Prototype MINT 35mm Film Camera

[Godfrey]

I'm not a "fan" of any brand. I use/have used a wide variety of different cameras for different reasons. I was a "Pentaxian" ... their term ... for several years in the '00s, a business relationship. This was before Ricoh acquired Pentax.

My impression over the decades of my playing with photographic equipment is that all of the manufacturers follow their financial noses. Someone in Ricoh's engineering or marketing dept might be inspired by local interests, but the worth of the stuff they make moves it to wherever it should happen to sell.

Too much conjecture to no particular purpose. I hope that the Pentax is a good camera, just like I hope that MiNT's Rollei 35AF is a good camera. The worth of either of them is not in what specs they have but in how photographers who buy them make use of them.

G

 

[Mos6502]

Some low-res sample images from the prototype camera were posted on instagram today, resulting in a lot of breathless hyperbole (and some criticism) on Reddit. I think most were unimpressed. The images to me didn't look like anything one couldn't have got from say, the Lomo LCA+ (which coincidentally also has a five element glass lens) that costs a lot less than the proposed prices I've seen floating around for this thing. In fact, I would say that the images didn't look like anything one couldn't have got from the old three element Triotar used on the lesser Rollei 35s back in the day. Of course until we see high-res images there's really no telling.

For those wondering about the lens, the last photo shows the camera, and it's labelled for a 2.8/35 lens.



The comment that goes with the image is a bit... uh concerning? Maybe? I suspect he's asking a question because fishing for responses is a good way to boost interaction (and thus instagram's algorithm) rather than because he, the guy making the camera, doesn't know what exposure is.

I think if Mint can produce this thing for a price approaching that of the Lomo LCA+ (which many already considered overpriced) they will have a big hit. If they have to sell it for $500-$600 then I'm a bit worried about their potential success. I saw a lot of people defending the proposed price by pointing out that the original Rollei 35 was a luxury camera that cost the equivalent of $3000 when new. So $500 for a new one would be a bargain. This particular sentiment is beyond ridiculous, because the original Rollei was made in Germany in the 1960s and things cost a lot more to make in the bad old days. A Nikon F6 for example cost $2,500 or so a few years ago, brand spanking new, and if a brand new Rollei 35 were available for $3000 and compared against a brand new Nikon F6, it really is no contest... the Nikon would be a better value, dollar for dollar, feature for feature in every major and minor respect than the Rollei. What relevance any of this has regarding the new Rollei 35 AF, I fail to see. It won't be built in Germany, and it won't be built using 1960s production methods. But the point was brought up again and again in discussions on other sites.

 

[JoeV]

So they had a guy using the camera who, by his own admission, has never shot film, just Instax and Polaroid? I wonder how that’s going to look?!

 

[JohnGellings]

I think if Mint can produce this thing for a price approaching that of the Lomo LCA+ (which many already considered overpriced) they will have a big hit. If they have to sell it for $500-$600 then I'm a bit worried about their potential success.

Why? It is brand new and auto focus, not guess focus. Really people are going to look at a mediocre photo and jump to these conclusions? That's silly. All cameras are capable of mediocre images.

I saw a lot of people defending the proposed price by pointing out that the original Rollei 35 was a luxury camera that cost the equivalent of $3000 when new. So $500 for a new one would be a bargain.

Well, I look at it vs 90s to early 2000s AF cameras that are very expensive new and not easy to repair.

This particular sentiment is beyond ridiculous, because the original Rollei was made in Germany in the 1960s and things cost a lot more to make in the bad old days.

Maybe, maybe not.

A Nikon F6 for example cost $2,500 or so a few years ago, brand spanking new, and if a brand new Rollei 35 were available for $3000 and compared against a brand new Nikon F6, it really is no contest... the Nikon would be a better value, dollar for dollar, feature for feature in every major and minor respect than the Rollei.

And what is your point? Mainstream workhorse vs. boutique 35mm.

What relevance any of this has regarding the new Rollei 35 AF, I fail to see. It won't be built in Germany, and it won't be built using 1960s production methods. But the point was brought up again and again in discussions on other sites.

It isn't a lomo and it is priced ok. I'm not sure why people expect magic from a camera. Magic comes from the person using it.

 

[Jonathan R]

Some low-res sample images from the prototype camera were posted on instagram today, resulting in a lot of breathless hyperbole (and some criticism) on Reddit. I think most were unimpressed. The images to me didn't look like anything one couldn't have got from say, the Lomo LCA+ (which coincidentally also has a five element glass lens) that costs a lot less than the proposed prices I've seen floating around for this thing. In fact, I would say that the images didn't look like anything one couldn't have got from the old three element Triotar used on the lesser Rollei 35s back in the day. Of course until we see high-res images there's really no telling.

For those wondering about the lens, the last photo shows the camera, and it's labelled for a 2.8/35 lens.



The comment that goes with the image is a bit... uh concerning? Maybe? I suspect he's asking a question because fishing for responses is a good way to boost interaction (and thus instagram's algorithm) rather than because he, the guy making the camera, doesn't know what exposure is.

I think if Mint can produce this thing for a price approaching that of the Lomo LCA+ (which many already considered overpriced) they will have a big hit. If they have to sell it for $500-$600 then I'm a bit worried about their potential success. I saw a lot of people defending the proposed price by pointing out that the original Rollei 35 was a luxury camera that cost the equivalent of $3000 when new. So $500 for a new one would be a bargain. This particular sentiment is beyond ridiculous, because the original Rollei was made in Germany in the 1960s and things cost a lot more to make in the bad old days. A Nikon F6 for example cost $2,500 or so a few years ago, brand spanking new, and if a brand new Rollei 35 were available for $3000 and compared against a brand new Nikon F6, it really is no contest... the Nikon would be a better value, dollar for dollar, feature for feature in every major and minor respect than the Rollei. What relevance any of this has regarding the new Rollei 35 AF, I fail to see. It won't be built in Germany, and it won't be built using 1960s production methods. But the point was brought up again and again in discussions on other sites.

There is a strong yellow cast on all but the third of those photos. Without seeing the negatives, there's no way of knowing whether it's due to poor film, bad exposure or poor scanning, but I wouldn't have thought it likely to be the lens. Apart from that colour issue, the photos are underwhelming, but that's entirely down to the person using the camera.

 

[Mos6502]

Why? It is brand new and auto focus, not guess focus. Really people are going to look at a mediocre photo and jump to these conclusions? That's silly. All cameras are capable of mediocre images.

Well, I look at it vs 90s to early 2000s AF cameras that are very expensive new and not easy to repair.

Maybe, maybe not.

And what is your point? Mainstream workhorse vs. boutique 35mm.

It isn't a lomo and it is priced ok. I'm not sure why people expect magic from a camera. Magic comes from the person using it.

The point is that bringing up the price of the 1966 original Rollei 35, and saying this new entirely unrelated camera is a "bargain" by comparison makes no sense. For the reasons I already stated. Not exactly hard to understand. We don't live in 1966, and this camera isn't being made in Germany, so the price of the original is completely irrelevant.

As for the images, I don't think anybody was saying a thing about the composition. Of course any camera can take bad images. You purposefully miss the point it seems.

 

[Evergreen States]

I have a gut feeling that, if the camera is good, enough film shooting influencers will buy it. As has been pointed out, the deluxe automatic compacts all sell for this or more. The supply is limited and demand has grown. A new deluxe compact may be expensive at first, but will still slow the rate of the price increase for the old cameras. Some will buy the new one, some will buy old ones. But the fact that at least some people will buy the new one over the old one will go some way in keeping the old ones affordable. And as the new Rollei 35 gets older, its price too will fall a bit on the used market.

So I'm not worried about it costing even $850. The people who will move this are the same people who already paid a couple thousand at least for their Leica M6 and several thousand more for their Mamyia 7.

 

[JohnGellings]

The point is that bringing up the price of the 1966 original Rollei 35, and saying this new entirely unrelated camera is a "bargain" by comparison makes no sense. For the reasons I already stated. Not exactly hard to understand. We don't live in 1966, and this camera isn't being made in Germany, so the price of the original is completely irrelevant.

Yeah, I can agree about that... but I don't agree with a lot of things people write in comments. It does not make me think MINT did anything wrong.

As for the images, I don't think anybody was saying a thing about the composition. Of course any camera can take bad images. You purposefully miss the point it seems.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I wasn't talking about composition. It is one person's use of the camera and people are jumping to conclusions. Hey, it very well might not be better than a Lomo. I'm not going to say that based on some random post on instagram though...

 

[Archlich]

They won't be making these in any meaningfully large numbers. New parts and tooling, new lines. Can't imagine how will these come cheap.

 

[agentlossing]

All cameras are capable of mediocre images.

Yes to this.

I'm sure we will see many more images eventually. These have a decidedly novice feel to them.

 

[JohnGellings]

Well, Mint sent out more images today and yeah, they look pretty pedestrian:

MiNT

mint-camera.com

(not sure if that link will work)

Still, it is a new autofocus compact and that is a feat in itself.

 

[agentlossing]

Well, Mint sent out more images today and yeah, they look pretty pedestrian:

MiNT

mint-camera.com

(not sure if that link will work)

Still, it is a new autofocus compact and that is a feat in itself.

What are you looking for in the images? Versus what are you seeing? These don't move the needle for me but they don't look soft, so I am definitely awaiting higher-definition examples.

 

[JohnGellings]

What are you looking for in the images? Versus what are you seeing? These don't move the needle for me but they don't look soft, so I am definitely awaiting higher-definition examples.

Personally? I do not really care. I likely will not buy this camera. If I want to look at what I consider great photography, I go to my photo book library if I am honest. I just think they are average photographs that we'd see from anyone with a decent P&S style film camera. Maybe that is the point. Like I said before, I do not expect "magic" from cameras. However, it could be a good idea for Mint to get this into the hands of a great photographer instead of film camera fanatics.

Unfortunately, these days... it isn't negative to print we are looking at... we are most likely looking at the scans getting in the way too.

 

[agentlossing]

Personally? I do not really care. If I want to look at what I consider great photography, I go to photo book library if I am honest.

I just think they are average photographs that we'd see from anyone with a decent P&S style film camera. Like I said before, I do not expect "magic" from cameras. You seem to call me out, but then say they do not move the needle for you either.

Unfortunately, these days... it isn't negative to print we are looking at... we are most likely looking at the scans getting in the way too.

I just haven't seen any samples yet that move the needle one way or the other, you sounded to me like you had made some extent of judgment call on the quality of the photos and I just can't discern anything at all about the IQ from the photos. I might have misunderstood your take.

 

[JohnGellings]

I just haven't seen any samples yet that move the needle one way or the other, you sounded to me like you had made some extent of judgment call on the quality of the photos and I just can't discern anything at all about the IQ from the photos. I might have misunderstood your take.

I said they were pedestrian which could almost be synonymous with didn't move the needle no?

 

[Coldkennels]

I just think they are average photographs that we'd see from anyone with a decent P&S style film camera. Maybe that is the point.

I think this is exactly the point.

Mint isn't Leica, and they're not trying to create a new M6, nor compete with the existing one. Similarly, they're not Lindhof, or Hasselblad, or so on. That's not their market.

I don't think this camera is aimed at "art photographers"; I'd imagine they're trying to tap into a young, Instagram-centric demographic who want a more reliable and more easily-sourced modern version of the Yashica T4 for casual-but-cool use. That's exactly the crowd who'd be taking photographs like the ones on that last link to the Mint site... and the ones most likely to be excited by those photos as a result.

 

[armadsen]

Whether or not a photo is pedestrian has nothing to do with the technical merits of the camera. I've seen wonderful photos taken on all kind of cameras. There are also plenty of mediocre photos shot on Leicas, Rolleis, etc. (including my own). Those photos do tell me that the camera is capable of taking decently sharp, well exposed photos without light leaks and flare, which is good enough for me. The rest comes down to the photographer.

I agree that it could be good to get the camera to some talented photographers, because aspirational marketing works. But, these photos only really made me feel like things are on track.

 

[JohnGellings]

I think this is exactly the point.

Could be...

Mint isn't Leica, and they're not trying to create a new M6, nor compete with the existing one. Similarly, they're not Lindhof, or Hasselblad, or so on. That's not their market.

But are they more Lomo, more of a toy... (not that I think this) I would imagine that isn't the perception they want either.

I don't think this camera is aimed at "art photographers";

Any film camera... or any camera, digital or film, is aimed at anyone who would use it. I mean, it isn´t like artists all use the same cameras, formats, brands, etc. It certainly isn't aimed at the mainstream.

I'd imagine they're trying to tap into a young, Instagram-centric demographic who want a more reliable and more easily-sourced modern version of the Yashica T4 for casual-but-cool use.

I think that ship has sailed... though I think they want the TikTok hype.

That's exactly the crowd who'd be taking photographs like the ones on that last link to the Mint site...

Really?

and the ones most likely to be excited by those photos as a result.

ok then...

 

[JohnGellings]

Whether or not a photo is pedestrian has nothing to do with the technical merits of the camera.

And I never said it did...

I've seen wonderful photos taken on all kind of cameras.

Of course, if you look at my previous responses you'll note I said the same exact things. It seems my use of pedestrian has been controversial. Perhaps it has negative connotations that I didn't intend. Maybe it was not the right word.

There are also plenty of mediocre photos shot on Leicas, Rolleis, etc. (including my own).

Yes, I said this earlier in this thread too.

Those photos do tell me that the camera is capable of taking decently sharp, well exposed photos without light leaks and flare, which is good enough for me. The rest comes down to the photographer.

Yes, I agree.

I agree that it could be good to get the camera to some talented photographers, because aspirational marketing works.

Yes, that's all I mean.

But, these photos only really made me feel like things are on track.

Hey, its is a new film camera (with AF even) that isn't a toy, but isn't $6000 either. That's a huge accomplishment in 2024.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I think this is exactly the point.

Mint isn't Leica, and they're not trying to create a new M6, nor compete with the existing one. Similarly, they're not Lindhof, or Hasselblad, or so on. That's not their market.

I don't think this camera is aimed at "art photographers"; I'd imagine they're trying to tap into a young, Instagram-centric demographic who want a more reliable and more easily-sourced modern version of the Yashica T4 for casual-but-cool use. That's exactly the crowd who'd be taking photographs like the ones on that last link to the Mint site... and the ones most likely to be excited by those photos as a result.

"Art photographer"? Whazat? Surely the art of photography can encompass more than Ansel Adams wannabes! A real artist will try, and use, anything, and no doubt many art photographers are just as eager to get their hands on one of these as the Instagram crowd.