Converting film cameras to digital: EFS-1 The technology that almost was (updated)

digital-film-efs-1

[W]hen I bought my Nikon SLR a while ago (in the ear of Dinosaurs), I always thought it would be cool if you could put in a digital sensor in as a film. Little did I know that a company called “Silcon Film” worked on exactly that technology.

Improving on Digital Backs
Thinking about it, the biggest difference between a Digital Camera and a Film camera is simply the capturing method. One is a photosensitive film, the other a photosensitive sensor. In the early days of Digital, companies like Kodak made Digital backs to popular cameras like the Nikon N90s:

Click for Source
Click for Image Source

Quite the bulk, no? Medium Format users knows what digital backs are, as the back of many medium format cameras like Mamiya can be removed to put in something else.

silicon-film-EFS1

 

In 2001 when Silicon Film introduced the EFS-1 the technology was amazing: A digital film that can go inside a film camera. It was not a digital back like the Kodak’s or Mamiya’s but a film replacement. It would require no modification to the original camera and you could use either film or digital as you please.
EFS-1 How it works

silicon-film

The system had 3 parts: The eFilm, the ebox and the eport. You could slide the eFilm into the ePort to plug into your computer or you could slide them into the eBox to offload the images to a CF card. Everything could be neatly stacked like so:

Silicon-Film-closed 

It’s sexy if you ask me. But unfortunately the specs were really low in modern terms.

EFS-1 Specs

silicon-film-3

The EFS-1 could create 1.3 Megapixel images, could only save 24 images (64mb memory) and was only compatible with a few cameras: Canon’s EOS 1N and EOS A2/5 and Nikon’s F5, F3, and N90/F90. Image wise, here’s a sample:

SIlicon-film-sample

Heh. Not bad at all if you can forget the cheesy pose and lighting. The digital film was not fullframe, it was slightly smaller than APSC occupying 30% of the frame, and the crop factor was 2.58x.

It never made it to market
When Silicon Film Technologies filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Sept of 2001 EFS-1 was probably 3 months (my estimate, our management was saying 2 months) from reaching the market place. Jon Stern – Senior Engineer, Silicon Film Technologies

The enthusiasm was there, but Silicon film pulled the plug on the project months before coming to market. From the class action suit you can read the issues facing the EFS-1:

silicon-film-efs-1-camera

(1) the EFS-1 suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design flaws;

(2) these design problems would prevent the unit from passing the required FCC and CE certifications necessary to publicly release the product;

(3) the current design of the EFS-1 was extremely difficult to produce. Specifically, it took hundreds of engineering hours to produce one unit with a success rate of about one unit in three working; silicon-film-EFS1-sensor

(4) an internal design review was conducted in May, 2001 with all the top officers of SFI, ISC and all of the suppliers for the EFS-1 that were owed millions of dollars. The results of the internal design review were that SFI had a design and parts to produce about 200 units. However, the biggest contract SFI had was for 100 units to a European distributor who would not accept the units since they would not pass CE certification. The web-site sale commitments for domestic sales was for only a few dozen units;

(5) EFS-1 technology presented potential patent conflicts with those already registered by Kodak;

(6) SFI and ISC had scrapped the initial design of the EFS-1 and were scrambling to develop a new prototype; (7) several key employees on the EFS-1 project left SFI further hampering the development process; and (8) William Patton never accepted the position of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SFI. In a nutshell it was not going to work for the time. Plus Silicon Film saw that they needed to create 6 different models to cover most of the cameras available. Everything was looking bad for the EFS-1.

Silicon Film EFS10-SF

SIlicon-film-EFS10-SF SIlicon-film-EFS10-SF

The last ditch effort from the company was the EFS10-SF, this time around it would have 10 megapixel images, it would support CF cards and would “Support most 35mm SLRs”. The product fell into oblivion afterwards and no one ever talked about a device that could fill the promises of the EFS-1. Bummer.

Dreaming of a new EFS-1

silicon_film_efs-1

It might have been bad timing, but I think if this came out today it would be a hit, make sure it’s at least APSC, 12-16 megapixels, lots of storage space, and support most cameras. It would breathe new life in all of the film cameras and make them new again. I want it!!! More seriously tough, we live in the ear of crowd funding, someone needs to Kickstart this, I think it will meet the money in record time. I love film cameras they are simple, and a device like the EPS-1 would let photographers have the best of both worlds.

silicon-film-EFS1-dock

 

I can’t shake my dreams of a Digital Contax G2, this would fulfill it. Plus it would be cool to shoot with one camera, pull out the eFilm, put it in another and resume shooting. This baby needs to be made! Someone please start a Kickstarter or something!

Sources & Further Information

IDE Portfolio page

DPReview Silicon Film page

Imaging Resource page

Dead Media Archive (must read)

Updated: Rebuttal
I lifted the criticism against the EFS-1 from the lawsuit, but the Director of Advanced technologies at Silicon Film at the time, Jon Stern, offered this rebuttal:

1) the EFS-1 suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design flaws

Not true. There were many challenges that others could not forsee ways of over-coming (that included Canon’s engineers when they reviewed the idea back in ~99). However, we had a really talented group of engineers and by a mixture of creative thinking and clever engineering, we managed to over-come all of these “insurmountable” flaws.

Re: 2) these design problems would prevent the unit from passing the required FCC and CE certifications necessary to publicly release the product;

I love how that rumor with a grain of truth became an internet fact.

We did have some issue with some of our FCC pre-screens at one point (anyone who has ever done this kind of work knows how frustrating that process can be). This was when downloading from the (e)port to a PC over USB. We modified some of the filtering on the board, but still we were having intermittent fails. Eventually we found that we only failed when using a USB cable without a ferrite chock. Switching over to shipping that type of cable resolved this issue.

As for CE, the first version of our firmware would have failed CE testing because it didn’t have a safe recovery from a crash (that required removal of the batteries). This was not a fundamental issue though. It just needed some new code that the executive management decided to de-prioritize until after the US launch.

Re: 3) the current design of the EFS-1 was extremely difficult to produce. Specifically, it took hundreds of engineering hours to produce one unit with a success rate of about one unit in three working;

We were hand-building the prototypes without the final mass production tooling and it was slow (I don’t know where hundred of engineering hours comes from!) and we had a low yield. This was of concern to me, but mostly from the perspective of MP schedule and ramp.

Anyone who has been involved in real mass production knows that assembly cycle time and yield go through a steep, early learning curve. There were no fundamental issues with our assembly process, which was a lot simpler than DSLRs of the time.

Re: 4) an internal design review was conducted in May, 2001 with all the top officers of SFI, ISC and all of the suppliers for the EFS-1 that were owed millions of dollars. The results of the internal design review were that SFI had a design and parts to produce about 200 units. However, the biggest contract SFI had was for 100 units to a European distributor who would not accept the units since they would not pass CE certification. The web-site sale commitments for domestic sales was for only a few dozen units.

There’s some fairness in this. We were short of ceramics for the sensor package, but already had prototypes for a lower-cost, more easily sourced design. Supply would have been limited until we could ramp that up fully.

We were not taking orders because we were not ready to ship. Our approach was to slowly ramp, in large part because money was tight in 2001 after the dot com crash. We were running on our cash reserves and pre-MP funding was almost impossible to find in a technology-hostile investment climate. The strategy set out by the executive team was to get to limited, volume mass production and product launch, knowing that raising funding for MP ramp would them be much easier.

Re: 5) EFS-1 technology presented potential patent conflicts with those already registered by Kodak

False. Kodak’s patent had a later filing date than ours, and while it included some claims we didn’t have, they were not useful (we didn’t need to infringe on them).

Incidentally, we had an extremely good relationship with Kodak. In large part thanks to one of our board members, Tom Kelly, having formerly been a senior manager at Kodak (he led the team that developed what was marketed as the “Apple Quicktake”), and our CEO Ken Fey having been responsible for setting up Kodak’s point-and-shoot production in China.

Re: 6) SFI and ISC had scrapped the initial design of the EFS-1 and were scrambling to develop a new prototype

False. The orignal ~3x factor in EFS-1 was known to have limited market appeal. I was already leading the development of the next version to address this and enable a larger market acceptance. We already had functional sensors of a 4MP, ~29mm x 19mm sensor for the next product running in the lab.

I’m laughing at this one because somehow a positive (that we were working on a better gen. 2 product) has been perverted in to us scrapping EFS-1.

Re: 7) several key employees on the EFS-1 project left SFI further hampering the development process

We were struggling towards the end. As mentioned above, the dot com bubble bursting had it close to impossible to get VC funding for tech companies (how ironic given that just a few years earlier we were being asked if we could see a way of putting a dot com angle on the business by some investors who would then have been interested). We had to downsize to preserve cash in Sping of 2001 (or thereabout). None of the people let go were deemed essential for the development process.

(8) William Patton never accepted the position of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SFI. In a nutshell it was not going to work for the time. Plus Silicon Film saw that they needed to create 6 different models to cover most of the cameras available. Everything was looking bad for the EFS-1.

The William Patton (“General” Patton, as we called him) incident was a funny one. The staff was introduced to him and never saw him again. This was not long before we finally ran out of cash and closed our doors (the week of the 9/11 attacks). I don’t think this affected the outcome, it’s just a strange footnote in the history.

The “6 models” were all the same until the very final step of the assembly process, when the distance between the “film can” and the sensor was locked down. It was all achieved by simply cutting the sensor flex cable to the length required for a particular model, sticking it down and applying the top metal “flag” cover. Oh, we also had a different-colored vinyl label that was applied to the “film can” for each of the six variants. Interestingly, most of the major SLRs were covered by just three of these configurations.

This approach allowed close to complete production and inventorying of the EFS-1. When orders for different models came in we would have been quickly able to configure them (in a few minutes); perform final test; package; and then ship.

I won’t say much about “Silicon Film EFS10-SF”, as I had little involvement after the closure on 9/14/2001. I don’t really consider that to be part of the real Silicon Film history.

Update 2: Check out the “Digipod

Like this? Click the button below to share it...

49 thoughts on “Converting film cameras to digital: EFS-1 The technology that almost was (updated)”

  1. Gorgeous, I want one for my Olympus Trip 35… ;-). But then, what about the dreaded dust on the sensor?? It would be completely exposed when pût of the camera!

  2. Back then I was waiting for that to become a product, when it never came about I bought a DCS315. It was a great idea for the time. You could shoot film or digital with just one body your choice.

  3. I am not trying to be a nay-sayer here, but would it not be safe to assume that the reason why this hasn’t been done yet, and the reason why it will most likely “never” be done, is because of dust on the sensor plane? Film spun out of a canister is quite decent in practice mainly because of the post exposure development process, while a sealed D-SLR body barely manages to keep this at bay. With this method, you’d be combining the dust susceptible weaknesses of both systems (a body that opens significantly more than just the lens mount and a film plane that is continually exposed) into one wholly unmanageable situation. Maybe you could swab it, but let’s face it, sensor swabbing is a crappy way to spend your time instead of shooting, and this is an uphill battle on the most dust resistant sealed body D-SLRs today. Yes, it’s incredibly cool, but so are flying cars.

  4. The Big Guys in the industry (guess who???) would never let that product hit the shelves. How would they keep selling cameras in the digital era if all that was needed was to replace the digital film? Imagine having a nikon F5 loaded with a 12 mp film (I think the technology would be that far by now) and after a few years instead of buying a whole new set of gear just swapp the silicon film for, lets say, a 16 mp? Sweet!

  5. Brilliant idea. I remember how disappointed I was when it never materialized. With today’s bluetooth technology (transfer the images to a smartphone; keep the device cheap) this could be a incredibly smart and flexible solution for those that love their film cameras. I’d buy a bunch for my film bodies in a heartbeat. Even if they were quite expensive.

    1. Tanks for the link. Anyone, any thoughts on this project? I really would like to see this product come to life. James Jackson might really figured out how to do it, but he did not convince me to back that much money for what I get for it. I would appreciate to get more details (e.g. example images for different settings and cameras) and close up videos of a working DigiPod. And at least a 4/3 sensor. Fullframe would be great, but probable not affordable.

  6. An interesting product to be sure, but it would not be as well integrated into the camera functions as modern DSLRs are and there are real limits as to how much consumers are willing to spend to keep an older film-based Nikon or Canon going when more advanced designs are available. I might opt for one to keep my Nikon F-100 around as a backup, but the price would be critical.

  7. I vividly remember my 2 seconds of pure excitement before calling this prank: http://re35.net
    Just love the “concept” (Flexisensor :-)) and design put into this April fools prank! Nothing wrong with dreaming, I guess…

  8. It’s always interesting to read outsider’s views on Silicon Film (especially those that quote me). Typically there are a number of errors.

    Re: 1) the EFS-1 suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design flaws

    Not true. There were many challenges that others could not forsee ways of over-coming (that included Canon’s engineers when they reviewed the idea back in ~99). However, we had a really talented group of engineers and by a mixture of creative thinking and clever engineering, we managed to over-come all of these “insurmountable” flaws.

    If Oliver Duong cares to list all of these flaws, I’d be happy to address them line by line.

    Re: 2) these design problems would prevent the unit from passing the required FCC and CE certifications necessary to publicly release the product;

    I love how that rumor with a grain of truth became an internet fact.

    We did have some issue with some of our FCC pre-screens at one point (anyone who has ever done this kind of work knows how frustrating that process can be). This was when downloading from the (e)port to a PC over USB. We modified some of the filtering on the board, but still we were having intermittent fails. Eventually we found that we only failed when using a USB cable without a ferrite chock. Switching over to shipping that type of cable resolved this issue.

    As for CE, the first version of our firmware would have failed CE testing because it didn’t have a safe recovery from a crash (that required removal of the batteries). This was not a fundamental issue though. It just needed some new code that the executive management decided to de-prioritize until after the US launch.

    Re: 3) the current design of the EFS-1 was extremely difficult to produce. Specifically, it took hundreds of engineering hours to produce one unit with a success rate of about one unit in three working;

    We were hand-building the prototypes without the final mass production tooling and it was slow (I don’t know where hundred of engineering hours comes from!) and we had a low yield. This was of concern to me, but mostly from the perspective of MP schedule and ramp.

    Anyone who has been involved in real mass production knows that assembly cycle time and yield go through a steep, early learning curve. There were no fundamental issues with our assembly process, which was a lot simpler than DSLRs of the time.

    Re: 4) an internal design review was conducted in May, 2001 with all the top officers of SFI, ISC and all of the suppliers for the EFS-1 that were owed millions of dollars. The results of the internal design review were that SFI had a design and parts to produce about 200 units. However, the biggest contract SFI had was for 100 units to a European distributor who would not accept the units since they would not pass CE certification. The web-site sale commitments for domestic sales was for only a few dozen units.

    There’s some fairness in this. We were short of ceramics for the sensor package, but already had prototypes for a lower-cost, more easily sourced design. Supply would have been limited until we could ramp that up fully.

    We were not taking orders because we were not ready to ship. Our approach was to slowly ramp, in large part because money was tight in 2001 after the dot com crash. We were running on our cash reserves and pre-MP funding was almost impossible to find in a technology-hostile investment climate. The strategy set out by the executive team was to get to limited, volume mass production and product launch, knowing that raising funding for MP ramp would them be much easier.

    Re: 5) EFS-1 technology presented potential patent conflicts with those already registered by Kodak

    False. Kodak’s patent had a later filing date than ours, and while it included some claims we didn’t have, they were not useful (we didn’t need to infringe on them).

    Incidentally, we had an extremely good relationship with Kodak. In large part thanks to one of our board members, Tom Kelly, having formerly been a senior manager at Kodak (he led the team that developed what was marketed as the “Apple Quicktake”), and our CEO Ken Fey having been responsible for setting up Kodak’s point-and-shoot production in China.

    Re: 6) SFI and ISC had scrapped the initial design of the EFS-1 and were scrambling to develop a new prototype

    False. The orignal ~3x factor in EFS-1 was known to have limited market appeal. I was already leading the development of the next version to address this and enable a larger market acceptance. We already had functional sensors of a 4MP, ~29mm x 19mm sensor for the next product running in the lab.

    I’m laughing at this one because somehow a positive (that we were working on a better gen. 2 product) has been perverted in to us scrapping EFS-1.

    Re: 7) several key employees on the EFS-1 project left SFI further hampering the development process

    We were struggling towards the end. As mentioned above, the dot com bubble bursting had it close to impossible to get VC funding for tech companies (how ironic given that just a few years earlier we were being asked if we could see a way of putting a dot com angle on the business by some investors who would then have been interested). We had to downsize to preserve cash in Sping of 2001 (or thereabout). None of the people let go were deemed essential for the development process.

    (8) William Patton never accepted the position of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SFI. In a nutshell it was not going to work for the time. Plus Silicon Film saw that they needed to create 6 different models to cover most of the cameras available. Everything was looking bad for the EFS-1.

    The William Patton (“General” Patton, as we called him) incident was a funny one. The staff was introduced to him and never saw him again. This was not long before we finally ran out of cash and closed our doors (the week of the 9/11 attacks). I don’t think this affected the outcome, it’s just a strange footnote in the history.

    The “6 models” were all the same until the very final step of the assembly process, when the distance between the “film can” and the sensor was locked down. It was all achieved by simply cutting the sensor flex cable to the length required for a particular model, sticking it down and applying the top metal “flag” cover. Oh, we also had a different-colored vinyl label that was applied to the “film can” for each of the six variants. Interestingly, most of the major SLRs were covered by just three of these configurations.

    This approach allowed close to complete production and inventorying of the EFS-1. When orders for different models came in we would have been quickly able to configure them (in a few minutes); perform final test; package; and then ship.

    I won’t say much about “Silicon Film EFS10-SF”, as I had little involvement after the closure on 9/14/2001. I don’t really consider that to be part of the real Silicon Film history.

    1. I added your rebuttal and credentials to the post. These are not my criticisms, I lifted them off the lawsuit word for word. Grateful to have two sides of the Story!

    2. Rather than having to cut a piece to length as part of the final assembly process in order to fit various cameras, how about having the sensor part with a sliding connection, dovetailed into the main body of the device? Then the user could adjust it to any camera, with a 1/4 turn cam/screw to secure it and ensure the contacts make good contact.

      Now there would be no need for the ePod and eBox. Just a simple sleeve to protect the sensor when out of the camera and a Micro USB connector on the device.

      It should be far easier to make digital film cartridges for 110 and 126 cameras. There were some very good cameras made for those films, especially during the early years of the formats. Kodak even made a 126 SLR in their Retina Reflex line, and many of the 35mm Retina lenses fit it, though without supporting some of the features. I had a chance to pick up one of those from a thrift store, along with one of the 2nd model 126 camera made. (Released in the USA one week after the very first 126 camera in the UK.) The box had a ton more 126 cameras, apparently someone collected them and the entire collection got donated.

      One upside to a digital 110 or 126 is with current sensor technology the digital version could take better pictures than the film ever could manage.

      Then there are all those Polaroid cameras! Digital Filmpack? Make it with a lens/mirror system that pops up inside the camera to concentrate the light from the angled mirror in the back of the camera so a giant sensor the size of a Polaroid film isn’t required. Dunno how possible that might be… just thought of potential issues with interfering with light coming in the lens. Time to develop a Fresnel type thin grid lens with an ultra short focal length… There’s some really weird stuff being done with glass and light now, almost edging towards Bob Shaw’s ‘slow glass’. Put the sensor on the extreme bottom of the film pack housing with all the electronics in a doughnut around it.

      I used to take the batteries out of the used packs. There was far more charge in them than required to run the camera for 10 shots.

  9. If the EFS10-SF concept images are any indication, it’s obvious why this project ran into problems. How do you suppose they intended to fit a sensor, display, and CF card (!) into the available space? I’m sure a less ambitious design (like the EFS-1) would be somewhat easier, but you’re still trying to fit relatively bulky electronics into a space designed for flexible film well under a millimeter thick. This would certainly make an interesting Kickstarter project, but I would be quite wary of the project failing to find a form factor that worked in enough bodies to be interesting.

    Ultimately, it’s easy to see why even high end DSLRs opted to make the sensor part of the body. It allows for much more design latitude to squeeze the most functionality out of the smallest space possible. And with technology elsewhere in the body evolving at a similar rate to the sensor itself, it’s not clear you get much by decoupling them. (This equation does start to change when you look at medium format size digital sensors, and the form factors change accordingly.)

  10. Pingback: El “Ave Fenix” siempre renace de sus cenizas: respaldo digital para SLR’s de película | fotochismes.com

  11. Pingback: تبدیل دوربین های آنالوگ به دیجیتال با فیلم دیجیتال

  12. Really funny… this digital-film-thing is something where everyone says “awesome idea” but then it always fails to materialize.

  13. Pingback: Interesting read for those that remember efilm.

  14. I originally bought into the Contax G system because of plans at the time for Contax to make a digital body. It was a sad day when Contax was no more.

  15. Pingback: DigiPod: dare nuova vita alla vostra vecchia fotocamera a pellicola - macitynet.it

  16. Pingback: DIGIPOD: DIGITALFILM FÜR ANALOGKAMERAS - IN GOOD WE TRUST

  17. Pingback: ¿Se acerca el fin de las cámaras de fotografía? | El Fotográfico

  18. I am almost sure, there were some conflits of interest right there, between this company and the other ones, Kodak, Nikon, Canon…as a device like this will prevent those companies from selling their ridiculous high price digital garbage…personally, I own two F5s and two F3s, and specially those two F5s, which i will love to install a digital back, even if is only 10 MP, will be great and I will be able to use my two flagship F5s, that i paid 2 grand EACH, more than 10 years ago and WHAT NIKON THINK?…THAT I WILL PAY 13 GRAND FOR TWO D4s?…HA…NIKON IS SMOKING SOMETHING FUNNY, RIGHT THERE IF THEY THINK I WILL, SO PHOTOGRAPHY IS ALMOST OVER FOR ME…very sad, my story, but true…and let me tell Nikon this…the only way ,I will pay 13 grand for two D4s, is , only if I win the lottery…and a lower end Nikon is NON EXISTENCE FOR ME…I DON’T CARE HOW GOOD THE D800 IS…I AM IMPOSED TO GO ALWAYS WITH THE VERY TOP SINCE I STARTED AS AN AMATEUR IN THE 70s WITH THE MIGHTY “F”….

  19. Salve! Io amo le analogiche, in particolare le niukon. L’idea è la stessa che ho io, cioè di trasformare una analogica in digitale…ci sto pensando….ci sto provando…bela idea!

  20. Pingback: EXPRESIÓN FOTOGRÁFICA (3598) » Converting film cameras to digital: EFS-1 The technology that almost was (updated) – Olivier Duong | Street Photography

  21. This is definitely a great idea. I really wish to see someone kickstart similar product like this. I really want to use this on my F-5 which has been stored in the cabinet for years. I think the technology is ready and should be easy to produce.

    Maybe I should post it on a Chinese website, maybe someone can make it come true !! HA~

  22. Man that really sucks that this did not work out. It’s such an amazing idea, and the thing is now we have micro SD cards that can hold 64 GB! so space is no longer a problem, I’m sure something could be made to easily fit inside a film cartridge with our new technologies. The question is who will do it?

  23. So, an article with “the technology” in ist title, but missing on explaining this technology exactly. I would really have been interested to learn the following things:
    -There is no filter glass in front of the sensor (which is logical, since such a glass might collide with the camera shutter). But how was is planned to eliminate IR contamination? This is a problem that even plagued “full” digital cameras (Leica M8, iirc).
    -How would the insert have synchronised with the camera shutter? The sensor needs to be cleared before the exposing, in order to remove accumulated noise. And it better knows when caputring is over, since it needs to read out the sensor. How was that done?

  24. I think it would be a hit on today’s market too. It would be great for the environment for a start, because all those old camera bodies would mean lower carbon footprint than making new ones all the time.

    I would like to see the sensor stay in place though, not have to be removed to download or copy photos. Just use a micro SD card for storage…

    I’d buy it. Can’t really afford $1500 for a D610. Can afford up to $500 for this type of device.

  25. This is a really interesting idea and I’d go for it for my Nikon FE collection. I really liked the match needle metering system, simple ASA setting and the ability to use auto or get technical. My D90 has WAY too many features and adjustments to be a pleasure to use, mostly it’s on auto which is a bit of a waste. FE plus digital film would be awesome – I’d plug money into a kickstart

  26. Pingback: Modułowy aparat cyfrowy | Szturchaniec fotograficzny

  27. Soy español y poseo dos canon Eos3 y Eos50e

    Estoy muy decepcionado con la industria me parece muy injusto que no den soluciones para las cámara de carrete. Creó que ha sido las propias marcas las que han comprado y patentado todos los sistemas posible para que podamos utilizar nuestras slr.
    Muy mal por parte de canon nikon y todas las demás.

    Encima desde 2001 han pasado ya 15 años.. Creo que ya es momento de darnos una solución.. No creo que algo asi pueda perjudicar a nuevos modelos. Ya que hoy en día las cámaras actuales presentan prestaciones que un simple sensor en una slr como lo era efilm.. En fin esperó que alguien proponga alguna recogida de firmas por ejemplo en charge.org

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The maximum upload file size: 1 MB.
You can upload: image, audio.

Scroll to Top