HankBukowski Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Note that i said evolution, not revolution. http://www.re35.net/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccoltmanm Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 That is the coolest thing in the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unix2 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 They can't even spell "adobe". 35mm are dead, who in their right state of mind will go back to analog cameras? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiB3R Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Well the site says "revolution". Is it even real though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Is this real? The only people still using film cameras do so because of the FILM... so... uhhh wtf. Cool idea if you're shooting film and run out of film, though. It might have uses, but I don't see it catching on at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankBukowski Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 who in their right state of mind will go back to analog cameras? People with Zeiss lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankBukowski Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Is this real? The only people still using film cameras do so because of the FILM... so... uhhh wtf. Cool idea if you're shooting film and run out of film, though. It might have uses, but I don't see it catching on at all. Imagine you have a Leica, a Pentax and a toy camera. As kodak and other stop doing rolls these cameras cant be used dewpite having great bodies and excelent lenses. With this you can have the same sensor and use every body according to your needs. Also, fullframe on the cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 1.) A toy camera isn't a great body or has excellent lenses. 2.) How many people actually Have a Leica or Pentax? Moonman aside, the market for such a thing is tiny as hell. Like I said, it won't catch on. 3.) What's a 10 year old Leica going to look like as megapixel counts go higher? There's a reason the biggest their offering is 12mp, with entry level starting at 3mp. A halfway decent cell phone has 5-8mp these days. 4.) Price? I don't see it yet, but it won't be cheap. Imagine you have a Leica, a Pentax and a toy camera. As kodak and other stop do Also, fullframe on the cheap! a 3mp full frame stuck at ISO 400? Big deal... The whole point of full frame these days is high ISO or high pixel count. This delivers neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo003 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I know it's going to be discontinued pretty soon but still never thought they would invent something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caleo Global Moderator Posted April 4, 2011 Global Moderator Share Posted April 4, 2011 Cool, but it'll only be worth a damn when they actually have sample photos up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Deleted- Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 1.) A toy camera isn't a great body or has excellent lenses. 2.) How many people actually Have a Leica or Pentax? Moonman aside, the market for such a thing is tiny as hell. Like I said, it won't catch on. 3.) What's a 10 year old Leica going to look like as megapixel counts go higher? There's a reason the biggest their offering is 12mp, with entry level starting at 3mp. A halfway decent cell phone has 5-8mp these days. 4.) Price? I don't see it yet, but it won't be cheap. a 3mp full frame stuck at ISO 400? Big deal... The whole point of full frame these days is high ISO or high pixel count. This delivers neither. You do realise that an old 5MP cannon will most likely take better pictures than 90% of todays 14+mp cameras... its not all about MP, infact anything above 4(ish) on a standard 10x15 print off is wasted. The fact you even say Cellphones have 5-8 just shows your lack of knowledge... a phone camera in the photography world is about as basic as they come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankBukowski Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Snip 1.- im talking about flexibility. Of course a toy camera is not about great glass. 2.- pentax o leica? Not many. But 35mm cameras? More than you imagine. 3.- this is experimental tech, how often you see flexible sensors? We can only imagine how the MP number will evolve. 4.- It will not be cheap,, but Im sure it will be cheaperbthan most fullframes cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 You do realise that an old 5MP cannon will most likely take better pictures than 90% of todays 14+mp cameras... its not all about MP, infact anything above 4(ish) on a standard 10x15 print off is wasted. The fact you even say Cellphones have 5-8 just shows your lack of knowledge... a phone camera in the photography world is about as basic as they come... Wow, thanks dude. You missed the point. It's 10 year old GLASS on 12mp is the problem. Megapixels don't give image quality, glass does. And when you have OLD GLASS on 12mp, imperfections in the glass become super obvious. They're offering small MP counts because it's going to be old glass. Sure it looks good on 35mm film, but blow it up on a D3x sensor (24mp) and it'll look terrible. That's why I made a MP comparison... You don't need to belittle me with "shows your lack of knowledge" comments. 1.- im talking about flexibility. Of course a toy camera is not about great glass. 2.- pentax o leica? Not many. But 35mm cameras? More than you imagine. 3.- this is experimental tech, how often you see flexible sensors? We can only imagine how the MP number will evolve. 4.- It will not be cheap,, but Im sure it will be cheaperbthan most fullframes cameras. 2.) Yea, it must be. I don't know anybody who has one or would go back to one just for a quasi-digital "back." Most photo enthusiasts who uses film use it because of the characteristics of film, not the camera body. 3.) Could be. 4.) And anybody who need digital quality has switched already. If you want film, it'll still be around for a while. There's a lot of ppl who like film and won't switch to this. They like film for film's characteristics.. And again, the list of people who don't meet my above statements is tiny. And that takes me back to my original post of "It might have uses, but I don't see it catching on at all." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I would only really use this if I were to buy a Nikon F2 or something like that. Have fun with old bodies, but not have to use film. Then again, I could just take my 7D and buy a 30/1.8 and be done with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAZMINATOR Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 That is interesting. My brother has a film camera and he might use that in his old camera if that site is true and plan to release someday. I will keep an eye on that site until they open up the online store for us to buy the cartridges or tells us where to buy at local retailers. Yes I agree with crazzy about films and film cameras that are still around. Not sure when the regular film cartridges will be stop producing but they may plan to produce the 35mm version of digital cartridges for old film cameras so they can download the digital images to the computers.. Amazing technology from film days to now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kondrath Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I think this is awesome. My mom used to use her old canon all the time until she couldn't afford the constant cost of film and getting it developed. As long as these things aren't as much as an actual camera, I'll probably get one. Neat idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Wow, thanks dude. You missed the point. It's 10 year old GLASS on 12mp is the problem. Megapixels don't give image quality, glass does. And when you have OLD GLASS on 12mp, imperfections in the glass become super obvious. They're offering small MP counts because it's going to be old glass. Sure it looks good on 35mm film, but blow it up on a D3x sensor (24mp) and it'll look terrible. Some old glass is still more than capable of delivering high resolution images even on the latest high-resolution digital bodies. What was quality glass back then is still mostly considered quality glass now. In the Sony world a lot of the older Minolta glass which is still available is considered to be very good and can match the resolution of other competing lenses boh for the Sony system as well as that available for other systems. Though it is true that some old glass shows its deficiencies in digital, it is glass that was not considered good / top-grade even back when it hit the market. Older glass does seem to be more prone to flaring but that is due to the improvements in modern coatings and is not an issue in most cases. In any case, the page definitely looks fake and like something some dude just came up with and decided to make a "product page" for his design portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAZMINATOR Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Well, it seems to be true but it is not because that site is part of the top 5 of April's Fool prank which I researched and found this: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/digitalcameras/top-5-april-fools-day-photo-pranks/4885 We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auroka Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Well, it seems to be true but it is not because that site is part of the top 5 of April's Fool prank which I researched and found this: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/digitalcameras/top-5-april-fools-day-photo-pranks/4885 Kinda confused now, is it real or fake? :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAZMINATOR Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Kinda confused now, is it real or fake? :/ I know ... The site said it was prank and later a reader emailed that site and it may be true... we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Charming Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I absolutely love my A-1, but half the reason is because of the awesome experience you get shooting film (especially cliche stuff like Velvia 50 or Delta 3200). This kind of ruins that. Of course, the other half of the reason I love my A-1 is because it's an absolutely fantastic body, and the manual focusing experience is miles ahead of anything you'll ever experience on digital (simply due to technological limitations). I'd probably buy one of those digital cartridges, would be useful for experimenting, playing around, or for when you run out of film. But topping out at 12mp isn't too impressive. Of course, the biggest shame is that it just looks like a concept that will never see production, because I'd buy one ;( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 What technological limitations are you talking about Pandya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerm Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I think this is an amazing idea. If the images it delivers are upto par I'd be very interested. I love my old 35mm, I'd be tempted to buy another body or two as well with one of these. 35mm isn't dead, it's fantastic. I love the whole process and have gotten images from Ektar that are just stunning. Just for reference my digital camera is a 5D mkII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnast Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Gotta say - that's pretty neat. It's not practical for most people but it's still cool. Wonder how much they cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 This has been tried before. Someone was doing this at the early age of Digital SLR's when it made more sense, but it never came to fruitition, of course technology has come a lot longer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts