Crazy Cool Custom Cam: Sony Digital Camera Mounted in Leica III Clone Body (Zorki)


Finally a good use for the Zorki :D
Even has built–in flash! His workmanship is very good, impressive.
 

$(KGrHqV,!oEE63WY-o7sBPDonmr0Wg~~60_1.JPG


I should have just posted the image.

Makes me want to try building one!
 

crispy12 said:
Finally a good use for the Zorki :D
Click to expand...

Hey! Be kind to the Zorki. They're great fun and awesome conversation pieces.

My girlfriend thinks they make a great prop for her to hold during photos shoots. I have to admit... girls with vintage cameras are sexy!
 

most digital users don't really appreciate the historical value and beauty of these stuffs, it's just cheap gear that you can buy again when broken...

Camera Mashup - Sonikon NikkorNex - vintage digital conversion - Photo.net Mirrorless Digital Cameras Forum
Clever Canon AE-1 Program Digital Mod
Russian Leica Clone Hacked to Shoot Digital Photos

not to mention those lenses whose aperture lever get decapitated so they can fit dslr without hitting the mirror, sigh...

from what I see it's really pathetic for digital users who keep wanting to emulate film camera's appearance and output: om-d, x100, instagram

they can simply shoot film instead
 

oceanpriest said:
from what I see it's really pathetic for digital users who keep wanting to emulate film camera's appearance and output: om-d, x100, instagram

they can simply shoot film instead
Click to expand...

"Simple" and "film" don't really go together.

The time, effort and expenses of creating a fine print from film vs. digital is much higher.

There is still some film style you can't match with digital, but for 90% of photography, it's just more efficient.
 

jfxberns said:
"Simple" and "film" don't really go together.

The time, effort and expenses of creating a fine print from film vs. digital is much higher.

There is still some film style you can't match with digital, but for 90% of photography, it's just more efficient.
Click to expand...

have to disagree with you, film and simple can go together, you just shoot and leave the rest to good lab, how simpler can digital be?

ah, I hate those random figures, where's those 90% come from? any fact sheet?

for amateur, let's don't talk about time/effort/expense, it's a hobby afterall

now with express minilab, you can develop and scan for 30 mins, most of color correction already done by the lab. while digital users keeps postponing to PP their hundred of pics and deleting those blur/oof/misexposure pics, cause they feel lazy doing the same thing over and over again.

only pros who race with time need digital IMHO
 

jfxberns said:
"Simple" and "film" don't really go together.

The time, effort and expenses of creating a fine print from film vs. digital is much higher.

There is still some film style you can't match with digital, but for 90% of photography, it's just more efficient.
Click to expand...

Digital is just too easy to create and very convenient to delete.

I was deleting the pics in my iPhone and my daughter asked "are the photos gone forever?", I said yeah. And she said "we can keep our films, right? How long can we keep them?", I said for decades. And she said "ok, I'll print and hang them up after you pass away next time". That made my day :)
 

It's not an epic battle.

Digital is good.

Film is good.

I've shot stuff on film that should be deleted.

I've shot stuff on film that I wish was backed up.

I have digital images that are a waste of the cheapest disk space.

I have digital images that deserves to be made incarnate. Forever.

Thank God we have all these options available to us.
 

haha this has become a film vs digital debate
both are just tools, don't blame the camera or the medium, it's the photographer that makes the images. we can always choose what we want to shoot, the quality control is up to us.
 

crispy12 said:
haha this has become a film vs digital debate
both are just tools, don't blame the camera or the medium, it's the photographer that makes the images. we can always choose what we want to shoot, the quality control is up to us.
Click to expand...



I agree. Film/Digital, all the same to me. Both have their camps, both have their pros & cons but both have the ability to take beautiful pictures
 

Yar lor true, both can take picture...

but I notice one camp has been wishing the other camp to die, and keeps telling myth the other camp is not efficient and can't do certain thing... this is unhealthy...
 

Film vs. Digital

digital is medium, film is also medium, digital is not better or worse than film, they're just different
 

i sense a bit of deja vu. hasn't this topic been debated for the umpteenth time?
 

jfxberns said:
I know. Why bother. It like religion. The faithful won't change.
Click to expand...

haha not really quite religious, at least for me, lest I get labelled a heretic straddling both camps :eek:;p
 

you don't compare roti prata with murtabak

or chay kway Tiao with hokkien mee.. they r just diff.

:) :)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top