Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Large Format Film RF

Large Format Film RF Forum for Large Format Rangefinders (generally 4x5 or larger format) iIncluding Linhof 4x5, Graflex 4x5, and other Large Format Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Interesting new Kickstarter project....a "Universal" camera
Old 06-07-2016   #1
jamin-b
Registered User
 
jamin-b is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 272
Interesting new Kickstarter project....a "Universal" camera

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...iversal-camera

Kind of like a new age incarnation of something from the Mamiya Press series...

Whaddya think?
__________________
My flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/96319283@N08/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #2
Ong
Registered User
 
Ong is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 176
I dunno, I get the feeling that it's simply a more plastic version of an Alpa 12 system
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #3
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ong View Post
I dunno, I get the feeling that it's simply a more plastic version of an Alpa 12 system
Nothing wrong with that...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #4
EdSawyer
Registered User
 
EdSawyer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 126
more like a plastic cambo wide, really.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #5
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Nothing wrong with that...
Except for question marks over precision. With all that choice of not-very-precise adapters, it'll be a LOT sloppier than an Alpa. This is very critical indeed when you put digital backs on. Sure, it'll be cheaper - most things are - but that'll be its only selling point. Then again, if you can afford an MF digital back, Alpas look like good value.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #6
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
As far as I know the Alpa 12 is about $2,5k. This Kickstarter is giving you an alternative for just over a hundred dollars.

Is there anything not to like? (at least for film use)
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #7
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
As far as I know the Alpa 12 is about $2,5k. This Kickstarter is giving you an alternative for just over a hundred dollars.

Is there anything not to like?
Yes. Lack of precision. This matters, especially with wide angles or digital. scale focusing longer lenses gets quite interesting, quite quickly.

Also, where are you getting your figure of "just over $100"? I just re-read the kickstarter proposal and couldn't easily see it.

Odd they should choose the Mercury name, given the nature of the previous Mercury: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mercury

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #8
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Yes. Lack of precision. This matters, especially with wide angles or digital. scale focusing longer lenses gets quite interesting, quite quickly.

Also, where are you getting your figure of "just over $100"? I just re-read the kickstarter proposal and couldn't easily see it.
Well I wasn't really seeing this as a digital solution, but in any case I imagined critical focussing was done tethered for setups like this.

For film, some of the kits include ground glass backs as optional extras. Having never used a camera like this, I imagined those would give a pretty good idea of focus, but I assume from your response that this is wrong.

As for the "just over $100" figure - when I look at the Kickstarter page, I see the first (available) medium format kit is priced at $120. The $110 'early bird' cameras are all sold. Obviously that's just the start of the expenses, as lens and back have to be bought, but I imagined the majority of buyers would be re-using existing equipment.

All in all I liked the 'open source' ambition of the camera: all of their plans and patterns are going to be open for anyone to modify, and if the camera were to catch on, it seemed to me that the power of a large enthusiastic group of users could lead to some very interesting results, for a tiny fraction of the cost of cameras like the Alpa - which are the preserve of a very small number of photographers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #9
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,569
Its interesting of course. But I already have a Mamiya Press 23, and some 9x12 folders. I wonder what that camera is going to weigh?
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #10
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 29
Posts: 882
Is that a plastic helicoid?
__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-2016   #11
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,663
I would rather go with something like this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/imarcc/2881495184
This will cover anything from 16x24 inch to the Iphone sensor
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #12
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
Universal camera?


Old news...

Comes with a butcher's scale! Camera for carnivores.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #13
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
Ah all the usual RFF negativity. For a hundred bucks I'm willing to give it a try - I just don't know much about what the actual limitations, extra costs and expertise that's needed to make the whole camera-system work together with other components.

A legitimate complaint might be that the Kickstarter campaign is lacking in some of that hard information - and I would definitely have replaced the inane film with a thorough review and presentation of the workings of the camera, together with a real assessment of the tolerances to which it's built.

But it's always easier to sit here on RFF and deride other people's efforts - that always happens whether people are releasing a new camera, a new film or pretty much anything else.

I like this spirit of cooperative creativity:

"The goal of this project is to start a community of camera enthusiasts of all experiences levels who can utilize a non-corporate camera to do exciting and creative new things. Becuase the system will be open source, anyone will be able to modify and create parts for their own uses (and we'll help you do that!). Those parts will be shared throughout the community. Ideally, this camera will continue to grow in ways that we never even anticipated. This Kickstarter is meant to form that community and raise the money necessary to produce the camera with optimal materials."

At least they're getting of their backsides and trying to make something constructive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #14
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
Ah all the usual RFF negativity. For a hundred bucks I'm willing to give it a try - I just don't know much about what the actual limitations, extra costs and expertise that's needed to make the whole camera-system work together with other components.

A legitimate complaint might be that the Kickstarter campaign is lacking in some of that hard information - and I would definitely have replaced the inane film with a thorough review and presentation of the workings of the camera, together with a real assessment of the tolerances to which it's built.

But it's always easier to sit here on RFF and deride other people's efforts - that always happens whether people are releasing a new camera, a new film or pretty much anything else.

I like this spirit of cooperative creativity:

"The goal of this project is to start a community of camera enthusiasts of all experiences levels who can utilize a non-corporate camera to do exciting and creative new things. Becuase the system will be open source, anyone will be able to modify and create parts for their own uses (and we'll help you do that!). Those parts will be shared throughout the community. Ideally, this camera will continue to grow in ways that we never even anticipated. This Kickstarter is meant to form that community and raise the money necessary to produce the camera with optimal materials."

At least they're getting of their backsides and trying to make something constructive.
"At least they're getting of their backsides and trying to make something constructive". So are many of us. Visit our web-sites. Or if you can find one, look for an Imperial LF camera: I had several made to my design and specifications in the 1980s, in 4x5 inch, 8x10 inch and 11x14 inch.

"I just don't know much about what the actual limitations, extra costs and expertise that's needed to make the whole camera-system work together with other components." Some of us do, especially if we've worked with MF and LF camera manufacturers, quite apart from decades of experience of using MF and LF.

"For a hundred bucks I'm willing to give it a try". I've got better things to spend even $100 on -- and I already have better cameras than this, including an Alpa, so I'd be crazy to waste the money.

"Ah all the usual RFF negativity." Or "realism" as we say in English.

Don't get me wrong. I wish them the very best of luck. If anyone has $100 (and the rest) that they're willing to gamble, that's great. But with (as you put it) the "inane" film and the general vagueness, to say nothing of the general Kickstarter failure rate, a degree of healthy suspicion is well worth maintaining.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #15
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
"... Becuase the system will be open source, anyone will be able to modify and create parts for their own uses"
But that has been pretty much the state of things in (modular) large format for the past fifty years. Not that I have any objection to somebody marketing a bare LF box and lens board and magazine adapters - but they are competing with the LF bits and pieces section on every used item marketplace, where people are selling objects of similar functionality but much higher precision for lower prices. "Universal camera" is a rather generous claim for that. And that video looks as if we now had a comedy section...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #16
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
"At least they're getting of their backsides and trying to make something constructive". So are many of us. Visit our web-sites. Or if you can find one, look for an Imperial LF camera: I had several made to my design and specifications in the 1980s, in 4x5 inch, 8x10 inch and 11x14 inch.

"I just don't know much about what the actual limitations, extra costs and expertise that's needed to make the whole camera-system work together with other components." Some of us do, especially if we've worked with MF and LF camera manufacturers, quite apart from decades of experience of using MF and LF.

"For a hundred bucks I'm willing to give it a try". I've got better things to spend even $100 on -- and I already have better cameras than this, including an Alpa, so I'd be crazy to waste the money.

"Ah all the usual RFF negativity." Or "realism" as we say in English.

Don't get me wrong. I wish them the very best of luck. If anyone has $100 (and the rest) that they're willing to gamble, that's great. But with (as you put it) the "inane" film and the general vagueness, to say nothing of the general Kickstarter failure rate, a degree of healthy suspicion is well worth maintaining.

Cheers,

R.
Well in this case I didn't mean your posts in the thread - at least you gave an example of a specific concern with the system (although we don't actually know the tolerances the camera is built to yet).

And while a certain level of healthy scepticism is good, I find it really tiresome that the default mode on RFF to any new film product is always supercilious mockery.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #17
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
But that has been pretty much the state of things in (modular) large format for the past fifty years. .. . but they are competing with the LF bits and pieces section on every used item marketplace, where people are selling objects of similar functionality but much higher precision for lower prices. . . .
Extract 1: And the rest! Seventy years for the Technika III (1946).

Extract 2: Quite. As you well know, but some seem not to know, the levels of precision required for 35mm cameras are very high indeed -- and they're proposing a 35mm back on something that can also be used for 4x5 inch. Building even an MF camera to 35mm levels of precision is expensive: that's one of the reasons Alpas cost so much.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #18
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
. . . (although we don't actually know the tolerances the camera is built to yet). . .
We can guess, probably quite accurately. The tolerances on an Alpa are roughly half those on a Silvestri, and I'd be astonished if the Mercury were as precise as a Silvestri. Precision costs money. The Mercury should be fine for 6x7 cm and above, if you don't want to enlarge the pictures too much, but touting it for 35mm is really not very realistic. And as Sevo says, all of this has been commonplace in MF and LF for many decades.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #19
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post

And while a certain level of healthy scepticism is good, I find it really tiresome that the default mode on RFF to any new film product is always supercilious mockery.
Not really. The Travelwide for example was widely welcomed here and in other (more related) communities. Some people grumbled over the focal length choices, but nobody questioned the concept...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #20
jamin-b
Registered User
 
jamin-b is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 272
I think folks are missing the point here - it's the combination of portability, lightness and low expense of a system that accommodates different formats...for me having the ability to use 4x5, 6x9 and instant film with one set up sounds appealing....especially as a dabbler in these formats.
__________________
My flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/96319283@N08/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #21
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,379
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #22
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamin-b View Post
I think folks are missing the point here - it's the combination of portability, lightness and low expense of a system that accommodates different formats...for me having the ability to use 4x5, 6x9 and instant film with one set up sounds appealing....especially as a dabbler in these formats.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #23
jamin-b
Registered User
 
jamin-b is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 272
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???
__________________
My flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/96319283@N08/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #24
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamin-b View Post
At least as an aspiration it seems valid to me. How many of the existing systems are light and portable???
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #25
daveywaugh
Blah
 
daveywaugh's Avatar
 
daveywaugh is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 349
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 :-)
__________________
website.

Last edited by daveywaugh : 06-08-2016 at 05:20. Reason: Spelling
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #26
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamin-b View Post
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???
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'.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveywaugh View Post
. . . 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. . . .
Yes it is, if you know anything at all about building cameras. Johannielscom sums it up perfectly.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #28
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
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.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #29
Santtu Määttänen
Visual Poet
 
Santtu Määttänen's Avatar
 
Santtu Määttänen is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 284
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #30
Nowhereman
Registered User
 
Nowhereman is online now
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 152
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #31
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,376
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #32
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,330
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #33
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #34
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockos View Post
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 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #35
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by newsgrunt View Post
?...my Hasselblads and Leicas ? um, no.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #36
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
. . .
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.
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.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #37
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 29
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBingham2 View Post
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.
Great, add more worn out plastic parts to the trash heap!

Next Halloween, I'm dressing as a ozone hole.

__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #38
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,330
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #39
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
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"... 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.

...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.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2016   #40
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockos View Post
Great, add more worn out plastic parts to the trash heap!
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.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:23.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.