h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
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,
|
|
|
Jumbo-size film cartridge, like an overgreown 126 cartridge, for medium format (6cmX6cm or 6cmX9cm.)
Roll film is a pain. That's why only 120 roll film is still used today. All the other roll film formats have bitten the dust: 828, 620, 116, etc. Yes I know some of these can still be had, usually
cut down from or respooled from 120 stock. It's expensive.
Putting medium format film in an easy-to-load form would make medium format photography more acceptable to mass consumers- and may help film photography compete against the latest 14+ MP digital cameras.
We might even be able to make this compatible with existing hardware, like your favorite Hasselblad?
[link]
|
| |
Roll-film cameras are still going to be bigger and need better quality lenses than smaller format cameras. I think that the price of good equipment is a bigger barrier to entry than the ease of loading the film. [Goes back to drooling over the Pentax 645.] |
|
| |
[st3f] I hope you know drool voids the warranty. |
|
| |
[Hands damp camera back to whlanteigne]. |
|
| |
In what way is roll-film a pain? It's compact, the spools don't seem to be overly sensitive to light leaks, and it seems easy enough to load to me. I don't believe that serious amateur and professional photographers are threatened by having to load spooled film. |
|
| |
Ditto st3f's comment regarding lens quality and pricing being a significant barrier. I'd also argue that there's also a complexity barrier; medium format is a long way from point-and-shoot. |
|
| |
The flexibility of the roll-film products is key to their enduring marketability - I can buy one film that works in a 645 and in a panoramic camera. You're proposal will require a redesign of the film handling section of every current medium format camera on the market. And given the number of folks out there using older cameras, you might cut off a large portion of the market. |
|
| |
Finally, you'd either have to produce several cartridge sizes (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x9...) or a single 6cm by ??cm cartridge, to accommodate all the possible camera configurations. |
|
| |
I think the "serious amateur and professional" photographers are all going digital. Right now there is an impressive glut of good used photo equipment on the market as "serious" photographers dump their film equipment and go for the higher-end digital cameras and the latest version of Photoshop. Kodak just announced a 14.9 MP digital camera- I'm sure Nikon and the rest will soon follow suit.
I don't think a complete redesign of every camera system is necessary. This product would only be targeted at cameras with interchangeable backs (or backs that can be easily removed and replaced), or for completely new designs aimed more at the consumer than the professional or the serious amateur, who presumably is drooling over a new digital system.
And roll film certainly IS a pain- that's why 828 and 620 and several other formats are obsolete, replaced by the much more convenient 35mm format.
I'm sure a variety of size formats are possible- the soon-to-be-obsolete APS cartridge has that capability. |
|
| |
Pro photogs I know are still waiting for the killer digital camera. |
|
| |
I think in another couple of years we'll see the "killer" digital camera. When the CCD size approaches 6cmX9cm you'll see a huge move by the pros out of film photography.
I'll still be using film; I just rebuilt a "K" battery for my Minolta Pocket Pak 40, respooled some 620 film onto 620 rolls (double the aggravation...) for my Kodak Duaflex and my Argoflex EM, adjusted the rangefinder on my favorite Argus "Brick," CLA'd my favorite SLRs... |
|
| |