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

[Donald Qualls]

But where would they do that? I have a local shop, but they are few and far between. Most people don't.

Nearly everyone has postal services, right? Last time I needed a roll processed that I couldn't do myself, I sent it out by mail. a few days to the lab, a couple days to process and scan, and I had the scans to look at to order prints if I wanted them. Kind of expensive, but most folks new to film aren't that worried about cost.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The ugly truth about the Xpan is if you crop a regular 35mm shot to the Xpan format, and are not going for a very big print, you would not be able to tell the difference.

One of these pics was taken with a TX2, the other with a Rollei QZ 35 P&S







The give-away is when you show the film rebate:

That is alright because when I like a panoramic photograph I will pay for custom matting and framing. I especially like your last photograph. Is that the Sepulveda tunnel under the LAX runways?

 

[tom43]

Still dreaming of a new Nikon film camera making use of the new Z lenses. Maybe a rangefinder?

 

[Huss]

That is alright because when I like a panoramic photograph I will pay for custom matting and framing. I especially like your last photograph. Is that the Sepulveda tunnel under the LAX runways?

No, it was in San Francisco - the Broadway Tunnel.

 

[Huss]

Nearly everyone has postal services, right? Last time I needed a roll processed that I couldn't do myself, I sent it out by mail. a few days to the lab, a couple days to process and scan, and I had the scans to look at to order prints if I wanted them. Kind of expensive, but most folks new to film aren't that worried about cost.

I agree, but that is far more commitment than the implied shoot a roll, drop it off. Like in the bad old days of those ubiquitous photo kiosks. I say bad because even though they were everywhere, the results were garbage. Which actually maybe what people want nowadays!

 

[Craig]

Occasionally I think about an X Pan, but it's a special use camera. I could simply shoot my Pentax 6x7, crop the neg and have the same thing. I can buy a lot of 120 film for the current price of an X Pan + lenses.

 

[grat]

Even though the backs are ludicrously over-valued, you can buy a Bronica SQ, a set of lenses, and the 135W back, and still be pretty well under the cost of an XPAN body.

 

[Huss]

Occasionally I think about an X Pan, but it's a special use camera. I could simply shoot my Pentax 6x7, crop the neg and have the same thing. I can buy a lot of 120 film for the current price of an X Pan + lenses.

The Xpan is a special use camera, but if you flip the switch to regular 35mm, it becomes a 35mm RF camera.
Now.. in a way to rationalize the purchase... a Leica M7 is about $4K for a nice one w/o the flaring RF i.e. one in the 3xxxx serial # range. The higher the serial #, the more expensive it is. This is the Xpan's closest equivalent as it is an AE camera, not manual like an M6 etc. And also the closest in price.
So an M7 is $4K, and an Xpan is about that. But with the Xpan you also get a 'real' pano camera at the same time! So that makes it a bargain!


And that is how we rationalize things in the land of GAS.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Xpan is a special use camera, but if you flip the switch to regular 35mm, it becomes a 35mm RF camera.
Now.. in a way to rationalize the purchase... a Leica M7 is about $4K for a nice one w/o the flaring RF i.e. one in the 3xxxx serial # range. The higher the serial #, the more expensive it is. This is the Xpan's closest equivalent as it is an AE camera, not manual like an M6 etc. And also the closest in price.
So an M7 is $4K, and an Xpan is about that. But with the Xpan you also get a 'real' pano camera at the same time! So that makes it a bargain!


And that is how we rationalize things in the land of GAS.

Now you are adding to my GAS! Thank you!

 

[Donald Qualls]

So an M7 is $4K, and an Xpan is about that. But with the Xpan you also get a 'real' pano camera at the same time! So that makes it a bargain!

Or an RB67 with 50 mm lens, .45x filter (gives 23 mm), 90 mm lens, 6x7 on 220 back, and prism finder is well under $1000 even after the last couple years of used camera inflation. Throw in a left hand grip and set of strap connectors and you're still under a grand. That's cheaper than a lens for an Xpan.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Or an RB67 with 50 mm lens, .45x filter (gives 23 mm), 90 mm lens, 6x7 on 220 back, and prism finder is well under $1000 even after the last couple years of used camera inflation. Throw in a left hand grip and set of strap connectors and you're still under a grand. That's cheaper than a lens for an Xpan.

Indeed, you're right about price. I've seen the amazing 30mm XPan lens, its center filter, hood, and custom finder listed recently in the $3000-5000 range. Here are some 45mm and 30mm examples from the Mississippi Delta:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-mississippi-delta-37b-eden-tchula.html

 

[sunbeamland]

The only expectation I think we can have is a simple 35mm camera. Medium format didn't sell in enough volume in the heyday of film to make it cost-effective for consumers (pros had different requirements and could justify the price). Large format cameras can be made in a cottage industry way. I would think Cosina must be the most practical to be able to tool back up. That would give us very nice SLR and rangefinder options. There's just no chance we will see sophisticated medium format or even 35mm cameras again. It's just too niche.

 

[Huss]

Or an RB67 with 50 mm lens, .45x filter (gives 23 mm), 90 mm lens, 6x7 on 220 back, and prism finder is well under $1000 even after the last couple years of used camera inflation. Throw in a left hand grip and set of strap connectors and you're still under a grand. That's cheaper than a lens for an Xpan.

What you have done there is rationalize the reason for you to buy an RB67.

That does not take away from the rationalization to buying an Xpan. If you want an Xpan, an RB67 is not going to suffice. Because it is not an Xpan.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What you have done there is rationalize the reason for you to buy an RB67.

That does not take away from the rationalization to buying an Xpan. If you want an Xpan, an RB67 is not going to suffice. Because it is not an Xpan.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any camera that can increase the interest and use of film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

What you have done there is rationalize the reason for you to buy an RB67.

What I thought I was doing was explaining how to get Xpan images for less than 20% of the money (maybe MUCH less, given the lens price posted immediately after my post above).

 

[Sirius Glass]

What I thought I was doing was explaining how to get Xpan images for less than 20% of the money (maybe MUCH less, given the lens price posted immediately after my post above).

Driving to a location in a beat up Chevy is not the same as going in a Rolls Royce and the handling of the Rolls will be much better.

 

[MattKing]

Driving to a location in a beat up Chevy is not the same as going in a Rolls Royce and the handling of the Rolls will be much better.

Only if you can afford to buy and maintain the Rolls Royce.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Medium format didn't sell in enough volume in the heyday of film to make it cost-effective for consumers

Ehhhh, don't know about that. Depends on which heyday one is talking about.

Before the mid 1960's 120, 620 & 127 used to be the consumer films of choice - all those Kodak Brownies, Zeiss Box Tengors, Agfa Clacks, Rolleicords, Zeiss Nettars... A selling point of 6x9cm cameras was that you could get viable contact prints, getting enlargements 'back in the day' was expensive. 122 film used in older Kodak folders produced 3.25x5.5 inch contact prints. The era of contact prints from roll film faded when you could get 3x3 inch "Jumbo Prints" from 6x6cm negatives.

Consumers bought 35mm cameras to take color slides. Unfortunately nobody told consumers to edit their slides before showing them to their victims. Consumer habits re editing haven't changed much with copious quantities of cell phone images.

I don't think consumers ever took to 35mm B&W - it was the realm of press photographers and amatures with darkrooms. Heck, it took a long time for press photographers to shift from 4x5 to 120 - it was war photography that brought 35mm to press photography.

 

[sunbeamland]

Ehhhh, don't know about that. Depends on which heyday one is talking about.

Before the mid 1960's 120, 620 & 127 used to be the consumer films of choice - all those Kodak Brownies, Zeiss Box Tengors, Agfa Clacks, Rolleicords, Zeiss Nettars... A selling point of 6x9cm cameras was that you could get viable contact prints, getting enlargements 'back in the day' was expensive. 122 film used in older Kodak folders produced 3.25x5.5 inch contact prints. The era of contact prints from roll film faded when you could get 3x3 inch "Jumbo Prints" from 6x6cm negatives.

Consumers bought 35mm cameras to take color slides. Unfortunately nobody told consumers to edit their slides before showing them to their victims. Consumer habits re editing haven't changed much with copious quantities of cell phone images.

I don't think consumers ever took to 35mm B&W - it was the realm of press photographers and amatures with darkrooms. Heck, it took a long time for press photographers to shift from 4x5 to 120 - it was war photography that brought 35mm to press photography.

The most film sold was in 1998. I am referring to that as the heyday. I understand entirely the evolution of formats. 35mm began to dominate in the 1960's and medium and large became formats only pros would typically use. The 35mm SLR was almost as ubiquitous as the cell phone in the 1970's followed the point and shoot in the 80's. Once photography was automated everyone took pictures. No one walked around shooting medium format. Even in the 80's people would ask me what my Rollei was and why I was shooting with an antique camera. One hour photo labs only processed 35mm; pro labs had to handle larger formats. I was working in the industry in the 80's and 90's. Interestingly, folks are complaining a lot about the cost of film today. Frankly, it was always expensive. I remember not shooting Velvia and other specialty color films because a roll would set you back in the $10-16 range for a roll of 36. That's not adjusted! I think it is wonderful there is such a new interest in film but find it highly unlikely anyone could justify tooling up a new medium format film camera. Wasn't there a Hassleblad that could take a film back a or a digital? I think that's a great concept to keep alive, but I suspect they stopped doing it for the exact reason I am suggesting; no one bought the film back. As an enthusiast I could totally justify a medium format system that did both digital and film.

 

[film_man]

The Xpan is a special use camera, but if you flip the switch to regular 35mm, it becomes a 35mm RF camera.
Now.. in a way to rationalize the purchase... a Leica M7 is about $4K for a nice one w/o the flaring RF i.e. one in the 3xxxx serial # range. The higher the serial #, the more expensive it is. This is the Xpan's closest equivalent as it is an AE camera, not manual like an M6 etc. And also the closest in price.
So an M7 is $4K, and an Xpan is about that. But with the Xpan you also get a 'real' pano camera at the same time! So that makes it a bargain!


And that is how we rationalize things in the land of GAS.

Weeeeeeeeeeell kind of...I'd say the XPan is more like a Leica CL that is somehow crippled to work with just a 45/4....

 

[Huss]

Weeeeeeeeeeell kind of...I'd say the XPan is more like a Leica CL that is somehow crippled to work with just a 45/4....

Weird. Mine works great with the 90mm as well. And I don't remember the CL having AE as well as most of them now having broken meters. But sure, just like a CL..
p.s. the build quality of the titanium Xpan is quite a bit better than the plastic with metal 'paint' CL..

 

[Huss]

What I thought I was doing was explaining how to get Xpan images for less than 20% of the money (maybe MUCH less, given the lens price posted immediately after my post above).

Welll, you could just crop a 35mm image and it pretty much looks the same if that is the end goal.

But that's not the GAS satisfying goal!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The most film sold was in 1998. I am referring to that as the heyday. I understand entirely the evolution of formats. 35mm began to dominate in the 1960's and medium and large became formats only pros would typically use. The 35mm SLR was almost as ubiquitous as the cell phone in the 1970's followed the point and shoot in the 80's. Once photography was automated everyone took pictures. No one walked around shooting medium format. Even in the 80's people would ask me what my Rollei was and why I was shooting with an antique camera. One hour photo labs only processed 35mm; pro labs had to handle larger formats. I was working in the industry in the 80's and 90's. Interestingly, folks are complaining a lot about the cost of film today. Frankly, it was always expensive. I remember not shooting Velvia and other specialty color films because a roll would set you back in the $10-16 range for a roll of 36. That's not adjusted! I think it is wonderful there is such a new interest in film but find it highly unlikely anyone could justify tooling up a new medium format film camera. Wasn't there a Hassleblad that could take a film back a or a digital? I think that's a great concept to keep alive, but I suspect they stopped doing it for the exact reason I am suggesting; no one bought the film back. As an enthusiast I could totally justify a medium format system that did both digital and film.

Digital backs for Hasselblad and Rollei went away because of the low yield of sensor substrates kept the sensor so expensive that their was not a strong enough business market to keep it going.

 

[MattKing]

The most film sold was in 1998. I am referring to that as the heyday.

That would be about when Kodak was producing 70 master rolls each day of Kodacolor - enough to fill 3.4 million spools each day.