New 35mm SLR project launched at Kickstarter - Reflex

[Cholentpot]

Seriously how old are the curmudgeons on this site?

The campaign is now fully funded with still 27 days to go.
If they had listened to any of 'your' ideas, they would have made a rusty mechanical 5 lb camera with 3 shutter speeds (2 of which are controlled by a different pin hole lens cap) that required a tetanus shot to operate.

So a C3?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I contributed because I admired their enthusiasm and creativity, even though I was hoping for a totally mechanical camera. I may contribute again before the deadline.

Before digital photography, I silently thanked all the people who bought cheap point-and-shoot cameras because they were the the driving force behind film production and further research.

So a C3?

lol

 

[oreston]

Seriously how old are the curmudgeons on this site?

The campaign is now fully funded with still 27 days to go.
If they had listened to any of 'your' ideas, they would have made a rusty mechanical 5 lb camera with 3 shutter speeds (2 of which are controlled by a different pin hole lens cap) that required a tetanus shot to operate.

As opposed to an SLR which in 2017 has no TTL metering or automatic iris actuation? To put things in perspective, a Zenit E would give you those "features" (and no of course I'm not proposing that a Zenit would be a good alternative). There is undoubtedly a market for something like the Reflex, and it's certainly important for the future of the industry to give people the option of buying a brand new camera if they prefer to do do that. The design has too many quirks and potential pitfalls for me though.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

As opposed to an SLR which in 2017 has no TTL metering or automatic iris actuation? To put things in perspective, a Zenit E would give you those "features" (and no of course I'm not proposing that a Zenit would be a good alternative). There is undoubtedly a market for something like the Reflex, and it's certainly important for the future of the industry to give people the option of buying a brand new camera if they prefer to do do that. The design has too many quirks and potential pitfalls for me though.

I happen to have a Zenit E right here, from 1977. It needed a simple cla to cure the shutter capping. It was used quit a lot, and sat unused for about 3 years just before it came my way.
I don't think the Reflex could approach this durability, ever.

 

[Huss]

As opposed to an SLR which in 2017 has no TTL metering..

Dood. It has avg and spot TTL metering. It does not have auto iris because it has interchangeable lens mounts. We get it, it's not for you.
But it's ok, they've already passed their target with 27 days left so there plenty of people excited about this who want it.

p.s. for those trumpeting the Zenits. My NOS 12SD that I bought last year arrived with a pinholed shutter. And that 60% area viewing screen is awesome. As well as the 5 shutter speeds and useless meter. And the rock crusher shutter release..
(but I still love it cuz I'm weird that way)

 

[Cholentpot]

Dood. It has avg and spot TTL metering. It does not have auto iris because it has interchangeable lens mounts. We get it, it's not for you.
But it's ok, they've already passed their target with 27 days left so there plenty of people excited about this who want it.

p.s. for those trumpeting the Zenits. My NOS 12SD that I bought last year arrived with a pinholed shutter. And that 60% area viewing screen is awesome. As well as the 5 shutter speeds and useless meter. And the rock crusher shutter release..
(but I still love it cuz I'm weird that way)

You need a C3

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Reading some of the derogatory comments particularly on the other related thread, I can't help but draw similarities with the attitude of stalwart vinyl enthusiasts reacting to the vinyl revival. They were like an exclusive gentlemen’s club which revelled in the notion of enjoying an ancient music format which every day was teetering on edge of death. They liked it being ‘their’ little secret which the mainstream no longer bothered with. When vinyl's popularity grew again, largely due to the format being adopted by the same market-sector this camera is aimed at, they were repulsed.

With no doubt, I can affirm that I belong to the group of the hardest die-hard fanatics of LPs, with a broad LP-oriented circle of friends. I wonder where you've met the kind of people that you describe. There is no happier bunch of people than LP fanatics who lived long enough to assist to the renaissance of the LP, and the CD biting the dust. The only side some of them complain about is that today-issued LPs are mostly digitally recorded in studio, and only later digital-to-analog converted, so the intrinsic advantage of the LP is lost or not fully deployed. But let's not digress.

I don't think your parallelism is well put, as you're confusing software with hardware. The record is the film; the turntable is the camera. There never really was a shortage of good turntables: reputed makes like Thorens, Project, Technics etc. never quit their production of turntables. Basically the scenario is like if the Nikon FM2 was ever produced and was still in production (and Lord, how I wish it really was!).

However, what would have happened if good turntables disappeared, and then later someone would come up with a crowdfunding for a turntable half analog and half digital? Well: I suppose to some degree the same thing that is happening here. Quite obviously those who like analog or mechanic (or whatever) stuff, want said stuff to be analog/mechanic/whatever, because they think that digital stuff will break / sucks / looks awful / stinks / is for loosers / doesn't fit their needs etc etc etc. So, if a good that is inherently analog is going to be re-proposed as an analog/digital hybrid, some (most?) people potentially interested to it, will be disappointed and will complain. Isn't it perfectly logical?

 

[Chan Tran]

With no doubt, I can affirm that I belong to the group of the hardest die-hard fanatics of LPs, with a broad LP-oriented circle of friends. I wonder where you've met the kind of people that you describe. There is no happier bunch of people than LP fanatics who lived long enough to assist to the renaissance of the LP, and the CD biting the dust. The only side some of them complain about is that today-issued LPs are mostly digitally recorded in studio, and only later digital-to-analog converted, so the intrinsic advantage of the LP is lost or not fully deployed. But let's not digress.

I don't think your parallelism is well put, as you're confusing software with hardware. The record is the film; the turntable is the camera. There never really was a shortage of good turntables: reputed makes like Thorens, Project, Technics etc. never quit their production of turntables. Basically the scenario is like if the Nikon FM2 was ever produced and was still in production (and Lord, how I wish it really was!).

However, what would have happened if good turntables disappeared, and then later someone would come up with a crowdfunding for a turntable half analog and half digital? Well: I suppose to some degree the same thing that is happening here. Quite obviously those who like analog or mechanic (or whatever) stuff, want said stuff to be analog/mechanic/whatever, because they think that digital stuff will break / sucks / looks awful / stinks / is for loosers / doesn't fit their needs etc etc etc. So, if a good that is inherently analog is going to be re-proposed as an analog/digital hybrid, some (most?) people potentially interested to it, will be disappointed and will complain. Isn't it perfectly logical?

The LP made from digital master proved that the characteristics so loved by LP fans are the shortcoming of the format.

 

[CMoore]

I am Not an Engineer/Designer...these guys know way more about making a camera than i do, but......in their video they say they COULD Have just reverse engineered a Pentax K1000 or a Nikon FM10 and cloned one of those (i guess).
I suppose a K1000 is understandable, but a Nikon FM10.? Of all the 35mm SLR that have been made, Why on Earth would they consider that model.? I guess that was just a meaningless comment, said because the guy owns an FM10.?
I suppose it is natural at this point, but for some reason, anytime a camera person says..."Analog Photography"...i just kind of cringe. Is there something wrong with saying Film Camera or Film Photography.?
People have become so Passionate/Obsessed with Using/Shooting/Saving film.....you would think they would use the damn word.....Film.

 

[OlyMan]

anytime a camera person says..."Analog Photography"...i just kind of cringe. Is there something wrong with saying Film Camera or Film Photography.?
People have become so Passionate/Obsessed with Using/Shooting/Saving film.....you would think they would use the damn word.....Film.

'Analog photography' as a term embodies the full process, from shooting on film to developing & printing (or projecting) the final results in a traditional way. I suppose the polar opposite in digital photography is an image taken on a digital camera, never printed, no physical embodiment of the image ever exists, and is only ever viewed on a computer/tablet/phone.
I agree though most people use the term when they're just talking about shooting with a film camera.

 

[AgX]

People have become so Passionate/Obsessed with Using/Shooting/Saving film.....you would think they would use the damn word.....Film.

Yes, we got the term "analog" put upon us due to the digital world.

But the term "film camera" can be misleading as it may refer to a cine camera (of whatever type). When using the term "film" even amongst photo academics they understand "movie", even without any cinematic hints.
In several languages Film = Movie.

I sometimes use the term "chemical photography" but such provokes irritations.

 

[MattKing]

The "analogue photography" phrase is also useful because it includes the other components of what many of us are interested in: in particular the optical printing on to photographic paper and using the large variety of traditional processes - both in camera like daguerreotypes and wet plate, and when printing, like cyanotypes and Van Dyke brown and platinum - that don't necessarily involve any film.

 

[Huss]

Yes, we got the term "analog" put upon us due to the digital world.

But the term "film camera" can be misleading as it may refer to a cine camera (of whatever type). When using the term "film" even amongst photo academics they understand "movie", even without any cinematic hints.
In several languages Film = Movie.

I sometimes use the term "chemical photography" but such provokes irritations.

When I say "film cameras' to people in my gallery, many do indeed think I am talking of movie cameras. So instead I say 'shot on film'.

 

[EdSawyer]

having a funded kickstarter is a LONG way from having a functional, shipped product. regardless of funding, this thing will never get off the ground in the form that it's been pitched. And even if it did, it's so hopelessly useless and below the level of so many already existing cameras, it begs the question 'why?'.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Ed, you have an evil mind. But the thing does look much like an answer searching for a question.

 

[AgX]

As I stated before I am sceptical on the value of a new produced camera at this moment. But, and I said this before too, it got two extraordinary features: exchangable film backs and a universal mount.

Useful, but of course on the basis that it works (mount) or that one wants a new, thus expensive, camera (additional filmback in contrast to second body, cheap today).

 

[OlyMan]

Wish someone would do a kickstarter for interchangeable digital backs for popular 35mm SLRs. The opportunity to mate the functionality of our much-loved film cameras with the convenience of a digital back (when needed) would be amazing. But we don't live in a society where manufacturers want us to re-purpose old kit, they only want us to keep buying new.

 

[AgX]

There were several attempts to make a digital sensor to substitute a type 135 cassette.

But why not stick with our camera to film?

 

[OlyMan]

There were several attempts to make a digital sensor to substitute a type 135 cassette.

That was always destined to fail even had there been a market for it. For a start, a digital back would need to interface with the camera's electronics so it knows when the shutter has opened and closed, and you'd probably want to be able to easily adjust certain settings on the fly like ISO. Digital back is the only real way, because it would need to be different for each camera system.

But why not stick with our camera to film?

Because sometimes the ability to be able to take full frame digital photos with the cameras we adore to use would be amazing. Which one of us here can honestly say that their attraction to film isn't at least partly the excuse it provides to handle and use our beautiful cameras, in preference to the modern 'PC with a lens on the front'?

 

[Richard Man]

Wish someone would do a kickstarter for interchangeable digital backs for popular 35mm SLRs. The opportunity to mate the functionality of our much-loved film cameras with the convenience of a digital back (when needed) would be amazing. But we don't live in a society where manufacturers want us to re-purpose old kit, they only want us to keep buying new.

Sometimes it's not because manufacturers are evil. Anyone who thinks they could do this has not examined the engineering cost associated to make it happen.

 

[OlyMan]

Anyone who thinks they could do this has not examined the engineering cost associated to make it happen.

I have. And I've realised that I probably couldn't do it as a standalone project because it would be cost-ineffective these days. But that wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago had the digital revolution been kickstarted by digital backs that allowed us to re-purpose the millions of existing film cameras that were still in use; basically any with a removable back.But where's the $$$ in that...

Anyhow I realise that I've taken the subject off topic and am dangerously close to wandering into the realm digital photography, which I respect is out of bounds in this part of the forum.

 

[AgX]

Sometimes it's not because manufacturers are evil. Anyone who thinks they could do this has not examined the engineering cost associated to make it happen.

We discussed this cost issue in another thread on the Reflex (this is a problem of different threads on exactly same issue...)
Most think that the people behind the Reflex could not do it for their price.

 

[Huss]

I've been following the Reflex on kickstarter and the stretch goal funding seems to have stalled. There is actually less raised than was there a week ago. The stretch goal is to develop the mounting plate for Minolta lenses. They have met their initial goal.

 

[Chuckwade87]

I'm glad that they have made such an ambitious project. However, for 500$ I'd rather pick up something else. Like a screwmount Leica. Get it cla'd and it'll out last me.

I'm happy they were fully funded, but who knows when it will be fully developed and the Kickstarter Backers pledges be fulfilled, who knows....

Once it is fully developed, I'm certain that there will be more bugs/kinks in it that will have to be worked out. Kind of like how the first model of a car always has some sort of recalls nowadays.

I think they are playing into the new generations love of anything new. The desire to have, the latest and greatest.

I do like the concept of a removable back, not exactly innovative, considering APS cameras supported mid roll changing back in the 90's.

I supported the Lab-box, and I'm still waiting for that...

 

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE="Huss, post: 2016251, member: 78733" There is actually less raised than was there a week ago. [/QUOTE]

How does this come about?. Can people withdraw their contributions after making them or does this mean that what was pledged was more than what was actually invested in hard cash?

Thanks

pentaxuser