Interesting new Kickstarter project....a "Universal" camera

jsrockit said:
Nothing wrong with that...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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)
 
mani said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
johannielscom said:
Universal camera?

Universal-Camera-Mercury-II-(Mod-CX).jpg

Old news...

:p
Click to expand...

Comes with a butcher's scale! Camera for carnivores. :)
 
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.
 
mani said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
mani said:
"... Becuase the system will be open source, anyone will be able to modify and create parts for their own uses"
Click to expand...

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...
 
Roger Hicks said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sevo said:
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. . . .
Click to expand...
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.
 
mani said:
. . . (although we don't actually know the tolerances the camera is built to yet). . .
Click to expand...
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.
 
mani said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom