I do realize that. I may not have been clear but I mainly just meant that Mint doesn't jump out for good build quality. I'd put them a step above Lomography for sure, but a few steps below what we know of Ricoh/Pentax (which, to be fair, is in a totally different league of manufacturing).
I am told that this is with 50% flash (CIPA rating), i.e. 5 of those rolls with flash for each frame, i.e. 360 uses of the flash. That's probably a non-typical use of the camera and how much more energy would the flash use than a typical picture? It may be that more typical use results in 20, 30 or 40 rolls per battery (speculation)??
We'll have to agree to disagree. I have and use, what, six MiNT cameras and they're all very nicely built and finished. They're not at Rollei or Voigtländer levels, and maybe not quite at Ricoh/Pentax level but darn close. I have several real (pre-Cosina) Voigtländers and still have my Rollei 35S, had a bunch of Rolleiflex TLRs over the years too ... far better build than Ricoh/Pentax IMO, having had and used both of those professionally too. One of the reasons I stopped using Pentax in 2007-2008 was that I found the cameras' and lenses' build quality to be significantly poorer than Olympus and Nikon. I moved from Pentax to Olympus and was delighted with the improvement and consistency.
Yes, absolutely, unless you have a ‘guided missile’ autofocus mirrorless like a Sony A1 or Canon R3.
Eh neither can focus in the dark like the hexar can.
Sure, but nothing can autofocus in total darkness like a Hexar. Even the MJU ii and other IR focus systems work worse. In low light the better new mirrorless cameras are still pretty amazing. EV-4 to -6 is very dim.
It would/does, but most lidar systems are too large, slow or currently too expensive to put in a camera. That’s not to say they always will be.
www.analogforevermagazine.com
Indeed, but if they use a small cheap sensor and small processor like you find in a cellphone, it won’t be responsive like you’d want from a high end autofocus camera. Those are slow. Try focusing your S6 or iPhone 15 in low light some time. There are compromises everywhere.Apparently expensive, but not too expensive for an $800 camera. 🙂
MB: The use of lidar technology in the Mint35 is groundbreaking. Can you elaborate on why you chose this technology over traditional autofocus methods?
GH: The search for a suitable autofocus module was the first and foremost task of this project years ago. We were taken aback to discover that "traditional" autofocus modules were no longer being produced, and at one point we were close to calling off the project because of this. In today's digital era, autofocus methods heavily rely on software algorithms, which do not apply to our project since we cannot extract digital information from the scene.
Fortunately, the emergence of Lidar technology provided a solution. Although Lidar technology has been around for a while, it gained popularity in recent years due to its use in smartphones and self-driving cars. The prices of these sensors have become more affordable, making them suitable for our project (although still quite expensive).
Lidar offers several advantages. It is accurate across various environmental conditions, including dark and bright places, and it works on all surfaces. Additionally, it offers a good range. It proved to be the perfect choice at the right time.
I would say the only disadvantage of using Lidar over "traditional" autofocus methods is the cost. It is indeed quite expensive, but we still have to use it.
The Mint Rollei 35 AF - Exclusive Interview with Gary Ho of Mint Camera | Analog Forever Magazine
In an exclusive and inaugural discussion with Gary Ho of Mint Camera, we uncover the passion and ingenuity fueling their latest creation, the Rollei 35AF.
The MiNT camera will come in at <$1000. So yes, the lidar system is a cheap one, as far as lidars go. And no, it doesn’t need to be lightning fast, but faster than slow would be good. My Contax T3 is beautiful, but its AF sends me crazy.
And let me clarify: a financial winner. I still don't care for this camera. Insert grouchy noises here.
Thanks for clarifying—we were all starting to worry about you for a second there!
