h a l f b a k e r yWhy on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Disposable (one-time-use) camera using medium format (120 or 220) film. (The Diana camera and its more recent clones approach this concept.) Install decent, reusable GLASS optics in a cheap (yet light-proof) housing. Add a simple rangefinder apparatus, make the lens assembly focusable, and sell it for
around $15-$20. A cheaper fixed-focus model could be used as a "landscape" or "panoramic" version (6x9 or 6x12?)
[link]
|
| |
I don;t think many places can actually even develop this film anymore, and those that can aren't cheap. |
|
| |
$15-$20 is too much for one photo. Particularly since medium format has very few advantages over 35mm in normal use anyway. |
|
| |
What someone should do somehow is renew the habit of taking polaroid pictures. They are expensive, but they are truly more amazing, instantly gratifying images. |
|
| |
Polaroids are rather low resolution film. They generally can't be enlarged much. 120 film makes huge negatives, several times the size of 35mm, thus makes for really huge enlargements. See the "Anything into Oil" article in the May issue of Discover Magazine to address the landfill problem. Plastic is very recyclable anyway. |
|
| |
Why disposable? Considering the small market you'd generate, why not just have non-disposable camera and charge a bit more? Feels a bit like a me-too (decent glass optics, focusable, yet cheap). |
|
| |
I think the term "disposable" as applied to one-time-use cameras is unfortunate, as it's inaccurate. Actually, there is a fairly lucrative industry around refilling used "disposables." Since they are made mostly of plastics, most of the un-refillable "disposable" cameras are recycled as scrap plastic. (This is primarily because the recycling is done by the photo-processor, who has an eye on costs and profits, instead of consumers, who tend to be lazy, wasteful, and negligent.) |
|
| |
"Why disposable? Considering the small market you'd generate, why not just have non-disposable camera and charge a bit more? Feels a bit like a me-too (decent glass optics, focusable, yet cheap)." |
|
| |
What you've described is a Diana or Holga camera, or, with decent glass optics, a Woca. (If you use enough tape you can eliminate the light leaks, but then you have to contend with the serious vignetting and fuzzy focus from the poor-quality lens).
I suggested the "disposable" format (an unfortunate description, since most are recycled- it's the cheap "reusable" kind that end up in landfills) to eliminate the hassle of loading roll film. And, if the camera is returned to the manufacturer for film processing, the camera can be recycled by reloading with film and sold again (not a problem as long as it's labeled as "reloaded" or "refurbished.") |
|
| |
So what you want is a decent medium-format camera that you can *hire* from a camera shop for $15-$20 with film in it? |
|
| |
If you can convince WalMart to carry it, that would work. |
|
| |
Why would anyone but a professional photographer want a high-resolution film camera in the first place? |
|
| |