|
|
Post by dennis0311 on May 20, 2015 12:51:20 GMT -5
It has been a while since I have been on here. To let everyone know I have bought another Minolta camera. I got a X-570 body off the Bay for 24 dollars. It does not have the popularity of the X-700 or X-370 but in many respects it's a better camera. You can use the manual mode and never take your eyes off the viewfinder. I read you have to take your eye off the viewfinder to see if the shutter speed is correct on the X-700 to match the meter. The X-700 does have program mode. So it makes a good point and shot. I know the X-570 began production in 1983 but don't know how many years they were produced. The X-570 is a pleasure to shoot in manual mode. Aperture mode comes in handy for quicker shots. The X-570 does have a lot of plastic but the lighter weight is a benefit on long walks. The SRT's are still my favorite but they can get heavy after a while. I could keep on going and tell you how much I enjoy the X-570 but that would take several hours. If anyone has this camera I would like to hear your opinion about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on May 20, 2015 18:43:10 GMT -5
Although it came out after the X700 as a lower-in-the-range model the X500/X570 was a much better camera for the advanced amateur. It lacked the point and shoot P function, but as you say the display was better, the flash sync speed was automatic when a dedicated strobe was attached and the meter carried on metering when the DOF button was pressed. Enjoy it!
|
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 4, 2015 10:03:03 GMT -5
I must agree. Incidentally, Dennis, you are correct. The X700's shutter speeds are not linked to the meter. So you have to take your eye away from the viewfinder to set the correct speed. That is the main reason why I prefer the X570 over the X700.
My favorite Minolta is the XD-11 (XD in Japan and XD-7 in Europe), although the shutter speeds aren't linked to the meter, either. But I can look past that, just because it was such a beautifully made camera. And it operates as smooth as silk. But the X570 follows at a close second.
|
|
|
|
Post by dennis0311 on Jun 4, 2015 22:05:25 GMT -5
Thank you both for the replies. I have only been on here for a short time, this is a great group cooltouch. I hope you enjoy this group as much as I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 6, 2015 18:15:16 GMT -5
Hey Dennis, yeah I'm real new here -- just joined a couple of days ago. Thins seem to be pretty quiet, but maybe we can do something about that, eh?
Anyway, good to be here and I look forward to future interactions.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 7, 2015 4:49:20 GMT -5
Hey Dennis, yeah I'm real new here -- just joined a couple of days ago. Thins seem to be pretty quiet, but maybe we can do something about that, eh? Anyway, good to be here and I look forward to future interactions. The perfect solution if you want to hear some joyous whooping and hollering....................... FIND A WAY TO CONVERT MY CANON T90 TO DIGITAL. Mickey  |
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jun 7, 2015 10:14:54 GMT -5
Mickey are you the only one that doesn't know how?
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 7, 2015 12:53:25 GMT -5
Mickey are you the only one that doesn't know how? Probably, Phil. If anyone knows how much would a bribe cost me? Mickey  |
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 7, 2015 19:25:21 GMT -5
You know, on this business of converting a film camera to digital -- short of the methods that Kodak and Fuji have used in the past, which are well beyond my skill level, I still believe that, one of these days, somebody is gonna come up with a way to use "digital film" in a film camera. Occasionally I see concepts that make a few headlines -- but they all seem to be more in the line of thought experiments than any sort of serious attempt to bring to market. This is nothing new, however. Not at all. I even invested in a company named Irvine Sensors back in 2000 because they had announced they were working on "digital film" technology. Only to spin it off, at which point their stock price promptly fell through the floor. I don't like to think about it. But anyway, in more recent years, I recall watching a video about a guy from the UK named James Jackson who was doing just this. He called his product the Digipod and it looks kinda like a small film cassette, but it fits in the film canister reservoir and has an extension that fits across the shutter opening. He was trying to raise funds for this device through a kickstarter site, but has come up short of his goal by a rather substantial margin. So it looks like his product, which he showed working on a Minolta X700 (I know because I watched it a couple years ago), is not likely to make it to market anytime soon. A pity. Here's a link with more information on James Jackson and his design: petapixel.com/2013/08/16/convert-your-old-film-slr-into-a-digital-camera-with-the-digipod/Considering all the tens of millions of perfectly good 35mm SLRs there are out there, too many of which are stuffed away in closets or otherwise collecting dust, I still believe there is a market for such a device. With regards to interfacing with the camera, I believe it could be designed to adapt, such that these interface impediments would be mostly nonexistent or easily overcome. Plus, it could be full frame! Oh well, something to hope for anyway. 15 years and counting . . . |
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jun 8, 2015 15:37:57 GMT -5
I agree Michael, I know this link and have seen many others on the same lines. You know, in my opinion, seeing as Kodak invented and perfected the digital camera and its sensors they would have been the perfect outfit to make digital film. They could have licenced it out.
The problem with this type of thing is the vast range of cameras and their methods of transporting and winding the film not to mention the different dimensions of them. I would sorely love to use my 50's collection digitally. Imagine making one that could slide into the bottom of a Barnack Leica, be used in a Canon EOS, Nikon F1 or a Braun Paxette!
|
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 9, 2015 13:28:34 GMT -5
I was thinking about this topic some more yesterday and I actually sketched out a design. The big restriction, the way I see it, is being able to cram everything necessary inside the film cassette reservoir. If you restrict dimensions to that of a 35mm film cassette, you must also allow for the intrusions in the top and bottom of the cassette as well, so it can work with cameras at all. Batteries or a battery is an issue, probably occupying fully half of the available space. Plus there has to be room for a memory card. A micro SD card would do the trick, without occupying too much space. So anyway the tiny amount of space that's left has to house all of the electronics for the device. This might be a tall order.
You could have more than one of these cassettes. One for the old bottom-loading Leicas, for example. One for compacts. Etc. Below, I outline my thinking with regard to one that would fit most SLRs.
On the exterior of the cassette, there would be a slot where you push in the micro SD card to lock it in and push it again to release it. The battery would be located so that it can be removed for recharging and another inserted -- I'm thinking that, because of the battery's likely size, it would have to be located in the center of the cassette, to stay away from the top and bottom protrusions. There would be a small LCD screen on the exterior with necessary info to be displayed, such as ISO, frame count on the card, etc. Next to the LCD there could be small push buttons one could use to cycle through and set various command parameters. And there's gonna have to be a micro USB port, probably located on the top or bottom so it can communicate with a computer or whatever, if need be (like for firmware updates, for example), but also just so you can do things like download images directly from it without having to remove the card.
As for operation, I think the device could be set up to be "smart," that is, one could set it to "active" mode then insert it and once in place, whenever the shutter opens, an image is recorded. After the shutter closes, it resets for the next image. When inserting and removing the device, it would record those scenes as well, but so what? Just delete the beginning and ending waste shots from the SD card.
Now it seems to me that, once the ISO is set and the device is set to Active, then all normal camera controls would be able to control the way the image is recorded, even including TTL flash, as long as it isn't OTF TTL, that is. The reflective nature of the sensor would probably confuse the camera's OTF readings. What I'm getting at is you let the camera do all the work, the way it was intended to do. The cassette would just be recording images. It will know, for example, that when the shutter closes, it's time to save that image and get ready for another. You just set the ISO on the camera to agree with the ISO on the cassette and you just use the camera's on board meter as if there were film inside it instead of this device.
Heh, in one respect it would be like film. No chimping! You have to wait until you load your images onto your computer or tablet or whatever before you can see what you got.
Oh, and as far as different film chamber sizes, well, I think for the most part, most SLRs are gonna be close to each other. But what you could do is make it so that the extension that holds the sensor is held in place be a couple of set screws. You loosen the screws and you can slide the extension in or out such that the sensor fits perfectly over the film opening. I was also envisioning a piece at the end of the extension that is like a lip that curls in slightly to fit over the edge of the take-up reservoir, which would also be adjustable with set screws and which would act as a way of securing the extension from both ends.
When not in use, it comes with a plastic panel that will snap over the sensor, protecting it from dust, fingerprints, scratches, what have you.
So, yeah, I can see something like this happpening.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 9, 2015 18:59:22 GMT -5
I was thinking about this topic some more yesterday and I actually sketched out a design. The big restriction, the way I see it, is being able to cram everything necessary inside the film cassette reservoir. If you restrict dimensions to that of a 35mm film cassette, you must also allow for the intrusions in the top and bottom of the cassette as well, so it can work with cameras at all. Batteries or a battery is an issue, probably occupying fully half of the available space. Plus there has to be room for a memory card. A micro SD card would do the trick, without occupying too much space. So anyway the tiny amount of space that's left has to house all of the electronics for the device. This might be a tall order. So, yeah, I can see something like this happpening. cooltouch, It must surely be possible to cram all the essential electronics in a space smaller than today's auxiliary battery attachments. Present point and shoots with all their features are smaller than those battery compartments. Mickey |
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jun 10, 2015 15:04:51 GMT -5
I agree with Mickey. I'm sure it is very possible to mount all the electronics in the cassette. I don't think that is a real issue. The cassette could have a simple lcd screen which can be visible through the window in some cameras.
There must be other technical issues other than the ones you mentioned which make making this adaptor difficult for everyone that's ever tried to build one. Another solution would be interchangeable back variations. Cameras with that facility tend to be pro type anyway, so an interchangeable back with it all in would be simple, and you could have a viewing screen on it too. Pricey though.
|
|
|
|
Post by cooltouch on Jun 12, 2015 10:42:59 GMT -5
Yes, pricey and such a system would be limited to a fairly narrow selection of cameras. Which is why I would prefer something self-contained that could be inserted into most any SLR's film chamber.
As for other technical issues, well, not being an engineer who could design something like this, I can only hazard a guess as to where problems may lie. And I've pointed out those areas where possible problems might be evident, but ways around them that I can envision. I think that people who've tried to design something like this in the past have tried to assign too much control to the digital module, when the primary controls should be left up to the camera. The digital module would behave much like film would. You set the ISO on the cassette to agree with that set on the camera (no dx coding because it has variable ISO capability). Switch it on and it becomes active. Insert it into the camera. When the door is closed, it resets and advances to the "next" frame. From then on until the session concludes, when the shutter is tripped, the sensor records the image, and after the shutter closes, the sensor resets and is ready for the next "frame." Since it will still be in Active mode when the session is finished, opening the back will cause the module to record another image. So, when downloading the images from the module's micro-USB card, or via the mini-USB cord, the first and last "images" will be wasted shots, since they occurred when the module was being inserted and removed, so they're tossed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Jun 13, 2015 16:57:02 GMT -5
I've got a 570 and a 700 both in the original box that I've never used.
|
|
