I’m Back Film: Is it worth $800 to convert 35mm to digital
video description
Date: 2025-07-20
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
spambot7110
so, these ideas are all predicated on it being possible to slip a sensor into the back of the camera which you point out isn't possible. but,
obviously it needs a battery: tbh there's a decent amount of volume in the cylinder part (if they didn't do that massive cutout in it, why not cram a bunch of pouch cells in there then lose the screen and shit, and have it bluetooth to an app and make the app good. or no live view at all, it's emulating the film experience, how about you just stick a microsd card into the bottom of the film cartridge, and when you get home you develop the film by pulling the card
as for the external shutter, idk, depending on how the sensor works, maybe you can keep it in some low power state where u just sample a couple pixels periodically, and when you detect any value above 0 you wake up and start your capture. if you can get that wakeup to take a consistent amount of time then you just instruct the user to add a certain offset to their shutter speed to account for the sensor not being live for part of the time. or, if they can't get the timing good enough, have some sorta switch or encoder that engages with the film advance, so that when the user advances the film it starts like a 10 second exposure. this turns the camera's film advance lever into an external shutter button. (idk how cmos sensors work, can u sample a pixel without dumping all the light it's accumulated) just seems like there were a lot of options to make this integrate way better
reply
so, these ideas are all predicated on it being possible to slip a sensor into the back of the camera which you point out isn't possible. but,
obviously it needs a battery: tbh there's a decent amount of volume in the cylinder part (if they didn't do that massive cutout in it, why not cram a bunch of pouch cells in there then lose the screen and shit, and have it bluetooth to an app and make the app good. or no live view at all, it's emulating the film experience, how about you just stick a microsd card into the bottom of the film cartridge, and when you get home you develop the film by pulling the card
as for the external shutter, idk, depending on how the sensor works, maybe you can keep it in some low power state where u just sample a couple pixels periodically, and when you detect any value above 0 you wake up and start your capture. if you can get that wakeup to take a consistent amount of time then you just instruct the user to add a certain offset to their shutter speed to account for the sensor not being live for part of the time. or, if they can't get the timing good enough, have some sorta switch or encoder that engages with the film advance, so that when the user advances the film it starts like a 10 second exposure. this turns the camera's film advance lever into an external shutter button. (idk how cmos sensors work, can u sample a pixel without dumping all the light it's accumulated) just seems like there were a lot of options to make this integrate way better
reply
johnhess351
Before digital, film was $2 a roll and developing was $2. 99 next day. and getting better with APS. It is Ya-SHEECK- uh, not yash-ikka. The Imback is more like a lens-less camera that uses the whole 35mm camera as a lens mount. Minolta made the best 35mm camera bodies, if not quite as good in the lens dept. I would try a warhorse Minolta SRT 101. A Rokkor x 50mmf 1. 4 is a cheap hot rod lens that would work out like a short telephoto portrait lens. I tried to build one of these digital backs 20 years ago and gave up. I tried to do it all in the film can, then interface that to a PC later to view. There would have been no preview, but the 35mm camera still functioned normally. Did not have a suitable sensor. You can still shoot film just fine with very old expired B&W and develop it with household chemicals and scan it. The fogging in old film can be removed with sodium bisulfite, an easily obtained and non hazardous chemical. The best results with a crummy camera like this are close up portraits of pretty things with lens aperture wide open.
reply
Before digital, film was $2 a roll and developing was $2. 99 next day. and getting better with APS. It is Ya-SHEECK- uh, not yash-ikka. The Imback is more like a lens-less camera that uses the whole 35mm camera as a lens mount. Minolta made the best 35mm camera bodies, if not quite as good in the lens dept. I would try a warhorse Minolta SRT 101. A Rokkor x 50mmf 1. 4 is a cheap hot rod lens that would work out like a short telephoto portrait lens. I tried to build one of these digital backs 20 years ago and gave up. I tried to do it all in the film can, then interface that to a PC later to view. There would have been no preview, but the 35mm camera still functioned normally. Did not have a suitable sensor. You can still shoot film just fine with very old expired B&W and develop it with household chemicals and scan it. The fogging in old film can be removed with sodium bisulfite, an easily obtained and non hazardous chemical. The best results with a crummy camera like this are close up portraits of pretty things with lens aperture wide open.
reply
lastcarbon
Sometime around 2014 I decided to bite the bullet and switch from a point and shoot camera to a DLSR. I decided to go with an Olympus E-PL3 partly because the Micro Four Thirds system is adaptable to just about any lens including some Minolta Lenses that my dad had on his old SLR. I even bought some additional Minolta lenses. Based on that experience, I can say both of your comments at the end are correct. Get a DLSR with an adapter you will get slightly better results and it will feel way less janky. Manual focus is still a bit of a pain. Also doesn't change the fact that the field of view will be different. I haven't used the Minolta lenses in a while tbh, the stop screw on the adapter broke and getting the lenses on and off is a bit annoying without it.
The other thing that I will mention is that part of what I like about 35 mm is actually the aspect ratio, something about it just feels right. Shooting in 4: 3 feels less expressive and I don't think I would go with a Micro Four Thirds camera again.
reply
Sometime around 2014 I decided to bite the bullet and switch from a point and shoot camera to a DLSR. I decided to go with an Olympus E-PL3 partly because the Micro Four Thirds system is adaptable to just about any lens including some Minolta Lenses that my dad had on his old SLR. I even bought some additional Minolta lenses. Based on that experience, I can say both of your comments at the end are correct. Get a DLSR with an adapter you will get slightly better results and it will feel way less janky. Manual focus is still a bit of a pain. Also doesn't change the fact that the field of view will be different. I haven't used the Minolta lenses in a while tbh, the stop screw on the adapter broke and getting the lenses on and off is a bit annoying without it.
The other thing that I will mention is that part of what I like about 35 mm is actually the aspect ratio, something about it just feels right. Shooting in 4: 3 feels less expressive and I don't think I would go with a Micro Four Thirds camera again.
reply
NotOnLand
This thing is so pointless it almost makes me angry. I truly cannot see a use for it; if you want a film camera you want quality, grain, and its unique quirks. If you want a decent picture quickly you can get an entire good digital camera setup for _way_ less money, or even a modern smartphone would be better than this. If you have an old camera you want to use, you're not gonna want to tear it apart to make it fit. If you don't care and just want the feeling of using an SLR, again just buy a new one for less money! WHO IS THIS FOR
Nowadays for $800 it's _possible_ you could get a CMOS roughly equivalent to the resolution of 35mm film, but that's clearly not what I'm Back did despite the marketing
reply
This thing is so pointless it almost makes me angry. I truly cannot see a use for it; if you want a film camera you want quality, grain, and its unique quirks. If you want a decent picture quickly you can get an entire good digital camera setup for _way_ less money, or even a modern smartphone would be better than this. If you have an old camera you want to use, you're not gonna want to tear it apart to make it fit. If you don't care and just want the feeling of using an SLR, again just buy a new one for less money! WHO IS THIS FOR
Nowadays for $800 it's _possible_ you could get a CMOS roughly equivalent to the resolution of 35mm film, but that's clearly not what I'm Back did despite the marketing
reply
TheOffertonhatter
Excellent video. I was intrigued with this product. It is one of those I wish I had the digital option for my 40 year old camera. But in practice does not work. You are far better off, as in your conclusion, to spend the $800, on say a pre-owned M43 camera and buy the adapters for your treasured old lenses, or a Sony A camera if you want that FF film coverage, or, if you have old M42 screw and K-mount, a second hand K-1 (same goes for Nikon and F-mount with a D600. Many options and most will cost a lot less than this thing. Oh, and of course, leave your film cameras alone and shoot film with them.
reply
Excellent video. I was intrigued with this product. It is one of those I wish I had the digital option for my 40 year old camera. But in practice does not work. You are far better off, as in your conclusion, to spend the $800, on say a pre-owned M43 camera and buy the adapters for your treasured old lenses, or a Sony A camera if you want that FF film coverage, or, if you have old M42 screw and K-mount, a second hand K-1 (same goes for Nikon and F-mount with a D600. Many options and most will cost a lot less than this thing. Oh, and of course, leave your film cameras alone and shoot film with them.
reply
1chiTheKiller
Seeing the thumbnail, it looks like a potentially fun interesting product, but the moment you think about it, you know how ridiculous and complicated it will be. They're basically making a digital camera without the camera body, and a seemingly lackluster one at that. There's modern digital AND film cameras that are made to feel and work similar to the ones from yesteryear. I'd rather just get something like that to keep digital shooting and have retro styling. If I'm using film, I'd rather get a Polaroid camera, and use digital cameras for normal day to day shooting anyway.
reply
Seeing the thumbnail, it looks like a potentially fun interesting product, but the moment you think about it, you know how ridiculous and complicated it will be. They're basically making a digital camera without the camera body, and a seemingly lackluster one at that. There's modern digital AND film cameras that are made to feel and work similar to the ones from yesteryear. I'd rather just get something like that to keep digital shooting and have retro styling. If I'm using film, I'd rather get a Polaroid camera, and use digital cameras for normal day to day shooting anyway.
reply
timmotz2827
I still have two Olympus film cameras: an OM-1 and an OM-2n (I think it is) that were once my prized possessions. I stopped using them when I could no longer find the film I wanted. Processing would be another problem. And I have had and do still have an assortment of prosumer digital cameras. Aside from the convenience of digital, the film cameras and their lenses were much heavier and not nearly as flexible in features as any of my digital cameras. Even if I could fit them with digital backs, I would still prefer to use the digital cameras, especially for travel.
reply
I still have two Olympus film cameras: an OM-1 and an OM-2n (I think it is) that were once my prized possessions. I stopped using them when I could no longer find the film I wanted. Processing would be another problem. And I have had and do still have an assortment of prosumer digital cameras. Aside from the convenience of digital, the film cameras and their lenses were much heavier and not nearly as flexible in features as any of my digital cameras. Even if I could fit them with digital backs, I would still prefer to use the digital cameras, especially for travel.
reply
Chris-o2b3i
$800 definitely way too much. $500 still too high. For that kind of money you can invest in a decent used digital camera. If it was in the $150-200 range I might tinker with it on my OM-4T or OM-2 bodies. The main technical issue is getting power and signals into the sensor board from the base unit. The original version solved that with the clunky back casting with replaces the original back. This new design requires some more development. The pesky problem of 2 button presses per exposure is another issue. I do like that film cannister case it comes with.
reply
$800 definitely way too much. $500 still too high. For that kind of money you can invest in a decent used digital camera. If it was in the $150-200 range I might tinker with it on my OM-4T or OM-2 bodies. The main technical issue is getting power and signals into the sensor board from the base unit. The original version solved that with the clunky back casting with replaces the original back. This new design requires some more development. The pesky problem of 2 button presses per exposure is another issue. I do like that film cannister case it comes with.
reply
slicked9778
Cool concept, terrible execution and understanding of the marketplace. Like, if I was going to spend a grand on a camera, I could pick up a used iphone and probably still have a few hundred dollars left. granted you're not going to get a picture like you would from a film camera, BUT you're not getting that with this product either.
It's not total trash Getting an 800 dollar piece of kit that's clunky that might not even work with your camera, and even then it requires HEAVY modifications that's total trash to me. it feels like landfill waste.
reply
Cool concept, terrible execution and understanding of the marketplace. Like, if I was going to spend a grand on a camera, I could pick up a used iphone and probably still have a few hundred dollars left. granted you're not going to get a picture like you would from a film camera, BUT you're not getting that with this product either.
It's not total trash Getting an 800 dollar piece of kit that's clunky that might not even work with your camera, and even then it requires HEAVY modifications that's total trash to me. it feels like landfill waste.
reply
markmuir7338
Clearly they went to market way before the cookies were baked. The lack of basic image signal processing is forgivable since it can be added later through software updates. But the physical design is atrocious! They should’ve designed it as a swap-in replacement for the film door. Just have a list of supported cameras, with a custom back plate for each (3D printed, at these volumes and price. And wire up the shutter button to the hot shoe. Or just do continuous read-out of the sensor to detect when the shutter opens.
reply
Clearly they went to market way before the cookies were baked. The lack of basic image signal processing is forgivable since it can be added later through software updates. But the physical design is atrocious! They should’ve designed it as a swap-in replacement for the film door. Just have a list of supported cameras, with a custom back plate for each (3D printed, at these volumes and price. And wire up the shutter button to the hot shoe. Or just do continuous read-out of the sensor to detect when the shutter opens.
reply
frankmango6594
I was one of those people who held onto their 35mm gear for a long time, waiting in vain for the promised digital back that would bring the old camera and lenses into the new era. I gave up eventually, but I think it could have happened if Nikon, Canon etc had done it. Of course, it wasn't in their benefit to keep making updates for obsolete hardware when they could make a lot more money selling those customers a whole new digital camera system, so it never happened. I think most of us gave up by 2000-2010.
reply
I was one of those people who held onto their 35mm gear for a long time, waiting in vain for the promised digital back that would bring the old camera and lenses into the new era. I gave up eventually, but I think it could have happened if Nikon, Canon etc had done it. Of course, it wasn't in their benefit to keep making updates for obsolete hardware when they could make a lot more money selling those customers a whole new digital camera system, so it never happened. I think most of us gave up by 2000-2010.
reply
segamanxero
Was interested in this project. If it could fit inside like the initial pictures of it then maybe. But as it currently stands that is disappointing, way to fiddly. If interested in the idea of using a film camera, but digital, you are indeed better off just either adapting older lenses to the modern digital cameras, or if starting off from scratch there, something like a Nikon Zfc or similar if you want the old film camera aesthetic. Still will not be the same, but it would be a better experience then this.
reply
Was interested in this project. If it could fit inside like the initial pictures of it then maybe. But as it currently stands that is disappointing, way to fiddly. If interested in the idea of using a film camera, but digital, you are indeed better off just either adapting older lenses to the modern digital cameras, or if starting off from scratch there, something like a Nikon Zfc or similar if you want the old film camera aesthetic. Still will not be the same, but it would be a better experience then this.
reply
FirstLast-vr7es
I inherited my grandfather's old Pentax K1000 about a year ago, and have been playing with it. It has reminded me how much of a pain that film photography could be, but it does have a certain charm that is missing with digital photography. And the resulting photos remind me of my childhood. They all have that 'look. ' As an adult, I really appreciate the mechanical precision of the camera and lenses too. SLR cameras were expensive, but they had a real reason to be.
reply
I inherited my grandfather's old Pentax K1000 about a year ago, and have been playing with it. It has reminded me how much of a pain that film photography could be, but it does have a certain charm that is missing with digital photography. And the resulting photos remind me of my childhood. They all have that 'look. ' As an adult, I really appreciate the mechanical precision of the camera and lenses too. SLR cameras were expensive, but they had a real reason to be.
reply
hypercomms2001
With analog film you can look at your pictures that were taken 60 years ago. Good luck trying to do the same with digital images. Analog film photography is guaranteed to be easily available in 100 years from now, where is your great great grandchildren will be struggling to look at any images that you took on your digital camera because by that stage your hard drive that you’re storing those images on as long broken down.
reply
With analog film you can look at your pictures that were taken 60 years ago. Good luck trying to do the same with digital images. Analog film photography is guaranteed to be easily available in 100 years from now, where is your great great grandchildren will be struggling to look at any images that you took on your digital camera because by that stage your hard drive that you’re storing those images on as long broken down.
reply
pseydtonne
it's hard to talk about it without. trashin' it. I am exactly the person that would love to put something like this into my old Canon AE-1 with my nice lenses that I bought way back. I keep thinking about the stop-down controls and all of the other powers I have on that SLR.
. but you two put it well: I could just slap an adapter on the back of an FD lens and have the fun I wanted. Thank you for taking the time!
reply
it's hard to talk about it without. trashin' it. I am exactly the person that would love to put something like this into my old Canon AE-1 with my nice lenses that I bought way back. I keep thinking about the stop-down controls and all of the other powers I have on that SLR.
. but you two put it well: I could just slap an adapter on the back of an FD lens and have the fun I wanted. Thank you for taking the time!
reply
GuidoBatt
I swear I saw something of this kind maybe 20 years ago, same idea but nothing protruding out of the camera, just the tin can with all the electronics inside and the sensor mounted on a film. Either it never reached the market or it went bust very quickly, I never heard about it again.
This is crappier than the first digital cameras of the late 80s, the ones that printed 20 pictures or so in a 720Kb floppy disk.
reply
I swear I saw something of this kind maybe 20 years ago, same idea but nothing protruding out of the camera, just the tin can with all the electronics inside and the sensor mounted on a film. Either it never reached the market or it went bust very quickly, I never heard about it again.
This is crappier than the first digital cameras of the late 80s, the ones that printed 20 pictures or so in a 720Kb floppy disk.
reply
jerrynorton1080
I got the idea many years ago for what i called a pixelback; just like that, slip it in like a regular roll, and was surprised to see it announced the next year, outrageously priced, and then vanish. Decided, at that price, it might not have been such a great idea. and i will continue laughing. at Ieast this has as a backscreen, and even some controls snaking out the bottom on a ribbon.
reply
I got the idea many years ago for what i called a pixelback; just like that, slip it in like a regular roll, and was surprised to see it announced the next year, outrageously priced, and then vanish. Decided, at that price, it might not have been such a great idea. and i will continue laughing. at Ieast this has as a backscreen, and even some controls snaking out the bottom on a ribbon.
reply
SatanSupimpa
With analog prices skyrocketing, I think there's a good market for an analog digital camera. For example, a Pentax K1000 with a full frame sensor, no difference from the original one, no screen, fully manual. It could probably even have some way that you don't need to turn the camera on and off, maybe it activates the battery only when you pull the lever before taking pictures.
reply
With analog prices skyrocketing, I think there's a good market for an analog digital camera. For example, a Pentax K1000 with a full frame sensor, no difference from the original one, no screen, fully manual. It could probably even have some way that you don't need to turn the camera on and off, maybe it activates the battery only when you pull the lever before taking pictures.
reply
CidVeldoril
I would argue that the question in the title is argued by it depends. If it worked on all cameras and you happened to own a Canon F1 with an assortment of expensive Canon FD lenses, then yes. Getting that all to work digitally could be well worth it. Basically, it depends on if you have expensive equipment that would be compatible with this and that could go digital due to it.
reply
I would argue that the question in the title is argued by it depends. If it worked on all cameras and you happened to own a Canon F1 with an assortment of expensive Canon FD lenses, then yes. Getting that all to work digitally could be well worth it. Basically, it depends on if you have expensive equipment that would be compatible with this and that could go digital due to it.
reply
kissalude9032
seems like it'd make more sense to buy an old phone and 3D print a classic case of whichever camera you want.
Edit I wonder if they were to go with a smaller battery and a sensor that detects when it the original camera button is pressed instead. Sure less time beetween recharges, but also less obtuse. And it was a fun walk into the oddity of nostalgia. So thank you.
reply
seems like it'd make more sense to buy an old phone and 3D print a classic case of whichever camera you want.
Edit I wonder if they were to go with a smaller battery and a sensor that detects when it the original camera button is pressed instead. Sure less time beetween recharges, but also less obtuse. And it was a fun walk into the oddity of nostalgia. So thank you.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
