A few years back following one of the big shows you were reporting on, you mentioned and perhaps had a photo of a digital sensor that was in a thing that looked like a 35mm film cannister and would be able to be used in any SLR. It wasn't in production at that time but was supposed to be introduced in a few months.

Do you know if anyone is working on anything like that any more? It still seems like that or a digital back for SLRs would be a good idea.

This one? http://www.siliconfilm.com/default.htm

Think it's still pretty much "vaporware" at this point though.

A few years back following one of the big shows you were reporting on, you mentioned and perhaps had a photo of a digital sensor that was in a thing that looked like a 35mm film cannister and would be able to be used in any SLR. It wasn't in production at that time but was supposed to be introduced in a few months.

Do you know if anyone is working on anything like that any more? It still seems like that or a digital back for SLRs would be a good idea.

This comes up every once and a while. For many years, Silicon Film advertised products they didn't have and showed off non-working prototypes. They never actually had a working product you could buy. Worse yet, even their make-believe specs couldn't keep up with existing technology.

Besides, this is a terrible idea. First, there just isn't a lot of room inside a standard SLR. You would never be able to use memory cards for storage, for example. The electronics alone wouldn't fit.

Second, almost all 35mm cameras were never designed for removable backs, a much better solution than "a drop in 35mm cartridge". This makes working with them almost impossible. The modifications alone would cost a fortune and the result would be heavy and kludgy. Medium format cameras have digital backs that work extremely well because these cameras were designed to accept different backs.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the real investment is in the lenses, not the bodies. Current DSLRs, other than Olympus, allow you to preserve that investment. The cost of retrofitting some odd monstrosity to a film camera is silly when perfectly good high quality DSLRs are out there.

Save up your pennies!

This one? http://www.siliconfilm.com/default.htm

Think it's still pretty much "vaporware" at this point though.

The site has the same glossy PDF that has been on their site for years!

They stress the use of both film and digital. That's silly, almost everyone who goes digital never looks back. Oh well, at least it illustrates the ravages of having more enthusiasm than common sense.

IMO right on all counts, Michael...

Also, I find the "selling point" of being to remove the digital insert so you can shoot digital and film with the same camera body laughable. Like that would be a big plus. NOT!

Most pros and serious amateurs like having two (or more) bodies to use at the SAME TIME, whether it be for different lenses, different ISOs (in the case of film), or flash and non-flash setups.

Having to switch back and forth, even if it was possible, to me would be a major hassle, and not really worth it...