Vintage Digital Camera....?

[MissHannah]

Those Leica M9s and X1s are so beautiful it hurts. *sighs*
I am pretty happy with my Nikon D70 but it looks like a right modern beast and ruins my whole aesthetic!

 

[kpreed]

So sepia is the photo aging, really? Does that mean that a B&W photo from, say, 1910 would have looked the same as a late Sixties B&W image originally?

This is not always so true, a photo can become sepia, but it must have the right conditions first, I have some 150 years old photos that did not turn (yet). As for the wixipedia explanation, it is how to chemically make a sepia, like we learned in class. Now I do it on my computer if needed.

 

[Badluck Brody]

That's a shame, thanks for letting us know, though.




Ohhhh...... Now, if only someone was to do a dieselpunk version of the second one, and make it available for sale.... the idea of a cover I can put over my existing camera is perfect!

I agree!

That was my thought exactly! I have a couple originals that I have been planning to convert using a digital point and shoot.... The problem is, I'm just spoiled with my digital SLRs... But idea is to have the vintage look without bringing out my full blown Nikon during an event.

Oh well...Thanks again you guys for the advice!

 

[Warbaby]

I've been planning to build a digital camera into a vintage body - just a matter of finding the right body for the project.

In the meantime, I found a nifty retro leather case for my Canon G10 from an eBay seller in China for under ten bucks. I think it works well with the G10 because its relatively large size is closer to that of vintage cameras. Next step is to make a matching leather strap to replace the nylon one. Several Chinese sellers offer these cases for popular digital cameras and they're usually available in tan, black, and a burgundy like the old Leica cases. The quality is surprisingly good with solid brass snaps and bottom screw.

 

[Argee]

OK, thanks to this discussion I've decided to finally tackle the vintage digital conversion project. I've decided to go with a Kodak Duaflex IV (made from '55-'60). Wish me luck. If I succeed this will be a prototype since I'm using an older 4 megapixel Canon for the digital donor, and I'd prefer more resolution than that.

 

[Chainsaw]

Any more word on that? That sounds like it could be very promising...



Sorry Edward haven"t been able to find it, but essentially the person took the guts out of one of those accordion 4x5's and used took apart a cheap point and shoot digital and made it work somehow. I was sure it was an FL thread, but I can't seem to find it.

Anyway, cheers my friend

 

[MissHannah]

In the meantime, I found a nifty retro leather case for my Canon G10 from an eBay seller in China for under ten bucks. I think it works well with the G10 because its relatively large size is closer to that of vintage cameras. Next step is to make a matching leather strap to replace the nylon one. Several Chinese sellers offer these cases for popular digital cameras and they're usually available in tan, black, and a burgundy like the old Leica cases. The quality is surprisingly good with solid brass snaps and bottom screw.

What search terms did you use to find that? I'd love to get one for my nikon.

 

[MissHannah]

Scratch that - I've found them under my own steam! they don't make them for SLRs sadly, although I'm not surprised.

 

[shortbow]

I've just ordered a Samsung NV10 that to my eye has a bit of that vintage Leica-ish vibe. Black metal body, 10 mp, 3x optical zoom Schneider-Kreuznach lens. Can't post a pic cause I don't have it yet.

Google it though if you wish, it might appeal. Lots cheaper than some of the look-alikes.

 

[Bustercat]

I'd love to see your results transplanting digital guts into an old case, especially if you can do it nondestructively.

What I would love to see more of is digi camera design that takes inspiration from old materials, lines, and typography. Rather than a modern device designed to look hand cranked, something that looks like what a 40s camera designer would have made with digital technology. Sort of like what crosely does, but more successful.

 

[Argee]

The problem with the transplant is extending the wires between the components. My donor Canon has proved not particularly suited for that, as I don't have a way to extend that kind of tiny specialized ribbon cable at the moment. More research is required.

 

[MissHannah]

Fuji have just brought out this beauty:

It's called the FinePix X100

 

[Warbaby]

Fuji have just brought out this beauty:

It's called the FinePix X100

Oohh...I want one! The only thing stopping me is the price and the fact that the lens is the equivalent of a 35mm on a film camera. I don't care much for w/a lenses. In the old days when I was shooting with Nikons and Olympus OM-1s, what I considered my 'normal' lens was an 85mm. Still, if I had a spare $1000 I'd prolly buy one anyway. Until then, I'm really happy with my Canon G10.

 

[Lexybeast]

That Fuji looks really promising. Putting an APS-C size sensor in a body that size is nice too. Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[3PcSuit]

It's pretty amazing to me the effort people on here are going through just to avoid the "hassle" of throwing a roll of film in a box, coming back at the end of work, the next time you drive out that way.

Not that developing film is everyone's thing, but even real B&W film you can probably bribe a college kid $5 to process, print.



I suppose it does depend on infrastructure. I'm near a city with alright lab infrastructure. If you're in the country or middle of nowhere maybe it's harder to find local processing.

Then again, it's easy enough to put something in a mailbox and have it back in under a week. . .



Also, unless it's already broken, I don't really condone taking a perfectly good camera, film or digital, and Jerry rigging it to run inside the guts of another lobotomized instrument.

As for needing something "Cheap" "easy" for taking snapshots of friends, why would taking pictures of one's own family come with a lower level of desired qulity than other pictures? Why is throwing a disposable or a roll in a slot in the wall not easy?



I just never would have put fellow lounge members in the group who doesn't know how to do anything without a computer screen in front of them, or not want to leave the house, pick up a telephone because it doesn't involve a DSL line!

And it's funny with the extremes members go to be 100% vintage, authentic, how they're willing to bypass walking into a camera store, but would 't be caught dead with polyester, non-vintage socks an d spats!

 

[W-D Forties]

We do re-enactment as a family and I always take my vintage Brownie with me. I have taken the guts out of it and use it as a box to store my digital camera in. Not terribly vintage, I know, but it's a useful way of carrying the camera around and not ruining the illusion (until I actually serrupticiously use the thing that is!)

 

[Edward]

I suppose it depends on what you want out of "vintage". For me, it's something I am very happy to incorporate into my life, something of a lifestyle, really, but I have no interest is actually living in the past. I live in the Twenty-first century, and I'm more than happy to take its advantages. Film just isn't convenient - aside from the hassle of having stuff printed, then being able to share it (my digital shots are readily available to share with friends; my prints are..... in a box..... somewhere....), there's the sheer cost of developing. I simply wouldn't be able to take more than a tiny fraction of the shots I do if I had to pay to have them developed. [huh]

It's pretty amazing to me the effort people on here are going through just to avoid the "hassle" of throwing a roll of film in a box, coming back at the end of work, the next time you drive out that way.

Not that developing film is everyone's thing, but even real B&W film you can probably bribe a college kid $5 to process, print.



I suppose it does depend on infrastructure. I'm near a city with alright lab infrastructure. If you're in the country or middle of nowhere maybe it's harder to find local processing.

Then again, it's easy enough to put something in a mailbox and have it back in under a week. . .



Also, unless it's already broken, I don't really condone taking a perfectly good camera, film or digital, and Jerry rigging it to run inside the guts of another lobotomized instrument.

As for needing something "Cheap" "easy" for taking snapshots of friends, why would taking pictures of one's own family come with a lower level of desired qulity than other pictures? Why is throwing a disposable or a roll in a slot in the wall not easy?



I just never would have put fellow lounge members in the group who doesn't know how to do anything without a computer screen in front of them, or not want to leave the house, pick up a telephone because it doesn't involve a DSL line!

And it's funny with the extremes members go to be 100% vintage, authentic, how they're willing to bypass walking into a camera store, but would 't be caught dead with polyester, non-vintage socks an d spats!

 

[Warbaby]

I have vintage film cameras that I've used in the past and still use now and then. I also have digital cameras, a Macbook Pro and Photoshop. All cool, useful tools.

But what I really want is vintage style and modern technology in the same box.

And I want a pony.

 

[lolly_loisides]

I want a pony too. I wonder if they sell digital ones?

 

[3PcSuit]

What lolly_loisides said [huh]

It's too bad some of you with brownies are in the UK, or I'd throw a roll of 120 in the mail for you. I'm around so much film I guess I do kind of take the more obscure (non-35mm) varieties for granted.

@Edward I can't say I'm objective and unbiased, but what's so hard about a one-hour photo? You still pump petrol in your car, right? Still have a mailbox? Still shop for groceries?

The fact that getting a roll of film done can be neatly dovetailed to correspond with one or more of these other activities makes its degree of difficulty rather minimal.


I'm not advocating you doing your processing, printing yourself, just IDK, waiting between 45 min. and 24 hours between taking pictures and then putting them up on your live twitter feed. Check the "process and scan to CD" box.

I will admit that doing real B&W is not as seamless and easy unless you have a custom lab or a photography dept. nearby.


And, as far as "21st Century" goes? Digital is just as last millennium as film is. The disposable camera and the current line of color films are newer than the CMOS or CCD sensors. You sound like those prosecutors in the UK that were gleefully prosecuting traders for sellilng bananas in pounds instead of kg. They talk about the "21st century" too, casting aside a system from the 19th century (Imperial) in favor of one from the *18th* century (metric). I'd say a hereditary House of Lords that still has modern legal powers would be higher up on your list of "archaics" than st., lb., oz. or pesky 35mm film. Sorry if I am coming off too strong. It rubs me the wrong way when what I work with is likened to blacksmithing or living 100 years ago.

I will give you credit for not saying anything about "Camera phone" though!