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

[mshchem]

Yeah, something like this.
I live in the usa, so that is my bias....when Ford makes a new Mustang GT-350, it is Very Different than a 1966 GT-350.
I am sure a camera would be similar.?

Yeah, I had a 70 Nova 350 4 bbl . I'm pretty sure my wife's turbo 1500cc Honda could keep up, if not beat that big old beast. It would cost less to make a modern camera from scratch using modern technology than resurrect an old one. Look at Leica to see how much it costs to make a decent film body.

PS old Mustangs are scary, new Mustangs are scary. My older self is much less bold than my younger self. Small block V8 with Flow masters sounds so great. I had a Mustang, I was doing burn outs on my county blacktop. My neighbors got so pissed they had the sheriff stake out the place.

 

[CMoore]

Yeah, I had a 70 Nova 350 4 bbl . I'm pretty sure my wife's turbo 1500cc Honda could keep up, if not beat that big old beast. It would cost less to make a modern camera from scratch using modern technology than resurrect an old one. Look at Leica to see how much it costs to make a decent film body.

PS old Mustangs are scary, new Mustangs are scary. My older self is much less bold than my younger self. Small block V8 with Flow masters sounds so great. I had a Mustang, I was doing burn outs on my county blacktop. My neighbors got so pissed they had the sheriff stake out the place.

Not your typical Photo-Nerd were you.

The details would take forever and be X-rated.... I knew a lady that had a 1966 GT-350 and a 1968 GT-500KR.
I drove both a few times. She was a car nut with a lot of money.
A friend of a friend has a 2019 350r and 500.
They are kind of similar to the originals.
The (2019) 350r is more nimble and more fun to drive, the 500 is a much more powerful and "Faster" car..

Veronica also had an original 1973 Porsche RS, the stripped down version.
Not many people have ever, even driven one of those.
I was EXTREMELY lucky.

Yeah, i think Canon or whoever would need to build a "Modern Day" film SLR.

It would be cool, but i cannot see it ever happening, but i sure could be wrong.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah, i think Canon or whoever would need to build a "Modern Day" film SLR.

Might be heresy, but I'd rather see a modern RF (perhaps with a mount compatible with SLR lenses and the ability to control them approriately -- I think in terms of automatic aperture, but it would probably need to control focus for the RF to couple -- reason being, a much larger selection of existing SLR lenses at reasonable prices). I think it'd be cheaper to build an RF than to build and calibrate a focusing screen and pentaprism.

 

[Born2Late]

I would love to see the Olympus XA produced again.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Since we're just speculating here, might as well consider the dimension "could be sold to a profit/break even" to the problem.

A super-basic 3D-printed-at-home box camera that takes 120 film could be a start. You just need to buy a lens and a red window. Open sourced CAD model, so that those with a printer can produce it themselves, or serve as intermediaries for those who don't. You could also go to your local FabLab if you live in major city. This could be an offshoot of someone's youtube maker channel. There are many such projects already: https://www.yeggi.com/q/box+camera/

So the next question is really: for whom? How can you define and reach a target audience? The mere fact of making something does not sell it.

Then after that if you're going into industrial production of some sort, you have to think: at what scale? How will you evaluate both supply and demand? The grave of Kickstarter projects is considerable, so "interest" is a weak metric. This will impact all the tooling chain choices, the number of items, etc. Do you want to go premium and use rarity to boost your profit, or do you plan to flood the market?

As much as I'm enamoured with classic designs (I'll take a brand new Rolleiflex that's 100% identical to the old ones any day soon), I think a new design is worth exploring. You can't go all the way to building a system comparable to the Nikon one from scratch, but once you decide what kind of legacy support you want (lens mount and film format, chiefly) you can start being creative.

 

[CMoore]

Might be heresy, but I'd rather see a modern RF (perhaps with a mount compatible with SLR lenses and the ability to control them approriately -- I think in terms of automatic aperture, but it would probably need to control focus for the RF to couple -- reason being, a much larger selection of existing SLR lenses at reasonable prices). I think it'd be cheaper to build an RF than to build and calibrate a focusing screen and pentaprism.

Touche`.......you caught me.

It might be an RF instead of SLR.... or maybe both.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The target market, today, for a box camera (Ansco Shur-Shot, Brownie Hawkeye, etc.) would be film photography hobbyists and "Lomographers". You' never sell one to a common consumer. That said, a camera like that can be produced and sold at a slight profit for around $100. I know because there are a number of pinhole cameras already in that range (and a little below), and all you'd be adding is a simple meniscus lens (plastic versions still avialable for less than a buck each) and a spring shutter in the 1/50 range.

 

[4season]

I'd advise anyone who wants to buy a brand-new sophisticated 35mm camera in this day and age to buy a Nikon F6 while they can, and don't completely rule out a Leica MP.

 

[Huss]

Do I hear F7?

Oh yah. I like my F6 but it can be improved in so many ways. Get completely rid of that dumpster diving menu system. Make it work with the new electronic control aperture lenses .
Put some dials back on it like the F4. Rebalance the matrix metering so it is not highlight biased (or give it a choice for slide or print film). Improve the AF to current D850 standards. Use current rechargeable battery tech, not those stupid and really expensive CR123 cells. Make it look more like a film camera, and less like a DSLR.

 

[Paul Howell]

As I thought about this, if had all the money in the world, wanted to shoot film, but, have Leica made an updated R9 with ugraded sensors, AF, and firmwear.

 

[Vaughn]

How about something rather simple like the Graphlex/Ciro-flex TLR. No bells, no whistles? Fun.

 

[Chan Tran]

Let's say you're G̶o̶d̶ Jeff Bezos. What cameras could and should realistically be brought back into production since digital is dead?

I'll start.

Obvious ones:

• The Nikon FM3a. They still make the AIS lenses and the F6. There is plenty a market for them. They'd sell every unit they produce, and have parts!
• The Fuji GF670. This camera was CHEAP! People complained about the price at the time but that $1800 price point looks good now when used ones go for $2500-3000+. It's the perfect 120 travel/reportage camera.
• Bessa R2A/M. It's just weird that CV stopped making cameras. There is clearly a market for cheap rangefinders and the high price of used Bessas only proves that. They probably don't need 6 models like the old days, but one couldn't hurt.
• Contax 645AF. This camera has cult status among wedding and other pros. I desperately needed a version 2 with good AF, but that was likely possible if you look at how good the AF is on the H1. They could be $10k for a kit and they'd sell every one they make.

Less obvious:

• The Pentax LX. Same reason as the FM3a, except that Pentax is basically a dying camera brand. A film camera for their excellent FA Limits and vast collection of manual lenses would be a killer proposition for film shooters wanting something a little different.
• The Pentax 67II. Same reasons for brand purposes, but also simply because the 67II is amazing. If they can roll 645Zs off the line they can make 500 67IIs a year.

Not gonna happen even in my fantasy land but would be epic:

• The Rolleiflex FX-N. Guh even if I WANTED to find one of these, it's impossible used. Dream camera.

It would be difficult to bring back the FM3a if you read this article from Nikon. The meter needle which was inexpensive back in the 70's is now a difficult part to obtain.
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-fm3a/#id10

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nikon F100 with a stronger back and latch.

 

[Bormental]

Realistically, the OP was absolutely correct: Nikon FM3a is by a mile the best candidate to be revived.

• Nikon does not depend on critical suppliers of glass or shutters. They make everything themselves.
• AI-S glass is still being produced. So many people here are suggesting to bring back cameras for dead mounts, that's cute but unrealistic.
• Manual-focus SLR is the only style of camera that's currently not manufactured. For AF and rangefinder users we still have the F6 and the MP/M-A.
• It is an engineering marvel and is strictly superior to all other SLRs from the 80s due to its ability to excel at both automatic and fully-manual mode.

I am less sure of medium format. I own the Fuji GF670 and I'll be the first to admit, it's a quirky and fragile camera. Sure, it's portable but only when you're not taking pictures. I would argue that it makes me less mobile once I extend the bellows. Also, it's fixed lens. Sometimes I wonder if I'd be happier with Mamiya 6/7.

I have not owned a TLR, but something is telling me that the rangefinder will the best approach to a "modern medium-format film camera". I can barely stand the mirror slap & vibrations of 35mm SLRs, I can only imagine how unpleasant it must be shooting with a MF SLR... only if I get paid for it, I guess...

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Nikon F100 with a stronger back and latch.

I think I would point you to the F6.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think I would point you to the F6.

And I point back toF100 the F6 is too heavy.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have not owned a TLR, but something is telling me that the rangefinder will the best approach to a "modern medium-format film camera". I can barely stand the mirror slap & vibrations of 35mm SLRs, I can only imagine how unpleasant it must be shooting with a MF SLR... only if I get paid for it, I guess...

I don't find the RB67 at all unpleasant to shoot. Even hand held, now that I have a strap on it. It's the same trick as a TLR: use the waist level finder and let the camera hang by the strap, it'll be steadied by your body, rather than your arms and hands. I used to routinely shoot my Reflex II at 1/15, even without a strap. Also, at least in this camera, the mirror movement seems to be well counterbalanced and damped -- the camera doesn't move much when I trigger the shutter.

No, not at all a practical camera to revive -- proprietary mount, nearly no third-party glass, mechanically complex, shutters in the lenses (one per lens) pushes the cost of a new-built lens up. But after shooting with one, I certainly wouldn't rule out a medium format SLR.

You should borrow or rent a Hasselblad or RB/RZ sometime. You might change your mind about mirror slap.

Really, if you aren't going to revive a recently discontinued camera like the Nikon or Voigtlander models mentioned above, you'd have to start from scratch, and then you have to wonder who could afford one.

 

[Bormental]

Wouldn't it be crazy if they made a 6x7/6x6 SLR based on the GF670?

What do you mean? Making an SLR based on a rangefinder sounds like "making a plane based on a submarine". They are as different as they can possibly be: the GF has no lens mount to speak of, and to add one the body shape will have to change due to increased flange focal distance, the body also needs to change to accommodate both a shutter and a mirror (GF doesn't have a shutter, it's in the lens), plus the prism needs to sit somewhere.. basically there're absolutely no parts from the GF670 to build an SLR "on top of".

 

[Bormental]

You should borrow or rent a Hasselblad or RB/RZ sometime. You might change your mind about mirror slap.

Donald, you are right, I should. But I am afraid to, because if it's good, I will immediately want one. I have allowed my GAS to blossom in 35mm but I am determined to sticking to "one camera, one lens" at least for medium format.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

4x5" Carbon Infinity. It could probably be done even better with 25 years or so of experience in fabricating things out of carbon fiber since it was originally produced.

 

[CMoore]

I do not want to purchase a new "Sophisticated" SLR.
But a new Nikon F2 or Canon F1 type of camera would be fabulous.

 

[4season]

Since it's all blue sky daydreaming anyhow, I'll pick the Jaeger LeCoultre Compass.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Nikon rangefinders were sold at a loss, and they're not as ubiquitous as Leicas, so I'm putting them in the "can but shouldn't" column.

Cosina can probably bring back their cameras, and I think they should:

- Voigtlander Bessa R-series
- Voigtlander Bessaflex
- Fujifilm GF670
- Zeiss Ikon ZM

Wouldn't it be crazy if they made a 6x7/6x6 SLR based on the GF670? It could even have a Pentax 67 mount.

Medium format cameras mainly for digital could become less expensive if the film market picks up enough to make higher production feasible:

- Hasselblad H-series
- Phase One XF (Mamiya)
- Rolleiflex Hy6

DHW Fototechnik still makes TLRs, so that's covered.

If all of these cameras came back, that would be a very decent selection (despite leaving out so many great options)!

I think you have part of that a little bit off. It's DW now, and they no longer make the TLRs sadly. They only make the Hy6 Mod 2, and support it.

But yes, Cosina could be a big player in film. Back in those glory days of the Bessas and the Ikon it always bothered me that people mostly complained about them or treated them as junk compared to Leica bodies. They offered a solid alternative to the M series for very attractive prices. It's definitely true that there were weak points in the designs, and I wish the Ikon was made with future repairability in mind a bit more, but they're remarkable cameras to actually shoot. Plus these days more than ever the Voigtlander M lenses are world class optics. They're mostly better than the Zeiss line up.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

And I point back toF100 the F6 is too heavy.

It's definitely a bit more hefty than the F100, but I never found mind considerably larger than that camera. Of course now I use an LX and MZ-S so both of them seem like behmouths. I will say the F6 was simply the finest 35mm shooting machine I've ever used. I just don't do enough significant 35mm work to justify that beast. I use 35mm for some travel and journal type images when I walk the dogs, go for hikes.

If I was doing film weddings again I would be all about the F6, and would be asking Nikon to make an F7 with the D750 AF system, user focus calibration, and E lens capability.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Donald, you are right, I should. But I am afraid to, because if it's good, I will immediately want one. I have allowed my GAS to blossom in 35mm but I am determined to sticking to "one camera, one lens" at least for medium format.

The RB67 is very reasonable these days. I paid under $400 for mine, with 90mm lens, 6x7 and 6x4.5 film backs; I've since added a 250mm lens for under $100 and a 2x teleconverter for about $50 (plus shipping), as well as a 220 film back (which I use for 35mm) for, as I recall, about $60. You can spend some money, no doubt -- the 300 and 500 lenses, and the 37mm fisheye are expensive, and you could drop a couple grand trying to get just exactly the right set of components to get the maximum 56x75mm "6x8" frame (needs the right body, revolving Graflok, and film holder to get every millimeter) -- but you can put together a decent kit, with a couple film backs and a couple lenses, for around $500.

No, probably not as nice to use as a 'Blad, but I've got less into my current RB67 kit than I'd pay for a single Swedish lens.

And if you like electronics in your camera, the RZ67 uses most of the same lenses (there's an adapter involved, but it's always the same adapter), I think can use the same film backs -- but not the viewfinders.

Both have a 2x3 Graflok back. I put in a bid on a lot of 2x3 Grafmatics a couple weeks ago, but apparently I didn't want them badly enough.