Dieter Schaefer Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 So the "brilliant idea" is to have to carry as many "exchangeable backs" as one would need for the day of shooting in order to avoid having to change film in the field? And to be able to "easily" change film mid-roll? Because changing film in the field with this new camera looks even less appealing than changing film in a Leica rangefinder (where do I put that Leica bottom plate is replaced by where do I put the rest of the camera?). How many backs is one willing to carry (and pay for)? And the other brilliant idea is the "exchangeable mount". Which probably will preclude the camera from allowing automatic diaphragm and force stop-down metering. New camera, 60's technology? But because I want to use all those classic lenses I pony up for at least one exchangeable mount each. Maybe I can still fit those into the same bag that holds all the film backs? Doubtful I have any space left for lenses:mad: So far, some 80 people actually opted for a complete camera... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen_S Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 The reason I like the feature is that loading time is reduced. I wonder if APS will make a comeback? Smaller surface area than 8-perf 35mm, but the ease of processing and scanning are tempting I totally agree with Ben upon on something like my Canon T90 or Nikon F4, F5, or F100 film changes are probably a 15-20 second affair if I'm rushing. A high end camera takes 8-10 seconds to rewind a roll of film, and then it's just a matter of popping the old roll out, sticking the new in, pulling the leader to the mark, shutting the back, and the camera was ready to roll. The few times I used the T90 to make money, I always had a second camera ready to grab at a critical time(or really any time) but never found the rewind time to be too off-putting. On my Bronicas, by the time I've fished the dark slide out of my pocket, put it in, pulled the old back off, put the new back on, and pulled the dark slide I'm probably at that much time. The RB67 takes even longer. Granted I'm ASSUMING that the backs for this have an integral dark slide, which would shave some time IMHO a fast reload would have to be Instamaticesque. - Clarifying: I don't want to pay extra for mass produced ultra fishy film pressure plates that get my shots out of focus, but The (East?) European realm had the Agfa Rapid Cassette, where 35mm got wound from one cartridge to another. There is also the "pro with old Leica" or even better late Rollei MF SLR approach of preparing interchangeable units. - Leica guys had cartridge + additional take up spools ready to save a few seconds during film change. - Rollei sold prepairable plastic frames to simply pop roll and takeup spool into the camera. I never shot interchangeable back MF seriously, but to me it feels it takes longer to reload Hasselblad mags than to reload my TLRs. Having multiple magazines probably only paid off when you had them ready on a tray / tools table at your side or maybe during ultra high end productions, with every light manned and at least one assistant reloading magazines while you shoot like crazy. - Being realistic, I'd prefer the assistant to reload an identical backup camera, to place my eggs into multiple baskets. I haven't used APS. - What ease of processing and scanning are you talking about? - I'd home process film in a Jobo or whatever it takes to hold it (since Jobo only cater 4x5" & smaller). - I'd appreciate the ability to reload cartridges myself. - Was there such an option with APS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 IMO, it's hard to beat a Rolleiflex in terms of fast loading in MF. Swap the spools, thread the leader, give the crank a spin to make sure it's catching, then shut the back and start cranking. My main use for interchangeable backs in MF is to have multiple film types loaded and be able to change on the fly(usually B&W and transparency). A second FM or FM2 is lighter and takes up less space than an RB67 film back :) . Considering the relative size of MF equipment, a second back vs. a complete second is very much a viable solution when headed out into the field. Even if I opt for an F2 instead of an FM/FE series camera, I'm still looking at a very minor weight penalty for carrying a second body. BTW, I'm awaiting the arrival of an APS SLR. I've actually never owned an APS camera in my life, but it was cheap and I figured it would be fun to play with. It's my understanding that negatives are customarily returned in the original cassette and that even removing them requires a "hack." Between the 24mm width, sprocket holes(which I think are more like 126 or 110) and the interlocks on the cartridges I don't think bulk loading is viable. Plus, the film has a magnetic strip that can be used to encode all kinds of stuff if you're so inclined-i.e if you want to throw away resolution by using "APS-C"(3:2 aspect ratio) or "APS-P"(panorama) that's all included there as are the date, time, and "special messages" if your camera supports that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_watson1 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 c_watson|1 said: ↑ The film ecosystem is still awash with cheap, functional used cameras--the key fact all these projects downplay to the point of denial. Anyone actively shooting film knows this. Doubt there are enough who don't to float the scheme. The Kickstarter page has three paragraphs which answer your question. "With Reflex, we want to offer an alternative to a second-hand camera being the only affordable option available." Nothing like a firm hold on the obvious... Of course they're blithely downplaying the enormity of the used camera market since it makes the Reflex "project"look borderline absurd. Non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted November 11, 2017 Share Posted November 11, 2017 (edited) Disregarding the economics and practicalities of bringing such a camera to market; who, seriously, would buy it? Given that it can't possibly be cheaply mass produced and retain any semblance of precision. Are there thousands, or even hundreds of professional or serious enthusiast photographers using 35mm film? And even if there are, do they really need to swap film mid-roll desperately enough to create a market? I propose that anyone that really needs that facility (and isn't using digital) is already using a medium or large format camera that also gives them many times the image quality of the crippled 35mm format. So why should they change systems? And more importantly, why would they spend a substantial chunk of money to do so? Anyone that thinks 35mm film delivers adequate image quality for their use is probably already using one of the millions of film camera systems that have been produced since the 1960s. They're also likely to be attached to that equipment enough not to be easily tempted away. I can't, for example, see many Leica users ditching their precious f or M models for a mongrel camera that'll most likely look as if it was knocked up in a shed by someone's nutty uncle. Edited November 11, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Disregarding the economics and practicalities of bringing such a camera to market; who, seriously, would buy it? Given that it can't possibly be cheaply mass produced and retain any semblance of precision. Are there thousands, or even hundreds of professional or serious enthusiast photographers using 35mm film? And even if there are, do they really need to swap film mid-roll desperately enough to create a market? I propose that anyone that really needs that facility (and isn't using digital) is already using a medium or large format camera that also gives them many times the image quality of the crippled 35mm format. So why should they change systems? And more importantly, why would they spend a substantial chunk of money to do so? Anyone that thinks 35mm film delivers adequate image quality for their use is probably already using one of the millions of film camera systems that have been produced since the 1960s. They're also likely to be attached to that equipment enough not to be easily tempted away. I can't, for example, see many Leica users ditching their precious f or M models for a mongrel camera that'll most likely look as if it was knocked up in a shed by someone's nutty uncle. I don't think there are that many films to switch either today. One can carries several cameras instead. Good cheap 35mm cameras are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 Either that, or each camera will have a retail price in the region of $5,000. The retail price for the body will be £399. So they say. If there was enough demand for new 35mm film gear, I would think that Cosina could resume making camera bodies for Nikon, Olympus, etc. The Cosina bodies were okay for the '90s, but awful considering what you can buy today. The FM10 was, relatively speaking, mediocre. I'm not sure what the generic Cosina camera would bring to the table today. Are there thousands, or even hundreds of professional or serious enthusiast photographers using 35mm film? And even if there are, do they really need to swap film mid-roll desperately enough to create a market? There are probably hundreds of professionals using 35mm today. I don't know, I'm guessing. I'd say a lot of them would give the Reflex a fair look, at the least. I don't think there are that many films to switch either today. There are a handful. This list is from August, so you can subtract a few: Adox Silvermax Adaox Scala 160 AdoxCHS 100 Type II Adox CMS 20 Adox Color Implosion Agfaphoto APX 100 Agfaphoto APX 400 Afgaphoto CT100 Precisa Bergger Pancro 400 Cinestill 50D Cinestill 800T FILM Ferrania P30 Film Washi Film W Film Washi Film X Fomapan 100 Classic Fomapan 200 Creative Fomapan 400 Action Fomapan R100 Foma Retropan 320 Fujifilm Acros 100 Fujifilm Fujicolor C200 Fujifilm Neopan 400C Fujifilm Provia 100F Fujifilm Pro 160NS Fujifilm Pro 400H Fujifilm Superia 200 Fujifilm Superia X-tra 400 Fujifilm Superia X-tra 800 Fujifilm Superia 1600 Fujifilm Velvia 50 Fujifilm Velvia 100 Ilford Delta 100 Ilford Delta 400 Ilford Delta 3200 Ilford FP4 Ilford HP5 Ilford Pan F Ilford SFX 200 Ilford XP2 Super Japan Camera Hunter Street Pan 400 Kentmere 100 Kentmere 400 Kodak Ektar 100 Kodak Gold 200 Kodak Ultra Max 400 Kodak Ultra Max 800 Kodak Portra 160 Kodak Portra 400 Kodak Portra 800 Kodak TMax 100 Kodak TMax 400 Kodak Tri-X Lomography CN100 Lomography CN400 Lomography CN800 Lomography Earl Grey 100 Lomography Lady Grey 400 Lomography LomoChrome Purple 100-400 Lomography Redscale XR 50-200 Lomography Xpro Chrome 200 Lucky SHD100 Oriental Seagull 100 Oriental Seagull 400 Orwo N74+ Orwo UH54 Revolog 460nm Revolog 600nm Revolog Kolor Revolog Lazer Revolog Plexus Revolog Rasp Revolog Streak Revolog Tesla I Revolog Tesla II Revolog Texture Revolog Volvox Rollei CR200 Rollei Ortho 25 Rollei Retro 80S Rollei Retro 400S Rollei Vario Chrome Source: These are the 35mm films you can still buy today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 "The retail price for the body will be £399. So they say." - I don't think this project has been costed out accurately. Either that or someone's got a decimal point in the wrong place. Because I don't think it's possible to build a halfway decent conventional SLR at that price-point today. Let alone a modular design like this. This is always going to be a niche product, and as such it's going to be expensive. Even at the height of film use it wouldn't have sold in huge numbers. 35mm film cameras are essentially 'disposable', and nobody flinches at buying, or carrying, a separate body for a different film. Even more so at current used prices. As for the 'fast change' argument; that doesn't hold up today. Nobody in their right mind shoots sport or other fast action on film anymore. The design is too clunky to appeal to 'arty' types shooting film to impress. Too expensive, even at £399, to appeal to newbies dipping their toe into shooting film. Too new-fangled to appeal to nostalgia freaks wanting the 'classic' experience. Too bulky to offer much advantage over shooting an interchangeable magazine medium format SLR. And too 35mm to offer any image quality improvement! I predict 'Reflex' will quickly go into liquidation. That's after its executive officers have legally walked away with their self awarded fat salaries, and left the shareholders with nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 There are probably hundreds of professionals using 35mm today. I don't know, I'm guessing. I'd say a lot of them would give the Reflex a fair look, at the least. The last time I asked(which was a few months ago) Nikon USA still provided full service for the F5, F100, and of course the F6. I suspect the FM3a could be added to that list. I haven't bothered to check, but I would not be surprised if the same was true of the last model EOS 1 and the EOS 3. If I were a pro making money on 35mm film, I'd feel a lot better buying even a used camera made by a well-established and having it serviced. A nice F100+a visit to Nikon would probably still put you at $500 or so. BTW, when I have been paid for photographs in the past(not my only source of income) my main cameras were my T90 and a pair of New F-1s. I had the F-1s serviced by Ken Oikawa(which reminds me that I need to send him a couple more cameras while he's still in the business). Since my T90 hadn't been serviced, I ALWAYS had an F-1 nearby when I knew I couldn't take a chance with a blinking EEE(even though that generally happens to T90s have have been sitting). It never let me down, but if I wanted to go back to using it again to make money(unlikely-I'd probably use an F100 or F2) I'd have one of the well-known guys service it. I'd feel a LOT more confident making money with a camera from an established maker. If this outfit delivers, they might still be here in two years, and they might not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Another camera funding I just saw Ihagee | Ihagee Dresden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Another camera funding I just saw Ihagee | Ihagee Dresden Interesting-at least it's an F mount camera so hopefully it will give full aperture metering. Still "Pictures taken with Elbaflex are images full of contrast, natural and timeless, especially when shot in black and white." Those properties are generally attributed to the optics, at least provided that the camera body can do basic things like minimize internal reflections and other odds and ends-issues that were solved about 100 years ago. So, there again, show me what it can do that an F2 or FM series camera can't...but I guess we'll see at the grand "reveal" tomorrow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 There's obviously no commitment to improved image quality with these startups, since they're sticking with the 35mm format! A rollfilm RF at £399 would be very interesting, but then they'd have to put some actual effort into designing a range of lenses. Unless it involved a cam adaptor for, say, Pentax 67 or M645 lenses. Or maybe an electronic focus detector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 A rollfilm RF at £399 would be very interesting, but then they'd have to put some actual effort into designing a range of lenses. Unless it involved a cam adaptor for, say, Pentax 67 or M645 lenses. Or maybe an electronic focus detector. Agreed-that would be a project I'd support and buy. The Mamiya 6 and 7 remain among the few film cameras that have held their value. The Fuji 645 looks okay, but the 645 format turns me off(I'd rather have 6x7) and the lenses are fixed. Whether using new lenses or adopting an existing design, I know I'd probably back it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 The retail price for the body will be £399. So they say. The Cosina bodies were okay for the '90s, but awful considering what you can buy today. The FM10 was, relatively speaking, mediocre. I'm not sure what the generic Cosina camera would bring to the table today. There are probably hundreds of professionals using 35mm today. I don't know, I'm guessing. I'd say a lot of them would give the Reflex a fair look, at the least. There are a handful. This list is from August, so you can subtract a few: Adox Silvermax Adaox Scala 160 AdoxCHS 100 Type II Adox CMS 20 Adox Color Implosion Agfaphoto APX 100 Agfaphoto APX 400 Afgaphoto CT100 Precisa Bergger Pancro 400 Cinestill 50D Cinestill 800T FILM Ferrania P30 Film Washi Film W Film Washi Film X Fomapan 100 Classic Fomapan 200 Creative Fomapan 400 Action Fomapan R100 Foma Retropan 320 Fujifilm Acros 100 Fujifilm Fujicolor C200 Fujifilm Neopan 400C Fujifilm Provia 100F Fujifilm Pro 160NS Fujifilm Pro 400H Fujifilm Superia 200 Fujifilm Superia X-tra 400 Fujifilm Superia X-tra 800 Fujifilm Superia 1600 Fujifilm Velvia 50 Fujifilm Velvia 100 Ilford Delta 100 Ilford Delta 400 Ilford Delta 3200 Ilford FP4 Ilford HP5 Ilford Pan F Ilford SFX 200 Ilford XP2 Super Japan Camera Hunter Street Pan 400 Kentmere 100 Kentmere 400 Kodak Ektar 100 Kodak Gold 200 Kodak Ultra Max 400 Kodak Ultra Max 800 Kodak Portra 160 Kodak Portra 400 Kodak Portra 800 Kodak TMax 100 Kodak TMax 400 Kodak Tri-X Lomography CN100 Lomography CN400 Lomography CN800 Lomography Earl Grey 100 Lomography Lady Grey 400 Lomography LomoChrome Purple 100-400 Lomography Redscale XR 50-200 Lomography Xpro Chrome 200 Lucky SHD100 Oriental Seagull 100 Oriental Seagull 400 Orwo N74+ Orwo UH54 Revolog 460nm Revolog 600nm Revolog Kolor Revolog Lazer Revolog Plexus Revolog Rasp Revolog Streak Revolog Tesla I Revolog Tesla II Revolog Texture Revolog Volvox Rollei CR200 Rollei Ortho 25 Rollei Retro 80S Rollei Retro 400S Rollei Vario Chrome Source: These are the 35mm films you can still buy today You just list the film. Many are similar so you would only pick one to use. I can't see one with more than 3 type of films. 3 bodies are easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 My wife and I both owned Nikon FMs from before we met. After not so long, we kept negative film in hers, and slide film in mine. (Mine is black, so easy to tell apart.) Having cameras with different film can be handy. (More so in the pre-digital days.) But yes, there are so many good used cameras out there, maybe not enough market for new ones. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 You just list the film. Many are similar so you would only pick one to use. I can't see one with more than 3 type of films. 3 bodies are easy. Agreed. Even though I HAVE used a good many of the films on the list, it's rare that I would head out of the house with more than two. Usually it's Tri-X and Velvia 50 although I'm not married to those two. I do sometimes have a 3rd body. It I do, it's to carry a more "tame" color film-usually negative-if I need to include people. Depending on what I'm doing, I might opt for something like Portra 400 if I anticipate needing speed, or maybe Ektar 100 if I want a dual-duty landscape and people film(it's not a great one for the latter, but is better than Velvia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomspielman Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) What I've learned from participating on a cycling forum for many years is that there are large numbers of people that find buying used equipment very risky. Bikes, like cameras can sit unused for decades and for little effort and expense be made to work like new. Sometimes it takes no work at all. Yet people would rather spend a one or two hundred dollars on an inferior bike from Walmart when that money can get a much better quality used bike. They want to know that there's a place they can take it if something goes wrong and either get it fixed or get another one. And I kind of get it. Recently I've sold a number of cameras on eBay and sometimes I'll be asked questions from people who don't know much about cameras. I sold one to a university student in Singapore. Honestly it makes me a little nervous at times. I allow 14 day returns and I only sell cameras that I'm comfortable are working properly. But I'd feel bad if it quit working after 20 days. I have no reason to suspect that will happen, but it could. Personally, I'm not out to cheat anyone and prefer to sell to people who know exactly what they're getting and what to expect. However, there's a lot of untested cameras being sold on eBay and other places. There are sellers that misrepresent their condition. I wonder how many people who are new to film photography end up with a camera that either doesn't work right or is just the wrong camera for them. Having that experience can sour them to film. Buying a camera that's the result of a Kickstarter project may not be a ton better and entails risks of its own. But getting something new that hopefully has some technical support and a warranty behind it has some value. Edited November 13, 2017 by tomspielman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 "They want to know that there's a place they can take it if something goes wrong and either get it fixed or get another one." - There's no guarantee that Reflex will be around for any length of time to fix, replace or refund either. If I had £399 to spend (or waste) on a new 35mm film camera, I'd be looking to buy an established brand and model that has thousands of clones out there to cannibalise and keep going. Not an unknown kickstarter outfit that might well disappear without trace in a few months time. I'll keep an eye out for the local 'More Money Than Sense' brigade sporting Reflexes around their necks, but I won't be holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 If I had £399 to spend (or waste) on a new 35mm film camera, I'd be looking to buy an established brand and model that has thousands of clones out there to cannibalise and keep going. Not an unknown kickstarter outfit that might well disappear without trace in a few months time. Exactly-I'd feel a LOT more confident with a major brand camera(Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, pick your poison) that's either still factory supported or has good folks out there for repair. I don't know about the Pentax or Minolta scene, but Nikon does still offer limited factory service on some FM and FE series cameras, plus full service on FM3as and other recent ones. We also have Sover Wong for F2s. Most independent shops probably have bins full of broken cameras they can salvage other parts from. We have Ken Oikawa to take care of our Canon F-1s-he was head of the west coast Canon service facility before setting up his own business, and also has factory parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomspielman Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Exactly-I'd feel a LOT more confident with a major brand camera(Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, pick your poison) that's either still factory supported or has good folks out there for repair. I don't know about the Pentax or Minolta scene, but Nikon does still offer limited factory service on some FM and FE series cameras, plus full service on FM3as and other recent ones. We also have Sover Wong for F2s. Most independent shops probably have bins full of broken cameras they can salvage other parts from. We have Ken Oikawa to take care of our Canon F-1s-he was head of the west coast Canon service facility before setting up his own business, and also has factory parts. Sure, and around here at least there are countless bikes shops that would much rather work on a 30 year old bike than something somebody bought at Walmart. But imagine for a second that you know next to nothing about cameras. I know more than most people but I had no idea that factory service was still available for some Nikons. I know there are some individuals that still service some cameras and that they have access to factory parts but in many/most cases the supply of those parts is dwindling. Plus I'm guessing that factory service isn't cheap. Again, I personally wouldn't trust that a kickstarter company is going to last very long, but I understand the appeal of new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) Well, if one has money to burn and insists on new, there's still always the F6. I've toyed with the idea of buying an F6 new since I've never bought a new film camera. Ultimately, though, I can think of better uses for $2500 whether it's photography related(a Mamiya 7 sounds tempting, or a couple of long fast Nikon lenses), dumped into the money pit known as British sports car(that would make a BIG dent in my MGA restoration, or I could have a lot of fun with my MGB for that), or something else productive like paying off my student loans... Of course, that's a moot point since I don't HAVE that much disposable income lying around right now. On the new camera subject, though, up until a few months ago one could buy a new FM-10 with a kit lens for I think around $500(street price). Although not a BAD camera, per se, it's still much lower quality than any of the other FM series cameras and there again a person who MUST have new can still plug into an established camera ecosystem. There are probably still some new ones lingering out there on dealer shelves. The fact that they couldn't continue to sell this camera for about the same price as the Reflex, though, makes me wonder if the perceived demand is really there. Edited November 13, 2017 by ben_hutcherson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 In fact a camera in the niche market doesn't become successful because of having lots of features but because of very high level of craftmanship. What I've learned from participating on a cycling forum for many years is that there are large numbers of people that find buying used equipment very risky. Bikes, like cameras can sit unused for decades and for little effort and expense be made to work like new. Sometimes it takes no work at all. Yet people would rather spend a one or two hundred dollars on an inferior bike from Walmart when that money can get a much better quality used bike. They want to know that there's a place they can take it if something goes wrong and either get it fixed or get another one. And I kind of get it. Recently I've sold a number of cameras on eBay and sometimes I'll be asked questions from people who don't know much about cameras. I sold one to a university student in Singapore. Honestly it makes me a little nervous at times. I allow 14 day returns and I only sell cameras that I'm comfortable are working properly. But I'd feel bad if it quit working after 20 days. I have no reason to suspect that will happen, but it could. Personally, I'm not out to cheat anyone and prefer to sell to people who know exactly what they're getting and what to expect. However, there's a lot of untested cameras being sold on eBay and other places. There are sellers that misrepresent their condition. I wonder how many people who are new to film photography end up with a camera that either doesn't work right or is just the wrong camera for them. Having that experience can sour them to film. Buying a camera that's the result of a Kickstarter project may not be a ton better and entails risks of its own. But getting something new that hopefully has some technical support and a warranty behind it has some value. For a beginner I would agree with you but one who is experience can pick/check out a used camera quite easily and quickly and thus can return or refuse . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Well, from my early impressions, the Elbaflex looks like a flop to me also. First of all, the photos of it are with an Auto-Nikkor 55mm 1.2. This is kind of a chunky lens(enough that I don't think a Nikon F will sit flat with one installed-I'll pull mine out this evening) yet it looks "normal sized"-on the order of a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8-in the camera pictures. Second, the specified shutter speed range is 1/500 to 1/2s-or chopping off one stop on each end from what most 35mm FP cameras have been doing since the 1940s. It also specifies a 1/60 flash sync speed-a regression to 1980s consumer SLRs and 1970s pro SLRs. What is even more amazing is that they claim a vertical traveling shutter-all else being equal it's traversing 2/3 the distance of a horizontal shutter. The early vertical Copal Squares like the Konicas and the Canon EF used in the 70s managed 1/125. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 The shutter specs are inherited from the camera it's based on, an 80s Kiev SLR you can get for about a tenth of the price on ebay, serviced and delivered. On the other hand, this looks like it will have proper QC, some technical improvements, and better styling. I expect it will be successfully funded on Kickstarter. It's not intended for the average photo.net member, who would probably just buy a better secondhand Nikon for half the price. You'll see photos of the camera, and photos taken by the camera, popping up on Instagram within a couple of days of its release, and excited posts on 'analogue' film blogs. There's a niche for this sort of product, and if it keeps a Ukrainian workshop open assembling film cameras, then good luck to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Well, it looks like the Elbaflex is "live" ELBAFLEX 35mm True Analog Camera: History Reloaded $500-600 as an early backer, and anticipated retail price of $1600. I think the price is much more realistic than the Reflex, but it's still a handicapped camera in my view and apparently doesn't have a meter. It is at least fully mechanical, but 1/2s to 1/500 and 1/60 sync doesn't sound appealing to me on a 35mm camera. My Bronica S2A covered a wider range of speeds(up to 1/1000) with a focal plane shutter that was 3x as tall and nearly twice as wide, albeit at 1/30 sync. It's also just a bit lighter than a Nikon F and a decent bit lighter than an F2 with an eye level finder, but appears to be much less capable. It does offer a swing-out back, something lacking on the F, but otherwise lacks a lot of feature parity. It is heavier than an FM, FM2, or FM3a, all of which are much more capable cameras. I think that all of these comparisons are fair esp. since the camera is only in Nikon mount, the FM3a can be found new in box if you want to pay up for it and Nikon will still service it. Still, I'll put my criticism aside and I'm tossing around the idea of ordering one since it does at least APPEAR to be a high quality product, and again the price point looks a lot more promising to me for the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now