A 20MP Sensor in a Film Canister Reinvigorates Vintage Analog Cameras | Hacker News Reader

A 20MP Sensor in a Film Canister Reinvigorates Vintage Analog Cameras

petapixel.com

127 pointsmikece63 comments

"The I’m Back Film’s 20-megapixel Four-Thirds sensor can work alongside a wide-angle adapter to ensure the smaller-than-full-frame sensor covers a whole 35mm-format image area. Or users can take advantage of the crop factor enabled by a Micro Four Thirds sensor (2x crop factor compared to a full-frame image sensor).

As for why I’m Back Film uses a Micro Four Thirds sensor instead of a full-frame sensor, the team behind the product says it comes down to cost. A Four-Thirds sensor offers “excellent image quality at a more affordable cost compared to a full-frame sensor.” Further, as mentioned, when combined with a wide-angle lens filter, users can achieve the same field of view on their lens as they would have when using a 35mm camera sensor."

As someone with a bunch of 35mm equipment, this concept is appealing to me, but why not also offer a full-sized sensor at a higher cost for those who want one? This product will always cripple the camera so it's no longer WYSIWYG. The viewfinder will no longer represent what the photo will look like, even with the "wide-angle lens filter" attached. Yeah, when you add their magnifier (what it should have been called) the CCD sensor will "see" the same area that normal 35mm film would see without it, but the photographer will continue to see a larger viewfinder frame than the CCD will see. This makes it a non-starter for me.

Does anybody know of a similar product with a full-size 35mm sensor?

No way to overlay crop lines on a viewfinder?

Not without modifying the camera. The traditional 35mm camera has a mirror and prism so the viewfinder sees what the film will see. The crop lines would need to be added somewhere in the mirror/prism/viewer path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera

You could etch/overlay them onto the lens of the view finder itself. similar to the cross hairs on a telescope eyepiece

Good film* cameras had interchangable viewfinder/focus-aids that are just an etched piece of glass in the viewfinder optical path. You'd ideally want to etch crop lines onto one of those.

* And digital SLRs, most of the higher end Canon and Nikon dSLRs can take a replacement viewfinder glass that adds a manual focusing ring or suchlike, they're usually cheap about £30 last I checked (pre-covid), but fiddly to install.

> this concept is appealing to me, but why not also offer a full-sized sensor at a higher cost for those who want one?

I'm seriously baffled by the decision as well. full frame is a highly sought after feature in higher end cameras. I myself chose a z5 over the zfc because of full frame.

That said, the new nikon Zf blows this out of the water if you want a high end sensor paired with the retro aesthetic.

I like the Df better than the Zf. That aside, there's a certain satisfying feeling with using the film advance lever and the other mechanical sounds that it's hard to replicate with digital.

The DF image quality rocks. I have one and my only nicks on it are the sub optimal focusing speed / accuracy especially in poor lighting and the max shutter speed of 1/4000. The latter not being a problem unless you like shooting wide open outside in daylight, which I do.

I would consider the Zf if they release a silver version.

The only full-frame image sensor I'm aware of that you can buy in small quantities off Mouser and the likes are the CMV20000 CMV50000 (20 and 47.5 mpix) costing $2000-$4500 per sensor. Last I checked APS-C and especially M43 sensors were 1/4 to 1/10 the price.

So imo it boils down to price.

If I had $1M to burn, I'd love to make the same product in full-frame - with Leica-style microprisms so that it would work well with range-finders. Maybe now that film is getting really pricey, maybe there's more of a niche to use old cameras with digital sensors.

You can buy a FF sensor in quantities as small as 1 for less than that per unit, but it will inconveniently have the rest of the camera around it. /s

You can buy full camera for the prices GP listed. Something seems off

I looked up the part numbers. The 47mp one apparently does 30fps at 7900x6000px, with a global shutter.

it's more made for machines than photos.

... when you buy in quantities of 1,000s is my point.

Supposedly the company already made a full-frame version, but it's a lot clunkier than the newer m43 offering: https://imback.eu/home/35mm/

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/524587-digital-back-for-3...

Also discussed here in the comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37796836

First, this is a cool project and I'm glad they're doing it, for the people who want this thing.

However, I see it as combining the main downsides of film and digital. The reason most people shoot film these days is the look that film gives the image which digital just can't seem to reproduce. People shoot modern digital cameras primarily because of the huge amount of features and improvements over film cameras. This gives you neither.

The main reason I can see for someone to want one of these is that you really want to shoot using a film body but you don't want to pay for or deal with the hassle of film. I wonder how many people that's actually going to end up being when this ships.

So this is just me, I don’t speak for all film shooters.

I actually really prefer the interface of a film camera. It’s hard to explain, but I feel like there’s an additional layer of abstraction between me and the final image. I spend less time thinking about the camera and more time thinking about the photograph.

But I don’t see myself spending $650 on a m4/3 sensor to digitize that process. If I wanted a new digital camera with a similar experience I’d rather put that money towards a film-like digital, e.g. a Fuji XPro3.

Sony user here, but my understanding is that Fujifilm cameras have a much more analog look & feel. I had someone ask me to take a photo for them in the spring on one, and there were the typical film knobs and a feeling of solidity I'd quite forgotten in cameras. It sounds silly, but pressing the button felt like such a clear solid action, had such great feel.

Yup! I have an X-E1 and I love it to death, but it’s quite long in the tooth these days. I’d love to get a modern X100 or Xpro but Fuji is still recovering from supply chain issues and prices are through the roof.

No shade re Sony’s mirrorless cameras, btw. Great cameras.

I’m pragmatic about what I shoot and, honestly, the number one reason why I pick up a mirrorless instead of my rangefinder is because I often don’t want to spend my weekend processing and scanning 10+ rolls of film. :-)

Got a second-hand X100T, it was fairly cheap and it’s a great camera (https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0v55Z2WMHbI4K), can recommend.

I shoot an X-Pro3 for similar reasons. I still have my previous camera, an X-E2.

The “older” Fujifilm bodies can be had for quite little money, relatively speaking.

check out the new nikon zf, unlike the fijifilm retros, The zf has a full frame sensor and can hold its own with any of nikon's other professional cameras.

I don't shoot film anymore because there's gelatin in the film and I don't care for that one bit.

At a certain level of hobby, the aesthetics are personal preference and it more becomes ergonomics and - very important - lenses! A lot of old glass is on mounts that are a pain (or impossible) to mount on most cameras.

So this can let you use cameras and lenses you assumed were done for good, if you got off the film train.

PS: I'm also not sure why the image would be that bad? M4/3 is a wonderful sensor that caught gorgeous images. With old glass that has character, it could be real neat!

I have several old lenses that are much easier to shoot on digital because they have a flange distance too short for an SLR (e.g. industar 69).

Why do people still play around with C64, Amiga500, Apple IIe, '69 Mustangs, or anything retro? Just because they want to and can.

Some people have plenty of time and money and do things they find interesting even if you don't.

During the transition from film digital, there were "digital backs" for some specific models.

That this 35mm roll form factor works with any camera is neat.

A different idea to keep in mind is that a lot of the value in a camera system is not from the body, but from the lenses. Nikon DSLRs will take old film-era Nikkor lenses, and there are also various adapters for using older lenses on modern DSLRs. There also at least used to be a cottage industry of modifying some old lenses that couldn't be used as well with adapters (such as if the adapter introduced too much distance between rear element and sensor, or if there was a protruding motor shaft).

There's value in the body as well, at least from some bodies the exposure level and auto focus options.

However, $600 USD for a 20MP? That had better be a high quality sensor...

I'd like to echo that Micro 4/3 sensor just makes this really not that useful imo unless it's for toying around, but then you might as well get an older M43 or Fuji digital camera.

M43's crop factor changes the field of view and thus the lenses character. Which imo is the main reason to shoot older cameras - the lenses. Along with the qualities of the film itself. It undoes both imo.

I'd love to test something like this. It doesn't matter if the end result or the experience are not that great compared to using film or a purpose built digital camera.

The idea of manually replacing physical film with a sensor that fits inside that footprint is just so damn cool that it's entertainment on its own.

It would be interesting to see what digital photos would look like if it was nothing but you and the subject and the lens, with no intermediate processing. Without Samsung drawing a fake moon and whatnot.

DSLR and mirrorless do mostly that. The RAW file stores the number of photons that hit each photodiode. It’s phones that take these liberties.

Samsung and Google in particular are not concerned with capturing the moment as it were, if you can even say such a thing, but an idealized (and pasteurized, perhaps) version of it.

The thing is, it’s often what most people want. I think there’s no turning back.

If you saw the raw image from a phone sensor, you'd understand why you'd want ML moon enhancement.

It's very difficult to photograph the moon with a small sensor. It's not true they're trying to "idealize" your photos; they're trying to make it look like something at all.

This might be interesting to you - https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/105272/79282

I actually want the opposite of this.

Modern lenses, autofocus / manual focus with peaking and an electronic viewfinder with medium format film back.

All in a x100v or Leica M form factor.

Lol, how about some unicorn pizza while you wait?

So… basically a Fujifilm GFX?

I remember about 15 years ago there was a very convincing april fools called "Re-36" about this exact digital film concept, with website and fancy product pictures and all. Strange that I can't find any mention of it on google now. Does anyone remember this? Perhaps I remembered the name wrong?

Edit: found it! It's called RE 35: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popphoto.com/news/2011/04/r...

The website itself. It's quite amusing it mostly came true!

https://web.archive.org/web/20110413220031/http://www.re35.n...

When the transition to digital was starting I was relatively young, and idly thought "Surely someone bould put a digital sensor into a film form factor to convert cameras.

Lo and behold, a few decades later someone's done it!

Do you desire a full-frame image or a full-frame sensor? Because if your goal is to achieve a full-frame image, then with our product, even though we use Micro 4/3, you'll have the opportunity to capture a full-frame image by utilizing our wide-angle filter. I hope you can understand that the reason we didn't opt for a full-frame sensor was solely due to the exorbitantly high cost factor! Thank you.

I’m Back team

After hunting around for some footage of it in action, it looks like you're going to end up with lots of improperly exposed images and a clunky UI. It is going to be far more practical to simply buy a Sony A7 type mirrorless body and some lens adapters to shoot with histogram view, for 35mm at least. Digital medium format back is another story entirely perhaps more suited to this scenario.

The precision to align the sensor doesn’t appear to be present. In any case, the camera body isn’t where the magic is, and old lenses can be fitted to new bodies in a crazy number of permutations these days. I only today picked up a Contax Zeiss 300 f4. It fits on my Canon now. I love my Contax but the cost of this sensor this would likely pay for a lot of film and processing. Let’s see when it launches.

I remember sketching out the idea for something like this when digital cameras came out in the 90s. I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to do it, seems like it would've made more sense back when everyone had film cameras. I always assumed there was some technical barrier I wasn't aware of.

They've been around for a very long time for medium and large format cameras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back

This product definitely looks like it would be challenging to design an manufacture. Without having seen this post, I wouldn't have imagined it would be possible to fit a sensor and associated electronics in the small space meant for film!

My first question was... dust!

Film always presented a new frame from the canister, so reasonably it would be free of dust for capture.

With such open sensor the dust accumulation may soon become an issue.

There was one in '99 - $800 for a whopping 1.2 MP image [1]. It did not do well [2], although to be fair there were a number of issues with that implementation:

> The lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around, especially considering that this had to work in more than one model of camera. And that made the large assumption that many modern photographers would be willing to live without a rear LCD to check their images.

[1] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3149799436/siliconfilm [2] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4804601936/faded-dream-blo...

This is not a new idea. I saw it in the 90s. But obviously, sensors have become infinitely better since then.

Do you want a full-frame image or a full-frame sensor? Because if your desire is to have a full-frame image, then with our product, despite using Micro 4/3, you'll have the opportunity to achieve a full-frame image using our filter. I hops can understand this.

Thank you.

I’m Back team

I was able to buy a barely used Sony a7ii for around $650 which sports a full frame sensor. Adapters and vintage lenses are cheap and I'm able to use some pretty interesting lenses with it.

Maybe the main selling point is that you'll look like you're using film?

I think they are missing something about their target market. They say they went with micro 4/3 because of cost, but camera enthusiasts would happily pay a premium for a full-frame sensor. I know I would, at least.

I would absolutely love this because I could use the camera that my father used to take all of my baby photos to take photos of my own kids. I would unironically pay $2000 for it in full frame

Its micro four thirds so its a major crop of the 35mm frame. A normal lens will have the image angle of a telephoto. Its cool that they actually have it working though.

This is a big problem because there aren’t many ultrawide lenses for older cameras and those that exist are often slow, bulky, expensive and have mediocre rendition.

It's full 35mm. The sensor isn't directly exposed to the light from the lens. They've got a projector screen + periscope configuration going on.

https://petapixel.com/2023/10/06/a-20mp-sensor-in-a-film-can...

Not sure how I feel about this configuration, I'd like to know more about the amount of light lost with this set up, image distortion, etc.

Took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. So, the article mentions an older product by the same people that used your "periscope" arrangement, but THIS product is a m4/3 sensor hanging off the end of a ribbon.

I provided the wrong link before. Here is the one I meant to share:

https://imback.eu/home/new-model/

But, yeah, I missed that it's a new version of the Back35.

Side note, their website is terrible.

I remember some prototypes of that same packaging many, many years ago. Cool to see someone finally "bring it to market".

there's been a number of these through out the years.

the first one I saw was in the late 90s

https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/prototypes-rarities/ca...

Intriguing idea, and something I might consider. Once it is shipping, and not just a marketing announcement.

Pretty sure I read about a similar product 10-15 years ago? Final a non-vaporware product?

If we saw the same one, it was originally an April Fools prank. That’s a shame, because it was a beautiful page and product design - probably because it wasn’t constrained by physics ;p

Where can I buy one of these

Sad to see all the the usual anti-MFT FUD in the comments here

Reply on news.ycombinator.com