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

[Philippe-Georges]

It all comes down to shutters.

Copal stopping shutter production seems to have been what killed off the voigtlander cameras. And it may be the same with the mechanical Rolleiflexes.

Solving the shutter problem is the biggest task. After that, the rest is relatively simpler.

Personally I'd like to see the Xpan/ TX-2 return. And the Nikon F (plain prism only). Or maybe an ultrawide version of the Fuji GF670W with either a 38 or 45mm optic & possibly more radical format switch options - a 21st century Hasselblad SWC meets Alpa/ Biogon sort of thing. I like the idea of 10-on 120 with choices of 55x69, 44x66, 24x66 for a 38mm on a switch, or 9-on with 56x76 and 36x72 for 45mm...

Yes, give us back decent (mechanical-) leaf shutters, regardless who makes them, but do get them back, or at least the parts to repair the still existing ones!
Why did Compur, Prontor, Copal stopped production while there are still so many cameras out needing parts?
And there are still new made cameras needing leaf shutter mounted lenses like Alpa, Silvestri, Dora Goodman, Paul Kohlhaussen, Alvandi and other (open-source-) 3D printed cameras, to name a few handheld models...

3D printing can save the camera world, and other former brands might resurrect, only if we could have the independent shutter and lens manufactures coming back!

 

[Craig]

Why did Compur, Prontor, Copal stopped production while there are still so many cameras out needing parts?

The situation was described in one of the Nikon model histories, that they used many components made by subcontractors. Many of the engineeers in those companies were either at or beyond retirement age, and when the camera run was finished they retired and there was nobody behind them to keep the company going. The demand for new production parts ceased, so the companies that made these components were wound up.

 

[Steven Lee]

Why did Compur, Prontor, Copal stopped production while there are still so many cameras out needing parts? And there are still new made cameras needing leaf shutter mounted lenses like Alpa, Silvestri, Dora Goodman, Paul Kohlhaussen, Alvandi and other (open-source-) 3D printed cameras, to name a few handheld models...

Because everything you just listed is not enough to sustain production. Let's assume that a fully loaded engineer in a 1st world country is about $170k per year, gross margins in consumer electronics is 35%, and a shutter cost to a lens manufacturer is $50. I may be off by double-digit % here and there, but I am not orders of magnitude off.

The assumptions above mean that to employ a single employee a shutter company needs to sell 10,000 shutters per year. Back when leaf shutter lenses were sold by tens of millions, it made sense. Today, not so much.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Because everything you just listed is not enough to sustain production. Let's assume that a fully loaded engineer in a 1st world country is about $170k per year, gross margins in consumer electronics is 35%, and a shutter cost to a lens manufacturer is $50. I may be off by double-digit % here and there, but I am not orders of magnitude off.

The assumptions above mean that to employ a single employee a shutter company needs to sell 10,000 shutters per year. Back when leaf shutter lenses were sold by tens of millions, it made sense. Today, not so much.

I do understand that there is always a business model in the game for (not-) doing...

The latest digital Hasselblad X series have built in leaf shutters in their new (AF-) lenses, could there be a way to commercialise these?
I can hardly imagine the they sell more than 10 000 of these shutter holding lenses, at that price anyway...

In Japan, there is a one man lens manufacturer, Miyazaki Sadayasu, who makes lenses with Leica mount which are verry popular: MS OPTICS.
If he can do this kind of work and live by it...

Who wants to pick up the challenge and take care of new leaf shutters?

 

[Film-Niko]

The latest digital Hasselblad X series have built in leaf shutters in their new (AF-) lenses, could there be a way to commercialise these?
I can hardly imagine the they sell more than 10 000 of these shutter holding lenses, at that price anyway...

And not only there, as leaf shutters are used in all Hasselblad lenses for their current H system:

H6X

www.hasselblad.com

If Hasselblad would start production of the H-system film-back again, it would be the easiest and most economic way back to an excellent, current, modern medium-format film SLR with a full line of excellent lenses.
The H cameras are great, and in my opinion completely underrated at the moment.

 

[bags27]

Since this is being bankrolled by a billionaire as a vanity project with no expectation of recouping investment, then the Mamiya 7.

 

[BMbikerider]

Keeping it very simple just what was wrong with the Pentax SV, then graduating through to the Spotmatic range. The metering could be brought up to date quite simply and the lenses give a makeover. For their age and design, the screw thread lenses were and still are amongst the best there was. Why repair something that isn't broken? Update the coatings and create an automatic (Shutter priority of course).

They remain my favourite camera of all time. In their heyday, Pentax had an advert which read 'Just hold a Pentax'. Four small words that spoke volumes. They were even tough enough to be used by the press as well.

 

[BMbikerider]

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”. Helge:


But the suspense of using film and making a success of using a film camera is the stumbling block. Most photographers who use the film way of recording the world are able to do so because they know what they are doing and how to get the best out of film. An exposure meter is an 'add on' Using film is a challenge! I like a challenge where I am able to get things right. It doesn't work every time, but when it does........Boy........ the satisfaction is terrific. Far more so than any digital image I have ever taken since 2002

 

[Helge]

People have always craved, for good reason, to get a preview of what they were taking.
TLR and SLR screens are a way to get that. Gradually more advanced light meters are a way to avoid nasty surprises.
Using a set of inexpensive stereo cameras to measure light, distance and composition is just a natural extension of that.
AF and matrix metering is just a more primitive version of that.

If you need a light meter in the camera you are already electronic. The little extra step to have something more advanced, is not against the religion.
What’s more any sensible shutter design today would be electronic.
Doing a Compur Rapid og Copal FP shutter would be bonkers and needlessly expensive.

The measuring cameras could be part of a removable module that you could opt out of for a rangefinder of just scale focus. Or replace with something else in the future.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Using a set of inexpensive stereo cameras to measure light, distance and composition is just a natural extension of that.

I use the set I was born with a lot for these things, but they have a factory defect and require fairly strong diopters to correct focus...

 

[Helge]

I use the set I was born with a lot for these things, but they have a factory defect and require fairly strong diopters to correct focus...

Unless you are really practiced you can’t really see a composition until it’s pressed flat. And even then…
There is a reason projection screens on cameras remain so popular.
And you can meter with your eyes? Sure. Until you can’t. There’s a reason why even very experienced photographers use light meters.
Estimating distances can be learned, but only to a point. Once you get within around 1 m, it gets dicey.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Seeing composition without a frame is a learned skill. Shoot with enough cameras that don't have ground glass screens and you learn it -- or conclude that it's a black art and can't be learned or taught.

Metering with your eyes is a matter of memorization. The eye is self-compensating, you can't see how bright the light is or isn't -- so you memorize a table of exposures for various lighting conditions. I don't even have the whole table by rote, but I can cover the conditions I shoot in and get good exposures from bright summer noonday to indoor office spaces and night under street lights.

For estimating distances, I have a bunch of images that say I can do it well enough to get well inside a meter at f/11 or f/16 with a short focal length lens (and I have few cameras that aren't SLRs that can focus closer than a meter anyway). Been a long time, but with my Pony 135 and a diopter filter I used to make macro with by-eye focusing at a few inches/centimeters back around 1972...

 

[Helge]

Seeing composition without a frame is a learned skill. Shoot with enough cameras that don't have ground glass screens and you learn it -- or conclude that it's a black art and can't be learned or taught.

Metering with your eyes is a matter of memorization. The eye is self-compensating, you can't see how bright the light is or isn't -- so you memorize a table of exposures for various lighting conditions. I don't even have the whole table by rote, but I can cover the conditions I shoot in and get good exposures from bright summer noonday to indoor office spaces and night under street lights.

For estimating distances, I have a bunch of images that say I can do it well enough to get well inside a meter at f/11 or f/16 with a short focal length lens (and I have few cameras that aren't SLRs that can focus closer than a meter anyway). Been a long time, but with my Pony 135 and a diopter filter I used to make macro with by-eye focusing at a few inches/centimeters back around 1972...

Sure. But you can also just use instruments. Why not? And try telling that to a relative beginner.

 

[mshchem]

Number one goal should be to re-engage the amateur. Moms who can point and shoot, drop the cassettes off at the drug store and receive some nice 4x6 prints, negatives and the scans used to generate the prints. George Eastman had the right idea, so does Fujifilm in Instax, mass market.

 

[Lachlan Young]

And not only there, as leaf shutters are used in all Hasselblad lenses for their current H system:

H6X

www.hasselblad.com

If Hasselblad would start production of the H-system film-back again, it would be the easiest and most economic way back to an excellent, current, modern medium-format film SLR with a full line of excellent lenses.
The H cameras are great, and in my opinion completely underrated at the moment.

There's also the Phase One X-Shutter which is directly #0 shutter compatible - at a price that belies its evolution from industrial usage situations rather than low-actuation demand photographic origins.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And try telling that to a relative beginner.

When I had that Pony 135 I also had a Gossen Sixtomat (which, sadly, got dropped one time too many about eight years ago and the meter movement failed after forty years of good service to me and whoever had it before), but Sunny 16 isn't hard to learn and back then every film box had it printed on the inside. Distance estimation, I had little choice -- I measured my hand span and palm width and measured that way, or with steps, when I could, but it quickly got easier for anything beyond a few feet (a meter or two) to just "know" the distance.

Not saying film beginners shouldn't learn to use a meter, especially since they're all going to have a smart phone, which means they have a meter (or can download the app if they have signal).

Getting the eye for composition, frame or no, is the "art" part of this and, IMO, there'll be some who seem to be born with it, and some who never seem to learn it (my dad), and most will fall somewhere in between.

 

[Huss]

I do understand that there is always a business model in the game for (not-) doing...

The latest digital Hasselblad X series have built in leaf shutters in their new (AF-) lenses, could there be a way to commercialise these?
I can hardly imagine the they sell more than 10 000 of these shutter holding lenses, at that price anyway...

In Japan, there is a one man lens manufacturer, Miyazaki Sadayasu, who makes lenses with Leica mount which are verry popular: MS OPTICS.
If he can do this kind of work and live by it...

View attachment 325737

Who wants to pick up the challenge and take care of new leaf shutters?

His boutique lenses are more works of mechanical art than lenses that you can rely on, if you look into the extremely variable build and optical issues they can come with.

You cannot use shutters made in such a similar fashion that will have such a high failure rate. A 'quirky' lens may just give a different result. But a shutter is much more binary - it works or it does not.

 

[CMoore]

Number one goal should be to re-engage the amateur. Moms who can point and shoot, drop the cassettes off at the drug store and receive some nice 4x6 prints, negatives and the scans used to generate the prints. George Eastman had the right idea, so does Fujifilm in Instax, mass market.

Well Said

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Yes, give us back decent (mechanical-) leaf shutters, regardless who makes them, but do get them back, or at least the parts to repair the still existing ones!
Why did Compur, Prontor, Copal stopped production while there are still so many cameras out needing parts?
And there are still new made cameras needing leaf shutter mounted lenses like Alpa, Silvestri, Dora Goodman, Paul Kohlhaussen, Alvandi and other (open-source-) 3D printed cameras, to name a few handheld models...

3D printing can save the camera world, and other former brands might resurrect, only if we could have the independent shutter and lens manufactures coming back!

Copal/Compur like shutters ceased production because demand was no longer enough to sustain the production lines. Sure, there are lots of amateurs using them (either on MF or LF camera/lenses) but a great percentage of them buy used stuff. Also, like previously stated, many of the people that made/repaired them retired and younger people where not interested on a job that was dying at the moment.


I strongly believe that this kind of shutter would be made again in the future, since there is some interest on MF/LF photography. A direct replacement for some camera lens.

It all depends on the demand, so stop using digital and use/repair you film cameras .

 

[Sergey Ko]

Micro & Mini format cameras. Minox 8x11, 16mm cameras...
Modern films are excellent for small formats. Also lightweight cameras can compete even with phones

 

[Cholentpot]

Micro & Mini format cameras. Minox 8x11, 16mm cameras...
Modern films are excellent for small formats. Also lightweight cameras can compete even with phones

Follow the 110/16mm thread. You can get some awesome results out of these tiny formats these days.

 

[Sergey Ko]

Follow the 110/16mm thread. You can get some awesome results out of these tiny formats these days.

I am doing my best
Minox 8x11 + SPUR100 film & developer
And more:

Minox 8x11

The photos by my lovely Minox C & Minox IIIS cameras

www.flickr.com

 

[Steve@f8]

My votes are for the XPan, the Pen F, FT of FV.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

My votes are for the XPan, the Pen F, FT of FV.

Quite ambitious are you? Pen F/FT/FV where quite complicated and complex cameras. A thing of beauty though. Only the genious of the generation, Yoshihisa Maitani, could produce something like that.

My vote with those cameras as well.

 

[Steve@f8]

Quite ambitious are you? Pen F/FT/FV where quite complicated and complex cameras. A thing of beauty though. Only the genious of the generation, Yoshihisa Maitani, could produce something like that.

My vote with those cameras as well.

I already have a Pen FT, but a new one would be great. I need to give it more love, me thinks.
An XPan is very desirable, lenses too of course. But fully manual please.