I have bought lots of them for next to nothing in the last couple of years and they all still work. Which is weird as I thought they would break after a day.
I highly recommend the Fuji Work Project - especially the one with the panorama mode.
Problem with PnS cameras today is that you buy them and they work for a day, and then break. That just too bad. No one can or will work on them.
Even a used camera store has limited warranty.
Had 645. Pretty sour spot. Sold off. Not any bigger than 6x6, which affords much more flexibility. Actually, the sweet spot would be 6x8. My preferred 4:3 format without cropping and, in reverse-curl backs, permits a spacing configuration that eliminates unflat bulges toward the lens.
Ah yes, the old "Hasselblad film clamp" non-solution.After the prototype, the first thousand serial numbers of any mechanical innovation are where most of the defects show up. An on an item of finite demand, like in this case, just a few lemons spoiling the reputation could end the project in its tracks forever. They have to get it right the first time, and that won't be cheap. One single subcontractor of a certain component flubs up, and it will be a financial trainwreck that nobody else will want to gamble with. I sure wish em luck, however.
...But at least those aren't stuck in "square" mode, with a defective shutter curtain that doesn't open fully wide. Sirius needs to buy himself a film stretcher to get it right.
Problem with PnS cameras today is that you buy them and they work for a day, and then break. That just too bad. No one can or will work on them.
Even a used camera store has limited warranty.
A new camera will work guaranteed for a much longer period. And the manufacturer has their rep riding on it.
We're not really talking about point and shoot cameras. I can't think of the last time I saw one in the wild.
But more to the point, to assume because something is "new" that it will be "good longer" is a little misguided. Moreover, this isn't really what I was getting at. Pentax has a history of releasing gimmicky cameras. I'm just curious who is funding these projects and who keeps giving the ok? Surely the camera line isn't that profitable unless they roll it in with something else on their books.
We're not really talking about point and shoot cameras. I can't think of the last time I saw one in the wild.
Problem with PnS cameras today is that you buy them and they work for a day, and then break. That just too bad. No one can or will work on them.
We're not really talking about point and shoot cameras. I can't think of the last time I saw one in the wild.
I'm waiting for Pentax, or any of the big guys, to give us a full frame digital sensor that can be easily retrofit into existing film cameras. The sensor could go in the film plane, and the electronics and battery in the film compartment.
Why not 69 then?
The 645 format is a sweet spot.
Significantly higher resolution and less grain than 135 put manageable still.
67 cameras are much bigger and the lenses comparatively slower.
Of course they are not “bad” or superfluous, but they do come with a set of compromises. I don’t think the majority of new and old film users is going to be willing to deal with.
If you need really high resolution and no grain whatsoever, then shoot 69 or 4x5 and use a tripod.
You forget Grashopper, that film is exposed in the plane of the film rails, which Digital sensors have a UV filter, a colour matrix, and perhaps more layers in front of the sensor. SO the sensor can't just sit on the film rails.
Maybe you don't see them in Kentucky. But if you leave Kentucky, travel to the west or east coast, and especially if you leave the US and travel around the world, you will see them being used. Especially with young people, and women.
In Asia its a big deal, and very popular.
Look on youtube, and you will find countless videos in which P+S cameras are presented, often even really hyped.
And if you look on instagram, you will find hundreds of thousands of photographers regularly posting shots made with their film P+S cams.
“Keeps”? This is the first in a couple of decades.
Interesting take. I have 645, 6x6, and 6x7 cameras but if I could keep only one of those formats it would be 645. Reason: the 67 is too large for practical hand held walking around use (RZ67 Pro II in my case but true of pretty much all 6x7 SLRs - the rangefinders are workable) and with my 6x6 TLRs I end up cropping to roughly 6x4.5 more often than not - not always but probably 60-70% of the time - anyway.
Just goes to show how much the MVs in YMMV.
I've only been in Kentucky about 5 years now. Previously lived in Chicago, studied at a college downtown, lived across from Navy Pier, one of the largest tourist attractions in that city bringing in people from all around the world. When I speak of not seeing people use point and shoots, that's where the majority of my experience comes from. Furthermore, I am a young people. Not that I have an all encompassing group of friends, but the ones I do have, have not used or have owned and point and shoot in 10 years min.
Then the film P+S has worked very well: As a starter into film photography.To be fair, I did buy one for my 9 yo. She has shot one roll of 12 exp, and moved on to a Yashica 124g.
We're not really talking about point and shoot cameras. I can't think of the last time I saw one in the wild.
But more to the point, to assume because something is "new" that it will be "good longer" is a little misguided. Moreover, this isn't really what I was getting at. Pentax has a history of releasing gimmicky cameras. I'm just curious who is funding these projects and who keeps giving the ok? Surely the camera line isn't that profitable unless they roll it in with something else on their books.
Oh, that explaines it.
I really think that the Pentax DA 21mm limited lens looks fantastic, and I'd love to see them have an incoherent enough product direction that they engineer a new film camera that can use it properly.
...he 67 is too large for practical hand held walking around use (RZ67 Pro II in my case but true of pretty much all 6x7 SLRs - the rangefinders are workable) and with my 6x6 TLRs...
But not an equal comparison as the 6X8 is much larger. 645 is also 4:3, so it depends on what you want- smaller size or bigger negative.Had 645. Pretty sour spot. Sold off. Not any bigger than 6x6, which affords much more flexibility. Actually, the sweet spot would be 6x8. My preferred 4:3 format without cropping and, in reverse-curl backs, permits a spacing configuration that eliminates unflat bulges toward the lens.
For me, given the big jump in size and weight of a 645 SLR compared to 35mm, the 645 negative isn't big enough to justify the downsides. I instead use either a Pentax 67 when I need an SLR, or a Fuji 6x9 if I want a light carrying around MF camera. It's lighter than a Nikon SLR with a zoom lens, and the Fuji lens gives amazing negatives.But not an equal comparison as the 6X8 is much larger. 645 is also 4:3, so it depends on what you want- smaller size or bigger negative.
I've only been in Kentucky about 5 years now.
Yes, the Mamiya 7 & 7II rangefinders are easily hand held, and the lenses are superb. You do get lots of real estate with 67. Very close to the perfect camera IMHO, which is reflected in the used price today.
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?