[6BQ5]

I applaud the fresh design approach taken by the Reflex camera. There's a lot of good ideas in there like the interchangeable mounting system, BlueTooth connectivity, etc. Their challenge is overcoming and overwhelming the value of a used film body. Used film bodies cost anywhere from $10 on up. One of my favorites, a ME Super, seems to sell for about $50 on average, many times with a lens. Jumping from $50 to $500+ for a body is a huge leap. I'm not sure people will get 10x value back from the 10x they pay. A $50 body can be CLA'ed for $150 and I feel that will result in a better product than this Reflex.

The Reflex camera is toy for those who want to stand out and feel good about themselves for being unique. Serious film photographers will pick their lens first and the body will follow.

Even though I wish them success and good luck, seeing Reflex succeed could have a negative aspect too. It can start raising the pricing floor for new hardware. If it sold for this much today then it could probably sell for more later.

[disconnekt]

Well, if we're talking about used digital (as we are with film gear), not so much.

The cost of film + developing can add up pretty fast, even if you are a conservative user like me.

It depends on how much you shoot film (a roll a month/every few months? 20 rolls a month?), and if you send it out to get it developed (add shipping to send it & mailed back, add $ if you pushed/pulled the film, add $ if getting scans), and if you develop at home it'll be cheaper if you shoot alot of film (can find alot of stuff on the cheap on ebay/keh).

[dsmithhfx]

It depends on how much you shoot film (a roll a month/every few months? 20 rolls a month?), and if you send it out to get it developed (add shipping to send it & mailed back, add $ if you pushed/pulled the film, add $ if getting scans), and if you develop at home it'll be cheaper if you shoot alot of film (can find alot of stuff on the cheap on ebay/keh).

Conservative ballpark estimate for fresh retail 35mm film + lab dev + scan is US$1 per frame. As you point out, you can save by home developing and scanning, but this can eat up a lot of time, even after you get going and learn the ropes, not to mention the upfront investment it requires.

Suffice to say, you have to really really want to use film to make it worthwhile to pay that premium, when you consider that digital is a lot more capable and convenient. Will the "Reflex" project attract new users to film? What I'm hearing in these comments is that the project as billed is not seen as much of a value proposition for people who are already using film -- though we may be secretly thrilled to learn that someone is proposing to manufacture a new film body.

I'm not seeing this "Reflex"-branded kickstarter project as bringing added value to the film equation -- the bluetooth is next to useless in a film body (duh), and the "interchangeable lens mount board' is a pretty lame (and unproven) variation on the adaptall mount system -- admittedly a pretty elegant solution.

The detachable film back has also been done before, certainly with MF, but also the Rollei SL 2000 in 35mm Rollei 3003 (which I think probably has a better form factor for this type of feature than the "Reflex" project proposes).

As previously posted, the 35mm SLR revival gambit was tried by Cosina-Voigtlander with their Bessaflex Voigtlander Bessaflex TM (really wish I'd picked one up when they were going for a hundred bucks ~10-years ago!).

I think that would be a far more promising development model and design to pursue than the kickstarter thing.

[pathdoc]

Late production film bodies would write what we now call EXIF data on the periphery of the frame or into a memory which could be accessed, but we are talking here about all-singing, all-dancing cameras that enjoyed direct explicit access to the ISO, aperture and shutter speed for every shot, something I think we already know this camera won't do. It'd almost be more appropriate to write in a notebook.

[timw4mail]

Conservative ballpark estimate for fresh retail 35mm film + lab dev + scan is US$1 per frame. As you point out, you can save by home developing and scanning, but this can eat up a lot of time, even after you get going and learn the ropes, not to mention the upfront investment it requires.

Suffice to say, you have to really really want to use film to make it worthwhile to pay that premium, when you consider that digital is a lot more capable and convenient. Will the "Reflex" project attract new users to film? What I'm hearing in these comments is that the project as billed is not seen as much of a value proposition for people who are already using film -- though we may be secretly thrilled to learn that someone is proposing to manufacture a new film body.

My cheapest film/dev combo works out to be about 20 cents per frame. ~$40 for 10 36 exposure rolls, plus $3.50 for development. Granted, having that roll scanned by the lab would double the processing price, and I did spend some money on a scanner. I can easily see your estimate being true if you have to mail out the film.

Really the most difficult thing about film is finding places close by that will still develop it (or having the experience to develop yourself).

I'm not seeing this "Reflex"-branded kickstarter project as bringing added value to the film equation -- the bluetooth is next to useless in a film body (duh), and the "interchangeable lens mount board' is a pretty lame (and unproven) variation on the adaptall mount system -- admittedly a pretty elegant solution.

The real benefit of the bluetooth (stretch goal) app is to (somehow?) record the shutter speed, fstop, etc, which you have to otherwise manually track.

[gofour3]

something along the lines of a typewriter with USB ports

I actually saw a woman in a coffee house with a typewriter a couple months ago. Was kind of refreshing to see, in amongst all the laptops/smart phones.

Phil.

[pathdoc]

The real benefit of the bluetooth (stretch goal) app is to (somehow?) record the shutter speed, fstop, etc, which you have to otherwise manually track.

That's the point I'm driving at - with the manufacturer telling us there is no direct reading of the aperture, there can be no auto-recording thereof. So the app will send shutter speed, ISO and... a timestamp, I guess, which still leaves the aperture to be added in later. The best you can hope is that it feeds in the EV read by the meter and back-calculates the aperture from that. That might be a way around it, with over- or underexposure recorded if the shooter takes manual control and the aperture recalculated accordingly.

[awscreo]

Well, they are already only $3k from their kickstarter goal, which makes this project far more credible than most on that forum...

Potato Salad by Zack Danger Brown ? Kickstarter

[dsmithhfx]

I actually saw a woman in a coffee house with a typewriter a couple months ago. Was kind of refreshing to see, in amongst all the laptops/smart phones.

Phil.

And there's a movie.

I suppose the only thing left is a kickstarter-funded, awesome new typewriter with usb ports.

[pathdoc]

And there's a movie.

I suppose the only thing left is a kickstarter-funded, awesome new typewriter with usb ports.

Well, the last generation or two of those could record their keystrokes (all the better to erase screwups with), so I don't see why not.

I had the pleasure of existing in the overlap between typewriters (I taught myself to type on my father's office IBM golfball typewriter when I was twelve) and word processors, and there was something different about the way I wrote when I was at the typewriter. Unfortunately, I wasn't also that heavily into film at the time, so I can't say for sure whether it resembled the way I shoot differently when I'm on digital vs film, but I suspect if you gave me a typewriter today I might notice something.

The ability to go back and delete whole swathes of text in a flash certainly makes a difference; I'm not sure whether this is a good or a bad thing. There is something about having to commit words to paper immediately in the knowledge that major edits require a rewrite; you're much more invested in getting it right the first time. The analogy fails at that point, though, because like the word processor, the typewriter gives you the words at once. Film takes time and always did, even if you had developing services (your own or a photolab) available immediately. Developing phase, say, eight minutes; stop bath for one; fix for three for a rapid-process black and white film* in bottled chemistry with the stuff already mixed. Add three minutes to get the film into the tank if you're fast and skilled, and three for a rapid rinse at the end; eighteen minutes before you even see the negatives.

Corner photo labs could have your pics out in fifteen, IIRC, but that's because the colour development phase is over in just three or four minutes and much of the rest can be automated.

* Say, Tmax 400 in stock D76, water stop bath, Ilford Rapid Fix. Quick and dirty.

[dsmithhfx]

Well, the last generation or two of those could record their keystrokes (all the better to erase screwups with), so I don't see why not

Yeah I suppose it makes about as much sense as shooting film and then scanning it to digital.

[pathdoc]

Yeah I suppose it makes about as much sense as shooting film and then scanning it to digital.

You're talking to someone who actually does that. For those without the space to set up for wet developing or the time to play around with it, it's a pretty serviceable option.

[timw4mail]

Yeah I suppose it makes about as much sense as shooting film and then scanning it to digital.

Hey now!

Most prints these days are digital anyway, whether from film or not.

[dsmithhfx]

You're talking to someone who actually does that. For those without the space to set up for wet developing or the time to play around with it, it's a pretty serviceable option.

Full disclosure: I only shoot film then scan it.

[Mistral75]

The Reflex project crossed the £100,000 milestone after two days and seven hours.