Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
It's not only not as good as current digital cameras, it's not even as good as film. I'm not sure I understand what would tempt anyone to use it.
https://petapixel.com/2018/09/21/im-backs-digital-backs-for-old-35mm-cameras-are-now-in-production/
https://petapixel.com/2018/09/21/im-backs-digital-backs-for-old-35mm-cameras-are-now-in-production/
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
A marginal solution to a problem that didn't ever exist.
$205 can buy a good amount of film. 400ft of Eastman 5222, for one.
Or a decent plane ticket if one shops smart and catches a good deal.
Or split that cost between rolls of film and develop only with scanning.
This looks like a bad tool to make photography not only not fun and very inconvenient, but also worse than Holga, Lomo, Lubitel, Seagull, all on the days when the production line was either absent or too drunk to care.
Urban Outfitters will grab something like this and sell it to kids for the easy cost of $499.
Phil Forrest
$205 can buy a good amount of film. 400ft of Eastman 5222, for one.
Or a decent plane ticket if one shops smart and catches a good deal.
Or split that cost between rolls of film and develop only with scanning.
This looks like a bad tool to make photography not only not fun and very inconvenient, but also worse than Holga, Lomo, Lubitel, Seagull, all on the days when the production line was either absent or too drunk to care.
Urban Outfitters will grab something like this and sell it to kids for the easy cost of $499.
Phil Forrest
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
Don't we already have a thread for this ? "sharpness is a bourgeois concept "
Peter
Peter
Ricoh
Well-known
Sacrilege! If anyone desires a digital camera just go out and buy one instead of mutilating our precious film cameras.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Exactly!
Exactly!
I thought that too, on top of all the other things it doesn't do, it does make the classic looking cameras butt ugly.
Exactly!
I thought that too, on top of all the other things it doesn't do, it does make the classic looking cameras butt ugly.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'd go for one at that sort of price, just to use my 135/1.8 Pentax-fit lens.
On my reading, the camera is hardly "mutilated".
Cheers,
R.
On my reading, the camera is hardly "mutilated".
Cheers,
R.
Ricoh
Well-known
If I've read correctly it means removing the back. That's what I meant by mutilation. Ok a bit dramatic of me, but it could mean the death to a number of analogue cameras when the main body and back go separate ways.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
^ Weren't there literally millions of those camera models made ? Just sayin'. Peter
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If someone ever comes up with some type of insert into the film cartridge chamber that just records via a sensor over the film plane and has to be set to an ISO before inserting ... then needs to be removed like a card to extract the files I'd be interested. This setup doesn't do it for me!
raid
Dad Photographer
Keith: I am sure that you agree that what we have is an adaptation that is ugly and ineffective.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Steve M.
Veteran
Kickstarter is the modern version of the Pet Rock (along with the confirmation that a sucker is born every minute). I have seen so many loony tunes ideas on there, and what is sad is that people buy into those ridiculous ideas. Agreed, this "re purposing" of a perfectly good film camera into that hideous glob we see on the link should shame the makers into stopping production, but hopefully not too many people buy into this loser idea.
I don't have any holier than thou feelings about destroying a film camera though, not for any reason. There are millions and millions of them around, and it's just a consumer item. Plenty more where they came from. If the world suddenly lost all it's film cameras, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to build one. In fact, in a better world, no one would be allowed to own a camera they didn't build. That would sure cut down on the crappy images we are surrounded with. Sometimes less really is more.
I don't have any holier than thou feelings about destroying a film camera though, not for any reason. There are millions and millions of them around, and it's just a consumer item. Plenty more where they came from. If the world suddenly lost all it's film cameras, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to build one. In fact, in a better world, no one would be allowed to own a camera they didn't build. That would sure cut down on the crappy images we are surrounded with. Sometimes less really is more.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Is it really $205!?!? I would hate to ruin my beloved Spotmatic but I could buy my sons K1000 that I gave him in High School. But knowing him he would hold out for a major price.
