What type of lens is it? Triplet?I use a No 1 Pocket Kodak Series II quite frequently. 21 rolls of Kodak TMAX and other assorted 120 roll film so far this year.
I had to replace the red window which fell out. I also had to tape over the autographic slot on the back to prevent a light leak. The Kodak Anastigmat is actually a pretty good lens and the Kodak Ball Bearing shutter still works beautifully though it has slowed down a bit over the years.
These old cameras are surprisingly good and still do a wonderful job if you are patient.
What's lacking are people willing to work for free or very cheaply in order to refurbish cameras for those who feel that they shouldn't need to pay more than $50 for a working FED. Lots of moneymaking potential for someone to make up for it in volume! (not).
Photography cheaper than yachting.
So you will, in support of the greater good, give up 80% of your paycheck. Thank you for your service. Please deposit the balance of your salary in my bank account.
I am not talking about a lack of interest in photography I am talking about lack of interest in FILM,. and the demise of film. this thread from what I have read has nothing to do with photography not existing anymore. I agree, more people than ever are taking photos, can't argue with that. and most of them, like before, are worthy of a good "edit" and like before, no-one edits...I believe this is incorrect. People are taking more photos than ever in human history. They are just doing it with smart phones now and not traditional cameras. Clearly there is no future for traditional cameras with the general public. Camera makers are going to have to survive being in nothing more than a small niche. The public has long since moved on.
Photography cheaper than yachting.
There are ways that "open source" design or cottage industries could contribute to (film) camera technology. But I don't think trying to build a 35mm SLR or RF from the ground up is realistically one of them.....
If you believe that, then why are you even here?I am not talking about a lack of interest in photography I am talking about lack of interest in FILM,. and the demise of film. this thread from what I have read has nothing to do with photography not existing anymore. I agree, more people than ever are taking photos, can't argue with that. and most of them, like before, are worthy of a good "edit" and like before, no-one edits...
What's lacking are people willing to work for free or very cheaply in order to refurbish cameras for those who feel that they shouldn't need to pay more than $50 for a working FED. Lots of moneymaking potential for someone to make up for it in volume! (not).
There are ways that "open source" design or cottage industries could contribute to (film) camera technology. But I don't think trying to build a 35mm SLR or RF from the ground up is realistically one of them.
There are already small and cottage industry outfits making large format cameras, because those are suited to small-volume manufacturing without needing, for example, precision gearing in a film advance or shutter. A lot of the precision aspects that would be hard for a small maker to pull off are in the LF lens and shutter. There are also cottage industries for medium format cameras (like the Mercury) that are basically a 3D-printed box.
A more ambitious project would be to try to design a new, electronically controlled leaf shutter. Copal stopped making shutters, there are still plenty around, but they eventually need service. Small motors, batteries, and electronic controls are much smaller, cheaper, and better than they were even 20-30 years ago. Someone could probably design an electrically controlled leaf shutter that would be mechanically much simpler than a clockwork mechanism. Make it to match existing sizes and there would be at least some market for replacing old mechanical shutters. I'm not saying this would be easy, but more practical than recreating a fully mechanical camera.
Another project could be making, perhaps with 3D-printing, film backs. For example, there is some demand for exotica like 6x12 backs in medium format, and they're horribly expensive. Even the DaYi back that uses a red window retails for over $300. I think that would be something where many of the parts could be 3D-printed, supplemented by a few gears and a darkslide.
If people could design a leaf shutter and a film back, they'd be partway towards making a camera. But with practical milestones rather than trying to shoot the moon and build the whole thing from scratch.
A lovely camera. The Contax II would have been a very expensive camera in its day, and a new iteration wouldn't cost any less, especially if the original shutter design was incorporated. Shall we say £4k for a new Kiev IV?
there is a difference between a revival of sorts and a massive resurgence. the premise of this thread wasn't hinged on thatIf you believe that, then why are you even here?
The whole premise of the thread hinges around the fact/idea that film has a serious revival and is here to stay.
premise of the thread was the video the and the idea that the demise of film based photography is that there won't be new cameras for the masses
There is no binary or phase change like difference.there is a difference between a revival of sorts and a massive resurgence. the premise of this thread wasn't hinged on that
the premise of the thread was the video the and the idea that the demise of film based photography is that there won't be new cameras for the masses.
as stated previously there will always be cameras used or new and the availability of new cameras has nothing to do with whether or not film stays in production. if no one buys it and there are a bajillion new cameras it will still go out of production.
why am I here ? do you mean posting in this thread or on this site in general ?
the thread because it is an interesting read even though it veered left. this site? I've been here for 17 years and enjoy using film and paper and making my own, I don't know where else I would go ?
Sorry, my mistake. Yes, I agree with you, I think the film resurgence has peaked with this viral situation doing immense damage to its usage, radically accelerating its decline. Ilford is not posting any significant financial gains, Kodak is posting serious losses with their film division and even Fujifilm is playing down instead of touting their Instant film.
We live in very deflationary times yet the cost of film is going up more than most are going to pay, for any serious usage anyway. I am shooting very little if any film. Here we are in June and I have not shot any this year so far. I'd like too but in these very difficult economic times, I cannot justify the cost.
The situation has “just” mainly put many things on hold.
There is not the massive global disillusionment from the recession, where the whole economic premise had the rug yanked under it and was exposed as emperors new clothes.
Everybody knows this is a temporary thing, and not the result of a collective fuckup (unless you count not preparing for a pandemic that).
Economics is nothing else if not psychology of the single person and the masses interacting in complex ways.
You make the common mistake of equating your local and personal experiences, with national and global trends.
I have no sense that enthusiasm has lessened from my vantage point.
There is on the contrary a whole host of people who have finally had time to pursue ideas and wants that they have had for a long time but didn’t have time to get into.
And the established shooters too, have had extra time off and unique stuff to shoot.
If find it strange with the small but vocal amount of persistent nay sayers and doom mongers around here and some other places.
What are you trying to signal or achieve, by proclaiming the impending downturn of film as a medium?
At worst you will spread local FUD. At best..?
It's essentially the same camera, with a few corners cut. The Kiev price reflected quality control, not so much design. In a non-planned economy you can't produce cameras where every third model is back for warranty within 12 months. It's said the later 4M was so bad, government intervened and took an entire production quota straight to scrap. The shutter mech alone would be expensive if you need it to last 10+ years. If Lomography sold the original Kiev it would be pricey, and a properly made modern version with Japanese quality materials wouldn't be less than £3k IMO.£4k would be way too much. I thought of the Kiev 4a, because it was modified form the Contax II to be more producible. I think Zeiss Ikon was producing 1000s per year, while Kiev produced a couple million.
Any mass produced manual camera with wide availability, a Nikkormat or a K1000, could support a cottage industry of common parts replacement in the way Sover Wong services the F2. Bigger stuff could be from donner bodies, which would keep a 35mm SLR working almost indefinitely. Cheaper than a new production line, which would have set up costs, plus the expense of long term parts availability if the camera wasn't going to follow it's older brethren to obsolescence.film cameras will soon not be economically viable to purchase and maintain due to lack of high-quality/lost cost replacement parts , or new bodies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?