What Cameras Can, and Should, Be Brought Back into Production?

[Huss]

And I point back toF100 the F6 is too heavy.

That extra 200g is just impossible to deal with I tell ya!

Oh the humanity!

 

[MattKing]

I think can use the same film backs -- but not the viewfinders.

Nope - different backs too, unless you do some really complex things involving replacing the rotating adapter.

 

[Lachlan Young]

As Pentax 6x7's are being talked about: I've always wondered how stripped down a handheld-only version could be...

 

[MartinCrabtree]

FM2n..........

 

[ts1000]

For manual focusing, something that has a short flange distance, so that all those great lenses can be used.
Something like Konica Autoreflex T3, only with split image viewfinder.
It has 40.5mm. So all lenses from all SLR manufactures of that era should be adaptable to Konica AR mount.

For autofocusing.. I guess something that's really fast and 'exposure-perfect' and has lens/rest of the ecosystem system compatible with current Digital stuff.
Therefore, Nikon F5 or F6.

I am 'brainwashed' to think that 35mm is what film photography has to be , however.

 

[GarageBoy]

Jaeger Le Coultre can probably do another run of Compass if inclined- they can probably hand make every part, it'll probably cost you a lot - have you seen how much their watches are?

Nikon SP/S3 BUT with a digital back that slides in would be amazing - they already have backs that slide off - get it synced up like an old F36 motor drive and bam, coolest Nikon RF ever

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Do I hear F7?

I second that! Take a D6 and replace the digital sensor, with a film transport mechanism, and you'd have an F7.

 

[reddesert]

However Cosina turned their SLR design into the Bessa R-series (and also carried on with the Bessaflex), and how Nikon simultaneously developed the SP and F. It’s been done before.

Thanks for the correction, NE! Too bad about the TLRs. Are Seagulls still in production?

The Cosina SLR and Bessa, and the Nikon SP and F, are all cameras with focal plane shutters. The focusing/viewing mechanism was changed. Turning a leaf shutter RF into a focal plane shutter SLR is a bigger step.

The Seagull TLR, to my knowledge, went out of production some time ago. There is a Shanghai Camera History Museum that has some parts and tooling from the old factory, including a couple of recreations of an assembly workbench. It also has an extensive collection of Chinese-made film cameras, including some extreme rarities like the rangefinder and the medium format SLR (and a large collection of Nikons, BTW). It's free and very nicely setup. There are photography exhibitions and a cafe with a large selection of photography books in the same building (on Anfu Lu Road). https://www.scmp.com/news/china/soc...s-bygone-age-chinas-state-run-camera-industry

 

[Auer]

A SLR made with modern materials like polymers etc in a few versions (Metered, un-metered etc that could be ordered with modular mounts so as to be usable with broad range of glass would be neat.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Holga

 

[KenS]

A nice 'clean' version of my oldi and much experienced Burke and James 'Woodie' with the 'added' benefit of 'off axis' swings and tilts (but without the grey paint) that were a 'blessing' to use on the 4x5 Sinar F2 that I had when I was a 'working' photographer.

Ken

 

[Paul Manuell]

Just because it's one I've always lusted after - the Pentax 67II. But I'd want a newly introduced one to have addressed the well documented mirror slap, and I'd also like it to be designed in the same way as my 645NII to allow it to have a tripod mount for vertical or portrait orientation, as well as the usual landscape. That would be the perfect camera for me.

 

[GarageBoy]

It takes a lot of time and money to develop a medium format focal plane shutter, especially one that's dampened enough that it doesn't shake the camera off the tripod

As Pentax 6x7's are being talked about: I've always wondered how stripped down a handheld-only version could be...

It's already stripped down, it's basically a giant spotmatic

 

[MarkS]

You can turn a 35mm RF camera into an SLR; Leica did it long ago and called it the Visoflex. I have one: an elegantly made and very clumsy device... made obsolete by Japanese SLRs and their own Leicaflex.

 

[Helge]

Two crucial aspects most people are missing in this thread.

1. A newly produced camera has to be relatively cheap to be mass market.
EI. be worthwhile to make and sell and actually drive the market forward.
The time when people where willing to pay a thousand dollars or more for a 35mm or medium format camera are over.
This is partly because there are so many cheap good ones out there, and partly because film for the majority of users have turned into an expensive hobby.
Adding ridiculously priced hardware on top of already high prices for film and associated services is not going to fly in the global market place.
Almost all of the cameras suggested here in this thread, were expensive to very expensive when they were first released.
They will not be less expensive to make today.

2. You will have to have some added incentive for buyers of these newly produced cameras, to buy them over older “better” cameras.
It will almost certainly not be enough to just bring back an old well loved favorite.

Fortunately the last 10 to 15 years has made a lot of previously very expensive technology much less expensive.
For example:
- Two simple CMOS cameras would double as an excellent rangefinder, viewfinder, matrix and flash light meter, film simulation preview and automatic index of the roll.
- Matrix LCD shutters/build in locally variable LCD ND filters would make films already very good dynamic range absolutely without competition, and make pushing of film a lot easier.
- You’d be able to make (simultaneous not pre) flashing part of the camera, with the advent of RGB LEDs, increasing film speed by one to five stops and making RGB shadow fill part of the camera.
- MEMS and associated technology used in every smartphone, would make optical shake reduction a lot easier and cheaper, making long shutter speeds without a tripod possible.

 

[Donald Qualls]

- Two simple CMOS cameras would double as and excellent rangefinder, viewfinder, matrix and flash light meter, film simulation preview and automatic index of the roll.
- Matrix LCD shutters/build in locally variable LCD ND filters would make films already very good dynamic range absolutely without competition, and making pushing of film a lot easier.
- You’d be able to make (simultaneous not pre) flashing part of the camera, with the advent of RGB LEDs, increasing film speed by one to five stops and making RGB shadow fill part of the camera.
- MEMS and associated technology used in every smartphone, would make optical shake reduction a lot easier and cheaper, making long shutter speeds without a tripod possible.

I don't know if you've noticed, but a phone with these features and a virtual guarantee of selling a few million units winds up costing $500 to $1000 at retail (the phone on my belt right now was $750 and was far from the most expensive on the market when I got it, three and a half years ago -- I was able to get it only because my cell provider offers no-interest financing as part of their otherwise overpriced service).

Further, the features you suggest would have to be presented to most users in as vastly oversimplified a form as the automatic HDR, multi-exposure hand held night shot (even astrophoto), and such currently in cell phones -- and then there's nothing to distinguish a film camera from just another consumer digital that offers nothing your phone doesn't have (and your have to carry your phone anyway, why carry a second device?). "Make your pictures better? <Y> n" turns on auto-everything including film flashing, image stabilization, and -- oh, why bother, this is the same my smart phone does (if I can afford a top-end model) and that doesn't require me to keep spending money on film and processing every couple weeks.

In other words, you're still selling a $1000 film camera that simply attempts to emulate your $700 phone. Where's the market for that?

 

[Helge]

I don't know if you've noticed, but a phone with these features and a virtual guarantee of selling a few million units winds up costing $500 to $1000 at retail (the phone on my belt right now was $750 and was far from the most expensive on the market when I got it, three and a half years ago -- I was able to get it only because my cell provider offers no-interest financing as part of their otherwise overpriced service).

Further, the features you suggest would have to be presented to most users in as vastly oversimplified a form as the automatic HDR, multi-exposure hand held night shot (even astrophoto), and such currently in cell phones -- and then there's nothing to distinguish a film camera from just another consumer digital that offers nothing your phone doesn't have (and your have to carry your phone anyway, why carry a second device?). "Make your pictures better? <Y> n" turns on auto-everything including film flashing, image stabilization, and -- oh, why bother, this is the same my smart phone does (if I can afford a top-end model) and that doesn't require me to keep spending money on film and processing every couple weeks.

In other words, you're still selling a $1000 film camera that simply attempts to emulate your $700 phone. Where's the market for that?

1. The market is there for film. And you’d end up with a film image.
One of the most commonly heard complaints is that “you don’t know what you are going to get”.
A film camera with instant preview/review would be the studio Polaroid of yore. Only much smaller, portable and convenient.

2. The cost of a phone is in all the other high spec hardware. Like processor, oodles of RAM and Flash, high resolution touch screen, big battery to drive it all etc.

Two standard resolution CMOS cameras would be more than sufficient for rangefinder and light meter.

You could let your phone supply screen, processor and memory, wirelessly or with an easy, secure padded clamp.

Letting the phones camera look through an image splitter viewfinder, you could even let the phone do it all, with the camera being battery less and scale focus, without the phone.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh, I see. Because there have been so many successes marketing add-ons for phones (other than battery banks).

You and I already shoot film; we don't need one of these. Your intended market is people who don't already shoot film, is it not? How does this appeal to those who demonstrably don't care about an image that exists independent of a screen to view it on?

 

[Helge]

Oh, I see. Because there have been so many successes marketing add-ons for phones (other than battery banks).

You and I already shoot film; we don't need one of these. Your intended market is people who don't already shoot film, is it not? How does this appeal to those who demonstrably don't care about an image that exists independent of a screen to view it on?

With that kind of naive, splitting market “analysis” you can shoot any product down.

The phone is the add on here. Everybody has one.
It would add unnecessary cost to add the same hardware in a cost reduced worse version.

I’d love to have one of those.
A 120 folder body with a good lens. Very accurate rangefinder, meter and pre/review.
All in a new, reliable and serviceable body.
Yes please!
And, I’d pay for it, as I’ll bet many others would.
The market would be people like you and me.
And people who are curious about film and medium format, but unfamiliar with the sensation of, or irritated by not knowing what they have before development and scan. Or whether the light was right for their particular film.

People who don’t care about film would not be won over.
They would always need extensive re-education.

 

[Down Under]

Since we are all indulging in dreamtime here, how about -

Anything with the original name Rolleiflex or Rolleicord. Updated to basic 21st century requirements, of course. With an updated meter (a miniature Gossen?) and of course a digital back. Those were photo-machines that could shoot 12, 16 or 24 exposures on 120 and 35mm as well. A win-win-win product.

Next, a Zeiss Super Ikonta with a digital insert. Superuberchic!!

(In my terrible singing voice) I can dream, can't I...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Matrix LCD shutters/build in locally variable LCD ND filters would make films already very good dynamic range absolutely without competition, and make pushing of film a lot easier.

It would also drive the sect who worship the grey card utterly crazy. No more excuses for why their endless poorly thought out N+/N- 'tests' never lead to making images.

The technology already exists in an enlarger...

 

[Helge]

It would also drive the sect who worship the grey card utterly crazy. No more excuses for why their endless poorly thought out N+/N- 'tests' never lead to making images.

The technology already exists in an enlarger...

It does‽ I know Laser recently mentioned a prototype he build in the seventies, but was anything ever sold?

Of course having it in camera would be even more useful, and has only very recently (the last ten years) become economically feasible. A locally variable polarizer is another possibility in with the same basic setup.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It does‽ I know Laser recently mentioned a prototype he build in the seventies, but was anything ever sold?

Of course having it in camera would be even more useful, and has only very recently (the last ten years) become economically feasible. A locally variable polarizer is another possibility in with the same basic setup.

It's in the De Vere 504DS digital enlarger I think - I recall hearing that it was available as a neg carrier as well at some point - John Boyce of Odyssey/ De Vere would probably know the definitive answer.

 

[ts1000]

interesting to keep this thread to compare suggestions/arguments and then what will come out of Pentax's new venture

Pentax announces that they're working on new film cameras!

Ricoh/Pentax has announced that they’re working on designing new film cameras. This video has the details: In summary, they recognize the demand for film cameras, and that there are only a very few new film cameras available. Meanwhile older cameras have service and spare parts constraints...

www.photrio.com

 

[Huss]

Leica M6