[jeswin]

This is a somewhat overcrowded area of experimentation. In fact there's even an article written about it - "Stop Trying To Turn Film Cameras Into Digital Cameras" [1]

The real problem is that sensors available to hobbyists are quite low-end. They can just make bad digital pics; losing both the magic of film and the fidelity of digital. Old film lenses are only usable if you get a crop factor of 2x (m4/3 size) or less, so that you can use a 40mm (as found in many inexpensive rangefinders such as the Electro 35) as an 80mm - not great for typical use but usable.

I am actually quite surprised why in all these years, no one has made somewhat affordable ($100-400) larger sensors available for the hobbyist market. Given that there are a couple of small Chinese manufacturers making m4/3 bodies, it's surprising that no one is servicing this small (but not necessarily unviable) market. More likely is the availability of a 1" sensor at a much lower cost since ~1" sensors have started appearing on phones. That'd make a wide 24mm lens a 65mm normal lens. That would be on the far end of usable, but anything smaller is just a stale experiment for the wider audience. But of course - any experiment can be quite rewarding for whoever is doing it.

[1]: https://casualphotophile.com/2022/05/19/digi-swap-im-back-re...

[mk_stjames]

I have taken up a tangential small photo hobby that has similar fun but avoids the problem you mention- Instead of adapting old cameras to cheap sensors, I adapt old lenses to modern digital backs.

I've been using a resin printer to print adapter rings to go from various old lenses salvaged from a box of thrift store 1960's East German cameras to adapt their lenses (many times they were non-removable lenses too, so not always easy) to an EOS ring to be able to shoot with them with a modern sensor.

Sometimes the results are wonderful. You get the old aberration, soft focus, bit of distortion when I don't get things aligned right.. it's fun and I'm not ruining anything of value really.

[Eisenstein]

> I am actually quite surprised why in all these years, no one has made somewhat affordable ($100-400) larger sensors available for the hobbyist market.

Pretty simple answer: only one company makes good CMOS sensors -- Sony.

And they don't give a shit about hobbyists and can sell as many sensors as they can roll of the line as it is.

[bravura]

Can someone explain in detail how the hybridization of analog and digital occurs? Where and why?

I, for example, would love to mod a Hasselblad medium format cameras so that it could digitally adjust light etc so I could use it as a point and shoot, but with beautiful quality output.

But your linked output discusses getting worse quality photos through the addition of digital sensors. Why?

[RobotToaster]

You shoot medium format because it makes better images, because the "sensor" is bigger than 35mm.

Imagine running 110 film through a hassy, it would look crap, and only capture a tiny window of what you normally do, because the "sensor" is tiny.

That's basically the problem, the sensor size of hobbyist camera modules is tiny, even smaller than 110 film.

They do make medium format digital backs, but they are expensive, even by hasselblad standards.

[KaiserPro]

Hasselblads have digital backs for them. The problems is that they cost boat load of cash.

The problem is that a raw CCD/CMOS sensor output generally looks shite. I work at a place that experiments with novel sensors, and we have a device that uses off the shelf CMOS sensors for redacted camera sensors. They are the same type of sensors that are used in previous high end phones. However the raw images just look shit. Part of it is the lens, part of it is that we are not interested in making "good" looking images, but accurate images.

[JKCalhoun]

> would love to mod a Hasselblad medium format cameras so that it could digitally adjust light etc so I could use it as a point and shoot, but with beautiful quality output.

Maybe you just need a modern digital light meter for your Hasselblad? I've added something like one of these to a Yashica with good results:

https://www.serge.photography/blog/review-ttartisan-meter

[numpad0]

Those who goes all the way through that ambition ends up with a potato sensor, those who don't make that compromise either end up with a halfway destroyed camera, or find upside in the reward points on the $5k purchase made after impulsive considerations.

[JKCalhoun]

I had wondered if CCDs meant for astrophotography would work as a camera back. I actually prefer that there be no Bayer filter, etc.

I believe they are not keeping pace with regard to resolutions we expect these days? Perhaps a small sensor as well. I don't know since I have not investigated in the past decade.

[dylan604]

CCDs are B&W, so you'd need 3 of them if you don't want a Bayer filter. i'm suddenly having flashbacks to the 90s with 3-chip cameras <shudder>

[JKCalhoun]

A B&W camera back would be awesome though. I'm want a poor-man's Leica M (a truly monochromatic digital camera).

[rotifer]

There is also the recently announced Pentax K-3 III Monochrome [1], but it's a DSLR not a rangefinder. At $2200 I don't know if you'd consider it a "poor man's" camera, but it's certainly cheaper than the Leica.

[1] https://petapixel.com/2023/04/12/pentax-unveils-k-3-iii-mono...

[JKCalhoun]

Holy Christ, that looks awesome. $2200 is not for the poor man, but I'm definitely going to think about that one.

[numpad0]

Apparently it isn't impossible to place CMOS under laser etcher to destroy Bayer color filters, causing it to become a panchromatic CMOS sensor(?)[0].

Or I think one could argue that Foveon X3 sensors are monochromatic... "More like YCbCr" or something.

1: https://hackaday.com/2021/08/09/using-a-laser-to-blast-away-...