. I can imagine they'd be slow, but maybe that's acceptable in prototype development.

Very interesting reading... will ponder some of those issues and reply later.

Hi,

Yes, we have both styles of protoypers. One is as you describe, it builds up the object with what looks like oversized inkjet nozzles.

The other works in the old fashioned way: you start with a block of something, and cut away what doesn't look like what you want. It has a set of robot arms that accept various tool bits. Sort of like a robotic Dremel Tool, if you will.

Our Industrial Design group uses the first one the most, and the mechanical engineers use the second one the most. The first really only makes plastic mock-ups, while the other can work on various materials. So, this usage makes a lot of sense.

I'm in the Radio Frequency hardware design group, so my tools look very different from what the mechanical guys use. However, I do often need to create special fixturing, and at the frequencies we're working at (2 GHz), even a couple thousandths of a inch become important. So, I often wind up making those fixtures myself. It helps that my dad was a toolmaker and had his own shop (and I have most of the things he had these days).

Stan

_________________
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer