• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Why not a film camera with an EVF?


Yes, through the lens just like an optical viewfinder normally is. it only really works on an SLR, not a rangefinder. It could also work with a pellicle mirror (which may actually allow the flange distance to be shorter and adapt more lenses, increasing the customer base)
 
xkaes said:
Yeah. Pentax pushed the envelope with a 1/2 frame that doesn't have a mirror box. How much more would people spend?
Click to expand...

There is not one envelope for only one single product that all photographers want. People spent only $500 there, but you have to look at what they were paying FOR. what they got was a ZONE FOCUS camera (the shittiest kind of focus system there is short of "no focus system at all" like a brownie), and an f/3.5 extremely slow lens (it has the equivalent of a 35mm f/5 lens on full frame).

The fact people still apparent bought them like hotcakes suggests that $1500 or 2000 for a real actual camera with never before seen high end capabilities is completely realistic IMO. It's like a shoe company selling some beach flip flops for $30, and then someone suggests they actually sell sneakers. You can't just be like "oh well surely nobody would pay > $30 though, look at the flip flops!" It's a whole different level of usefulness and quality, not the same proposition.

Don_ih said:
The competition isn't dslrs. It's mirrorless. And mirrorless cameras plus lenses are generally capable of being smaller and lighter than and Olympus OM1.
Click to expand...
The competition on weight isn't really... anything here. Because it's never been done before and nothing else has close to the same functionality, that's the point. That's why I think it's much more viable than just making a modern normal film SLR or something, which has to compete with everything on ebay vintage. This competes with not really anything directly.

Although my Minolta SRT 201 from like 1970 or whatever and not really "pro" at all (my grandma gave it to me) weighs more than my Canon 6D full frame DSLR, so...
 
If the Pentax 17 had to sell for $500, methinks your full SLR with EVF would be a lot more than $2,000. And you've got the same competition that Pentax had -- the cost & speed of film, and the quality & speed of phone photos -- among other things.

Next step? Shark Tank!!!
 

For a couple hundred of dollars just carry a used DSLR for test shots.
 
A pentax K1 MkII full frame DSLR sells currently for $1800. Meanwhile the film advance system in the P17 is the only part you need to bring over from that (not the meter, not the lens, not the viewfinder, not the shutter, none of the electronics, not a second body or controls cause we already accounted for that, etc) +$200 for only the film advance seems plausible to me. Although NOT having to include the insane 4 piston multi axis LCD screen thing on the pentax probably saves you more than the film advance cost, so maybe $1700. Oh and no IBIS, $1500...?

Film cameras are not realistically competing with phones and mirrorless on quality, or nobody would be shooting film right now and nobody would have bought a single P17. Yet they did buy more than Pentax even hoped for, and film is growing at like 20% a year. People just like film, aesthetically, on vibes, on experience, on "genuineness", on nostalgia, etc.
 
Last edited:
mshchem said:
Lenses?
Click to expand...

Canon has the best adaptability in its DSLR EOS mount. It was able to adapt Nikon F, M42, Pentax K, Olympus OM, it's own EF lenses, Leica R and more.

I also floated an idea above that if you used a pellicle mirror, then it wouldn't have to flip out, which can save you another 3-5mm of flange distance possibly, and maybe even allow more types of adapters. Due to the fact that an EVF can amplify light, a pellicle could divert significantly less light than one normally would to the viewfinder and pass like 80% still to the film. That would however come at the cost of taking digital secondary photos being significantly handicapped. That's probably not worth whatever weird extra adaptability vs just EOS mount.
 

It's an intriguing idea, but you may need to develop this product yourself if you want it to become a reality.
 

No sensor and evf is ever going to mimic film, so why bother.?

Or to put it another way, if you believe that a sensor and evf can mimic film just buy a Fujifilm digital camera with built in film simulations - that's exactly their use case and why they exist.
 

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. This is a film camera. Film mimics film 100% accurately.
 
As I understand it, essentially you are looking for a digital preview of your image, before you expose the film.
Perhaps with some handy bells and whistles, like reliable depth of field preview and histogram analysis and exposure (pre-)visualization.
Something like the movie industry uses when they have digital viewfinders on motion picture film cameras - really, really expensive motion picture film cameras.
I see a bunch of technical challenges relating to the depth of field issues - digital camera do this by using the same sensor for both feeding the EVF and capturing the image, so to make this work you would probably need a full frame sensor in your viewing system.
I expect though that most of the pushback you are getting here is from film photographers who have spent their photography years developing a non-technological solution for the problem you are attempting to address - we have learned how to reasonably reliably be able to visualize the results before releasing the shutter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register