"Hand assembled, cutting edge, and eco-friendly"

I grow increasingly skeptical of these Kickstarter camera projects. There's a reason that so few 35mm cameras had interchangeable backs. Including that feature in a project description is a good tell that the designers need to do some more homework. I'm skeptical of anything that includes a raspberry PI. It's trivial to use a PI with the camera module and take pictures, but in terms of digital cameras, the sensor is tiny, and the PI is rather large. This just screams hobbyist project.
 
mich rassena said:
I grow increasingly skeptical of these Kickstarter camera projects. There's a reason that so few 35mm cameras had interchangeable backs. Including that feature in a project description is a good tell that the designers need to do some more homework. I'm skeptical of anything that includes a raspberry PI. It's trivial to use a PI with the camera module and take pictures, but in terms of digital cameras, the sensor is tiny, and the PI is rather large. This just screams hobbyist project.
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact you do not have to be that old to recall the insanity of the early 2000's when every day there was a new announcement about a new web site/app/piece of software that was going to solve the problems of the world. All the proponents needed was a few score millions of dollars to provide the where withall to turn it into reality. Millions (or was it billions) were pumped into vaporware schemes by gullible investors until the crunch came and reality bit.

Well I have news for the developers of this concept. Building, marketing and selling a real product of metal and plastic and glass (with embedded software which is only one part of it) is several orders of magnitude harder than building a web site or app. You do actually need software in cameras of course but this is just a beginning.

My first thought is I don't give a stuff about whether this thing will use Linux operating system (big deal - why is this supposed to be a selling point, it is irrelevant to 99% of potential users). But I did wonder for example about how this thing will meter (though I then discovered they said initially it will not have one) and if it has one who will develop the algorithms for it to correctly expose the images (a complex enough problem of itself given high tech modern matrix meters that are expected by consumers). And I wondered what kind of shutter will it have? And what kind of sensor in the digital back? And how will the shutter and the sensor interact so the image is captured when the shutter button is pressed. Never mind questions about who will build these and thousands of other components. And of course I am sure with a little reflection I could think of a million other questions, issues and problems.

Anyone having money to put into this had better have deep pockets. Even assuming this is really about building a camera and not just about looking for gullible investors as a source of "pelf". (Say, maybe that's what this is - not a PONF camera but a PELF camera).

Hey on the bright side at least this guy's address is Nuremberg not Nigeria. That's gotta be good - no?
 
Hm, well rather than stomping down on the idea, I've downloaded the Camera module document to take a look. I have a film camera that takes interchangeable backs.
 
andrewmore said:
Would it not be simpler to make a digital back that could fit onto an existing, easily obtainable, film camera that has a removable back (or a back that can easily be removed and replaced)? This would save having to re-invent the film SLR side of things. I’ve just looked at a Nikon F801 for example and the rear slides off quite simply. The electronic gubbins could sit in a module that goes under the camera in the way that motor-drives and additional battery packs used to be added. Indeed, haven’t manufacturers already done this for 35mm cameras?
Click to expand...

Yes. Leica had a digital back for its film SLR. And there was, and is, a digital back for the Hasselblad bodies. So. Move along, nothing to see here.
 
The interchangeable back (IB) idea made some sense 10-15 years ago, but not now:
1. The idea of reusing an old film camera was nice, especially when digital DSLRs were relatively expensive and their sensors just weren't anywhere near as good as present SOTA. That's changed so much in the past 10 years;
2. FF sensors were not present in abundance and at cheap prices as they are now--used Nikon D700 at $500 USD and D800 at $850, and falling. Even the M240 is now under $3k used. The Leica DMR, the "digital film" canisters, etc. all relied on cropped sensors, a compromise for those used to "full-frame" film. Times have changed.

BTW, instead of the interchangeable backs, why not digital film canisters--oh wait, it's been (snake-oil) sold, again and again:
http://www.re35.net/
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/pseudo-want-to-revive-the-digital-film-canister--29422
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/07/guy-turned-sony-camera-digital-back-nikon-film-slr/

This one at 2:53, from 2010:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=179&v=B0CFelPbyBk

My wife says I'm too cynical....
 
Last edited:
Brooklynguy said:
The interchangeable back (IB) idea made some sense 10-15 years ago, but not now:
1. The idea of reusing an old film camera was nice, especially when digital DSLRs were relatively expensive and their sensors just weren't anywhere near as good as present SOTA. That's changed so much in the past 10 years;
2. FF sensors were not present in abundance and at cheap prices as they are now--used Nikon D700 at $500 USD and D800 at $850, and falling. Even the M240 is now under $3k used. The Leica DMR, the "digital film" canisters, etc. all relied on cropped sensors, a compromise for those used to "full-frame" film. Times have changed.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and what's more these interchangeable sensors, if they existed would have economized on the cheapest part of the system, the camera body. Fully functional Nikon and Canon cameras, especially the later plastic bodies with motor drives, can be had in lots for marginally more than the cost of shipping.

Someday when money allows, I'll have the modern equivalent of the digital cartridge, which is the full-frame mirrorless. Then I'll just stick whatever Nikon, m42, Exakta, Argus, lens on with an adapter. It exists today, no kickstarter required.

Ultimately, I'm skeptical an upstart camera maker can make something with the correct tolerances and durability to allow interchangeable backs. People fuss over the thickness of the sensor stack, can this company get that right so that every time the back is put on the camera, the sensor or film is exactly where it needs to be? And can they even source enough full-frame sensors to make this cost competitive with other full-frame cameras, let alone as cheap as they claim.
 
I'm following them on facebook now because that is where they appear to posting all their updates and I am naturally curious. There was another one this morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom