Steve M.
Mentor
Didn't care for the video. Way too much "I'm a cool hipster" nonsense. The emphasis should be on the product at hand.
To me, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. No one is going to haul this thing around and shoot 35mm or even 120 I would venture to say, and as mentioned, LF is already open source to begin with, other than lens boards, which you can usually obtain cheaply or even make yourself.
I'm not necessarily critical of the product, just don't care for the presentation and don't see a need for it. There are already so many, many great cameras available used for great prices these days. This camera isn't going to help anyone make better photographs.
There's a mindset that says support every kickstarter project known to man and women alike just because someone is "making the effort". How about photographers making the effort w/ what they already have? If it was good enough for Ansel Adams, Dorthea Lange, Edward Weston, etc, it's good enough for me. I need to get better, the gear is already plenty good enough.
To me, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. No one is going to haul this thing around and shoot 35mm or even 120 I would venture to say, and as mentioned, LF is already open source to begin with, other than lens boards, which you can usually obtain cheaply or even make yourself.
I'm not necessarily critical of the product, just don't care for the presentation and don't see a need for it. There are already so many, many great cameras available used for great prices these days. This camera isn't going to help anyone make better photographs.
There's a mindset that says support every kickstarter project known to man and women alike just because someone is "making the effort". How about photographers making the effort w/ what they already have? If it was good enough for Ansel Adams, Dorthea Lange, Edward Weston, etc, it's good enough for me. I need to get better, the gear is already plenty good enough.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Just about EVERY large format camera can do it. Faster and more comfortable too, as they usually have better integration of their components (so that changing lens boards or backs generally is a matter of a single lever or knob). And do usually use bellows for the camera body, rather than depending on extra helicoid tubes.
jamin-b
Well-known
Quoting from the campaign: "Photographers who wish to shoot true medium format (up to 6x9cm) or large format (4x5”) for the absolute highest quality, but who also want their camera to be light, portable, and inexpensive. Few cameras exist that can shoot such huge negatives, and they all weigh so much that you wouldn't want to bring them very many places with you."
At least as an aspiration it seems valid to me. How many of the existing systems are light and portable???
At least as an aspiration it seems valid to me. How many of the existing systems are light and portable???
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
There are quite a few - the entire genre of wooden travel cameras (and their modern plastics offspring) does not need to be heavy (where they are, it is a conscious decision to add more movements). And that thing will not be all that light either - a 1kg large format lens (and that is nothing, any f/5.6 300mm will be that heavy, and that is just a slowish 85mm equivalent lens) will need ample support, or that thing will fall apart.
daveywaugh
Blah
Really? You guys (mostly) don't find this exciting? I found the video a real laugh, and thought it was pretty clever. I think the project is ambitious but I've spent more money on a damn Leica soft release. I think it's an awesome idea, and will sign up for one. As for the 'tolerance' issue... how do you know? It's not fair to make assumptions about things like that before you've even used it. For most of us, how perfect does it need to be to have some fun with it? Some of you guys really need to lighten up 
Last edited:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Not too many, I give you. But that's because existing systems value accuracy over coolness... Light and portable and multi-format all at once equals lack of rigidity, and thus accuracy. Unless these guys have access to outer-space ultra-lightweight alloys, in which case it won't be cheap anymore. You just can't have it all. Realism.
For those that still want to believe, there's a religion for ya. It's called 'Lomography'.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Yes it is, if you know anything at all about building cameras. Johannielscom sums it up perfectly.
Cheers,
R.
mani
Well-known
I don't think that's the mindset, at all.
What tends to happen is that the old hands around here, who always seem to have all the information about pretty much everything (apparently) even before it's released, always come along and say something like "anyone can build one of these themselves" or "you can just use an [insert expensive brand of camera here] instead" or generally rubbish anything that actually makes film photography more popular and generally accessible for a new crowd of enthusiasts.
I have no idea how I'd build my own LF film back as someone suggested earlier in the thread (can't find the relevant quote now), and I wouldn't have the time nor expertise.
Paying 100 bucks might lead me (and a LOT of other people) into using a fun system, connecting with other enthusiasts, and maybe even eventually graduating to those cameras that were "good enough for Ansel Adams" after all.
Right now I have no idea which of these old cameras is a crock, what I should pay for them, how they fit together and so on. The veterans on RFF just can't seem to put themselves in the shoes of people who just wanna have an uncomplicated way to try something without needing a couple of decades of expertise first.
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
I have hard time with this thing. Hard to focus unless on tripod, then again not smaller or faster then my Cambo Wide. Maybe lighter, but I would be bit worried about putting decent roll film holder on it due to it stressing out the plastic. It's not that roll film backs are heavy as such, but my Sinar Zoom back ain't featherweight either.
If this would come with rangefinder focus (parallax corrected, like on my polaroid 350), I would see the appeal and would be among the first ones getting it. But with out, can't see why.. What is it for? No movements so pretty much same as my Cambo Wide but most likely less precise and flimsier.
If this would come with rangefinder focus (parallax corrected, like on my polaroid 350), I would see the appeal and would be among the first ones getting it. But with out, can't see why.. What is it for? No movements so pretty much same as my Cambo Wide but most likely less precise and flimsier.
Looks like a solution looking for a problem — without, as others have said, taking practical issues of precision into account. The pretentious titles for the cinematography, etc. at the end of the video are nothing to be proud of, considering, for example, that every highlight in every scene has been blown. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the project is being approached from the point of view of photographers. Okay, so the presentation in jokey — but who's the joke on?
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
zuiko85
Mentor
This is a camera for the photographer/tinkerer. With the emphasis on 'tinkerer'. You know, the folks who always have a pile of photo related junk, pick up a lens from a old 6X9 out of that pile, look at an old Graflex knob wind 23 back and start to daydream about cobbling the two together. I confess to being in that group. Often the fun is in building more than using. Related to photography and cameras in general we all have fun in our own way. No harm, no foul.
Spanik
Well-known
I like the some of the ideas they propose. Not every one of them and I find some of them contradictory.
Cannot help it to like the Nina for instance. I'm sure that Instax film can give better results than the cameras provide. But an adapter to use it with a Mamiya 645 would be a far nicer option in my opinion.
Cannot help it to like the Nina for instance. I'm sure that Instax film can give better results than the cameras provide. But an adapter to use it with a Mamiya 645 would be a far nicer option in my opinion.
newsgrunt
Well-known
I've never seen a need for a universal type camera. good at many,master at none comes to mind. A hybrid camera to replace my Hasselblads and Leicas ? um, no.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Is that a plastic helicoid?
Hope so! I'd like to have as many parts as possible with the files so if one goes bad I can make another in a 3D printer please and thank you.
I have to look deeper and cash is flowing negatively so might be well down the road before I can jump on board.
It's a cool idea, two thumbs up for giving it a try.
B2 (;->
mani
Well-known
Haha. You saw this camera body is just over a hundred bucks right? I bought a plastic hood for my Summicron 35 for more than this entire kit costs.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
And it might equally be a waste of 100 bucks: a lot more if you try to turn it into a working camera.
On your own admission, you know nothing about any of this. This is why I'd say it isn't a camera for "tinkerers" (zuiko85). It's a camera for wannabe tinkerers, a great way to waste $100 if you don't know what you are doing and are given to enthusiasms.
True "tinkerers" (again quoting zuiko85, "the folks who always have a pile of photo related junk, pick up a lens from a old 6X9 out of that pile, look at an old Graflex knob wind 23 back and start to daydream about cobbling the two together") will have no need of this camera, because they already have an idea of what to do with plywood and a hacksaw and a bits box, and the wannabe tinkerers won't know enough to be able to tinker.
As I say, I wish the would-be manufacturers the very best of luck, but the only people I can see buying into this camera are the ones who know even less than the would-be manufacturers. Then again, there are always lots of people with more money than knowledge, so they may do very well out of it.
Stop and consider the possibility that those of us with "a couple of decades of expertise" (closer to five in my case) may have a better idea of what is likely to work, and what isn't, than those with little or no experience.
There must be something in the air in Sta. Barbara. Who else remembers Peter Gowland?
Cheers,
R.
Jockos
Well-known
Great, add more worn out plastic parts to the trash heap!
Next Halloween, I'm dressing as a ozone hole.
Spanik
Well-known
I think you forget the tinkers with not enough time or without an already equiped workshop (or no space for a workshop). Maybe 100 is a reasonable price even if you are a tinker that "could" do this himself. If I have to spend a month making models and drawings, spend a good deal of money on materials and then a couple of months in the workshop to actually make this myself, well then I have spend more than 100.
I'm putting together a pinhole from alu plate that I have around. Spend all the evenings of 2 weeks drawing, the same behind the mill, broke a tap and had to order the needed bolts, felt, paint. I have spend more than 100.
So if that is the price it is reasonable to me. Even if it put only 1% of the buyers further into this kind of stuff it is worth doing.
Would I do it? Probably not.
The most important reason being that there is no sense in making a system that can do anything from 135 to 4x5. The difference in usage and lenses is so big that it makes no sense in taking along a single camera, 3 types of lenses, 3 types of film and 3 types of holders. And if you will only take a single type of film at any outing then you can just as well take a different camera along each time. Camera bodies are relatively cheap compared to lenses, film and holders.
I'm putting together a pinhole from alu plate that I have around. Spend all the evenings of 2 weeks drawing, the same behind the mill, broke a tap and had to order the needed bolts, felt, paint. I have spend more than 100.
So if that is the price it is reasonable to me. Even if it put only 1% of the buyers further into this kind of stuff it is worth doing.
Would I do it? Probably not.
The most important reason being that there is no sense in making a system that can do anything from 135 to 4x5. The difference in usage and lenses is so big that it makes no sense in taking along a single camera, 3 types of lenses, 3 types of film and 3 types of holders. And if you will only take a single type of film at any outing then you can just as well take a different camera along each time. Camera bodies are relatively cheap compared to lenses, film and holders.
mani
Well-known
These days in my own profession I find that the more I know, the less willing I've become to throw myself headlong into a new project. Knowledge can be a hindrance to creativity.
mani
Well-known
I can understand this objection - it's one of the reasons I jumped off the digital camera treadmill, and why I love actually using old 'collector' cameras that would otherwise be sitting on a shelf. But then I'm writing this post on an iPad, and I buy anti-perspirant in a plastic container, and drive a relatively recent car...
I can think of worse things to make with plastic than a camera.