"Gerald F. Cermak" wrote:
> Let me add a interest in having the CCD back done on a new
> back plate, not a
> modification to the existing film back. I'd hate to see a
> bunch of LXs and
> MXs on Ebay sans their backs. :)
I agree.. build it into a replacement back. That's what originally caused
me to bring it up -- my pz-1p has a removeable back and my experimental
camera (a Ricoh) also has one.
> How about just a prototype that connects to a lap top via
> firewire (or USB,
> albeit a little slower)? For experimental purposes, I could
> easily imagine
> having a digital back added to a spotmatic without an LCD and on-board
> storage, and rely on a small laptop for the computing/viewing/storage
> functions. It would be way better than any small LCD you
> could find space
> for on a 35mm camera body.
What about a palmtop? It can be the preview LCD screen too. The Compaq
model has a screen that is very visable in daylight (the sunnier the easier
it is to see, I hear) and it also lit for dark use.
> Megapixels aren't so important, but full frame (24x36mm)
> coverage is. Even
> a 2MP CCD at full frame would provide for wonderful images
> due to the lens
> choices I would have over a P&S style zoom digicam.
Ditto here -- that's a big part of the reason I was suggesting using a
current camera. The rest being that 35mm cameras have a lot of creative
exposure controls. It was a few years ago, but last time I looked, consumer
leven digital cameras didn't have the same kinds of creative exposure
controls, being more targeted at the point-and-shoot replacement market.
Personally, I'm not interested in a digital camera until I have control over
exposures from (at least) 1/1000th to 16sec., have full control of DOF, can
use an "OTF" flash, etc.
If we can't take advantage of the creative exposure control available in
the 35mm body, then I personally don't seem much point in mating the thing
to one.
> In addition, you will need some IR block filter
> glass over the CCD
> to achieve good color.
Or as a separate, removeable, filter for some interesting creative imagery
:-)
> Larger fast CCDs run hot, and means
> of cooling them
> might be considered (to get consistent result and longevity
> of the CCD).
Some of the astro folks are using peltiers to cool their sensors, so I
guess that's an option (assuming battery life isn't :-).
> What ISO ranges are interesting in the CCD to people?
> Ideally, something
> capable of ISO100 to ISO800 would be a minimum, with a 1600
> or even 3200
> being superb (if it is possible at all).
Why is _fast_ so interesting to everybody? Most of use shoot 100ISO or
slower film. 100ISO equivalant CCD is perfectly sufficient, isn't it?
Sure, faster would be nicer, but I'm looking for something mainly for
creative photography, not mainly for low light photography.
> Gerald
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
