Well, the way I see it, 35mm and medium format film cameras are just about perfect. You can buy them as simple as can be with no meter, manual focus, and no auto exposure or you can buy them with matrix metering and complete automation. Your choice!
DSLR's have so much stuff on them that they can get confusing all ready. Now they all have video. What's next, a phone?
Why combine digital and film?
If it brings more people to film then why not?
Originally Posted by Alan Gales
Just because you don't want it doesn't mean NO body wants it
Same as Lomo/Holga, a lot of people on here hate them but it brings an awful lot of people to film.
Originally Posted by Alan Gales
For a hint, maybe carry a film camera and a digital camera.
Yes, digis have a sort of phone capability at the moment called "Eye-Fi" for transferring files wirelessly, as I do with mine.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
Bill, I'm all for bringing people to film but to combine digital and film in one camera, I think you would end up with a bulky, complicated camera that would be awkward at shooting film or digital. In the end you would be way better off using both a film camera and a digital camera. A Jack of all trades is a master of none. Just my opinion.
Originally Posted by wblynch
I have no interest in Lomo/Holga at all but I do agree that they have brought a lot of people to film.
About 13 years ago, while stationed at Fort Belvoir's Night Vision Laboratory (PM-NV/RSTA), I checked in to getting a patent for a camera that would use a prism as a beam splitter, directing the image to a sensor and film simultaneously. I was told that a Japanese firm already had a patent for such a device, and that many patented devices never make it to the market, patents are used defensively to prevent others from marketing products.
My thought process was along the lines of forensic photography, capturing a digital image for immediate use and a film image as an unaltered original representation of the scene photographed.
Franka Rolfix 6x9 (with Series VI filters)
Franka Solida IIIE (by Certo 6)
Kodak Retina IIIc with 3 Schneider Lenses (body repaired recently CLAd in Aukland Newzland)
Bronica ETR-S System
Omega 45D 4x5 system
Complete Wet Darkroom with Beseler 45MCRX and 23CII
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I do own a digital camera. My Nikon D300 has buttons all over it plus the menu's and I don't even own the S version with video. It's like they keep trying to make them more complicated. I'm a fan of KISS, keep it simple stupid.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
And people told me large format was hard!
Sounds interesting, so the Japanese firm presumably never developed this? Such a camera would have uses in the legal area of proof.
Originally Posted by craig.knapp1
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Outside of the consumer world such beam-splitter concept, though in the beginning analogue, had been applied in cinematography to gain an real-time video of the scene.
It can be used for instant control, assesment after taking a scene, comparing scenes or for editing.
A bit of history on equipment for the portrait business - in 1988 the Kodak Prism came on the market. It used both electronic and film cameras, using a beam splitter so they had the same virtual viewpoint. The general idea of two cameras and beam splitter was well known at the time - the patent-worthy idea was in the electronic camera. At the time, camcorders used "interlaced" CCD output, which could not capture a complete image under flash. Kodak's system temporarily interrupted the interlaced output, captured a complete flash image, then resumed normal (interlaced) output.
This was the first time it was possible to sync both a film camera (your own) and electronic camera to the same flash event. In essence, it was an instant proofing system. No more risk of completing a portrait session, then finding out later (after processing and printing) that someone blinked on every shot, etc. It was now possible to complete sessions with a minimal number of shots, being confident that you had good expressions and poses. If you're good, you don't really need such a system, but it allowed relatively untrained people to shoot portraits. To me, that was the real value of such a system.
These systems, as well as muliple knock-offs, went out of style in commercial operations when full-digital cameras became "adequate". But if you do portraiture, especially on larger film sizes, and don't mind working from a heavy-duty camera stand with a large contraption, the same advantages are still there.
And as Bill Lynch has pointed out, a modern (tiny) digital could act as a notebook of sorts, and even a proofing system, if piggybacked onto a film camera. It's not something I see myself using, but certainly some people might. Remember, before the Kodak Prism system came out, few people realized how much they would want something like that.
Thank you! Never heard of a Kodak Prism before.