[c.a.m]

The first sentence wasn’t meant to be serious.

Ahh, thanks. I kinda thought so.

It seems that the designers are evolving their ideas and implementation. While the device is not as svelte as a normal digital camera, it will probably appeal to a niche market.

- Craig

[dtrego]

I remember a few years ago device similar to a film canister (which held batteries and power circuit) with a film-like plate with a digital image sensor extended to the film gate without the need for a focus screen or an extra lens. It was designed to fit 'only' Nikon or Canon professional 35mm film SLR cameras. It had lower resolution than today's DSLR cameras and a crop factor too, but didn't got enough commercial traction. I wished it was adaptable enough to fit Pentax cameras.

www.siliconfilm.com perhaps? That’s the one I remember from the early 2000’s. Oddly enough, the web site is still alive, complete with news headlines and copyright notice from the year 2000!

[VSTAR]

That seems a little harsh.

The product certainly has a purpose -- take digital photographs with old 35mm film camera bodies and lenses.

Sure, one can argue that this product isn't essential to life on this planet. But then very few things in most peoples lives really are essential. Once a person earns more than a few thousands dollars a year, they start buying non-essential foods (sweets, herbs & spices more meat, off-season fruits & vegetables, alcohol, etc.), non-essential housing (multiple rooms), entertainment (spectator sports, movies, internet, etc.).

Harsh...no
One could take the lenses from any of these film cameras, but a cheap adapter, put them on an inexpensive digital body and cone out way ahead in results. Instead spend a lot of tome and money to design, manufacture, sell, an inferior product. Not sure how that makes sense, except for nostalgia. I used to own several film slr bodies, more lenses than I can count, enlargers, medium format camera.,,,looked at adapting the medium or at to digital, looked at using the slr lenses (Fujica, chinon, Pentax) on newer bodies...and finally said “what am I doing”. If I wanted to continue using them as film cameras...that would make sense.

[Digitalis]

You would be hard pressed to find any dedicated photographer who would take this product seriously. Some would say I'm being way too critical and negative about it. A camera is an image making tool, strapping a primitive device like this to a camera that the medium is ill suited for*...is a bit obscene to me. I wouldn't be caught dead strapping this to the back of my Pentax K2 or Leica M3...I would rather stick to the medium these cameras were built to work with, you know, FILM**.


* A device that reduces a camera to something less than what it is designed to be. Besides : the majority of mechanical cameras (assuming they are in good condition, otherwise forget it) aren't really built to the kind of tolerances that digital demands. I know of some photographers who drool over the idea of a digital back for the Pentax 67II, NOTHING about that camera is up to the demands such a thing would place upon it, the same goes for many film cameras.

**call me a purist: I'll accept that criticism. Reducing a camera to just a lens holder and a light tight box, you might as well take up shooting 4X5 - because that is essentially what 4X5 cameras are.

[Dartmoor Dave]

This next comment is not only about this gadget in particular, but about all choices to do unconventional things with photographic gear.

It's absolutely fine for people to say that they personally wouldn't want to do it

It's not fine for them to say that some of us shouldn't want to do it.

And it's completely out of order for them to say that others mustn't want to do it.

[newmikey]

No, just no...

[BigMackCam]

This next comment is not only about this gadget in particular, but about all choices to do unconventional things with photographic gear.

It's absolutely fine for people to say that they personally wouldn't want to do it

It's not fine for them to say that some of us shouldn't want to do it.

And it's completely out of order for them to say that others mustn't want to do it.

Well said, David!

Though I'm fortunate to own good, capable, modern gear that I like shooting, much of my enjoyment and artistic output over the years has come from using equipment that many folks look down upon. My so-called "lomography" film cameras, compact digital cameras, vintage lenses, the brands and models of ILCs I choose to shoot... all of these things and more are derided to some extent by numerous folks in these and other forums and the online photographic review community (some of whom don't even have experience of the equipment they're criticising).

Thank goodness I make my own decisions (and my own mistakes), otherwise I'd have missed out on a great deal of fun, learning and some unique and pleasing photographic results...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-17-2020 at 04:07 AM.

[zapp]

Using a Linhof for Polaroids is fun, but a crappy back on a nice old slr does not sound like fun. The magic is missing - there is definitely no need for it.

[BigMackCam]

Using a Linhof for Polaroids is fun, but a crappy back on a nice old slr does not sound like fun. The magic is missing - there is definitely no need for it.

There's no need for plastic lens, medium format Holga or Diana cameras either, but folks enjoy shooting them, no matter the criticisms and knowing smirks they receive.

I watched the YouTube video the inventor linked to, and... what can I say, I really liked it. Still, this isn't a product I'll buy, but for those who do, I'm sure they'll get some creative fun from it... and that's largely in line with the inventor's intentions

[Jean Poitiers]

This next comment is not only about this gadget in particular, but about all choices to do unconventional things with photographic gear.

It's absolutely fine for people to say that they personally wouldn't want to do it

It's not fine for them to say that some of us shouldn't want to do it.

And it's completely out of order for them to say that others mustn't want to do it.

Agreed. Well said.

[Jean Poitiers]

Well said, David!

Though I'm fortunate to own good, capable, modern gear that I like shooting, much of my enjoyment and artistic output over the years has come from using equipment that many folks look down upon. My so-called "lomography" film cameras, compact digital cameras, vintage lenses, the brands and models I choose to shoot... all of these things and more are derided to some extent by numerous folks in these and other forums and the online photographic review community (some of whom don't even have experience of the equipment they're criticising).

Thank goodness I make my own decisions (and my own mistakes), otherwise I'd have missed out on a great deal of fun, learning and some unique and pleasing photographic results...

Another "well said", IMHO.

For my part, I am just a Dad with a main FF camera that works well for me and my needs. And it's a FUN hobby for me, too. Key word being "fun", closely followed by "hobby".

I have (way too much) Pentax gear which I like a lot, and a bunch of other digital and film gear as well ... plus I make, "create", experiment for my own fun and curiosity. (Examples see - The "Projector Lens" Club ... - PentaxForums.com & Pentax-110 system film lenses on APS-C - PentaxForums.com ... yes, blatant self-promotion and please join in on the fun).

I agree that my vintage gear collection might not please all ... and I do not give a "merde". My fun. My hobby. I never shot medium format film seriously until the last ten years and I may build my own large format soon. I never started home development with Caffenol recipes until a few years ago. Again, for the fun and for the hobby.

I hit the swap meets and boot sales and thrifts shops to collect odds and ends ... and more than a few "treasures" here and there. I repair, clean out fungus, swap and sell regularly. Fun. Hobby. Plus an artist outlet as well ... which is nice. I am in a local photo club and an association that puts on a large bi-annual expo. Met a lot of nice and interesting people in the process. Many are very good French friends now, plus a few foreigners thrown in there, too.

I would like for THE BACK to succeed ... who cares that it is not going to shatter some DXOMARK record or any other award. That's not the point. Never was. THE BACK would be fun to try out and watch develop. Again, key word: fun.

[johnha]

As much as I hate to say it, Lomography probably arrived in the nick of time to keep film production going until the recent resurgence in 'proper' film photography over the last few years.

As far as I'm back goes - it is a novel solution for those that might want it. It doesn't involve 'hacking' cameras to bits and it looks to be usable on a wide range of cameras (accepting it seems to fit some better than others). It may look a bit unwieldy (but not really more so than an LX with motordrive & battery pack) and the 'fit 'n finish' won't be comparable to bolting a battery grip onto your K-1, but as a product for those that are interested - it looks like a practical solution.

[photoptimist]

Harsh...no
One could take the lenses from any of these film cameras, but a cheap adapter, put them on an inexpensive digital body and cone out way ahead in results. Instead spend a lot of tome and money to design, manufacture, sell, an inferior product. Not sure how that makes sense, except for nostalgia. I used to own several film slr bodies, more lenses than I can count, enlargers, medium format camera.,,,looked at adapting the medium or at to digital, looked at using the slr lenses (Fujica, chinon, Pentax) on newer bodies...and finally said “what am I doing”. If I wanted to continue using them as film cameras...that would make sense.

And where exactly do you get a lens adapter and new full frame digital body for $300? No one is spending a lot of time and money on this. This really is the least expensive new full frame digital camera on the market right now and possibly forever . (Heck, I can afford to buy this with the money I've saved not going to restaurants in the last couple of weeks.)

As for "coming out way ahead in results," you are assuming that the final image is all that matters (and assuming that megapixels, sharpness, and dynamic range are all that matters). For many of us, it's the process of photography, not just the final product of photography that matters as much or more. Look at what BigMackCam and Jean Poitiers wrote and that I agree with wholeheartedly. Many of us simply enjoy collecting old cameras and lenses, learning what they can do, and extending the life of forgotten products that may have been the pinnacles of technology of their time. For us, the time spent seeing what we can get out of something is more important than making the pixel peeper's perfect picture.

Moreover, for many types of subjects and photographic genres, the output of this camera is more than adequate. Some of us enjoy the idea (and challenge) of creating perfect images from less-than-perfect equipment where image perfection is measured by the subject matter and composition of the image, not the technical digital specs. Thus this is a camera for making images that satisfy emotions, not pixel peepers.

[boriscleto]

And where exactly do you get a lens adapter and new full frame digital body for $300?

A Canon 5d is about $240 on evilBay...A K-mount adapter is less than $40. Of course you have to shave the mirror or castrate a K-mount lens...

A Sony A7 is less than $500 now.

[ZombieArmy]

This really is the least expensive new full frame digital camera on the market right now and possibly forever .

Don't you think it's a bit misleading to put it that way? Especially given the photos probably don't even come close to matching the quality of the original analog format. Besides, a used Canon 5D for around the same price would probably be much more fulfilling than this nonsense if digital full frame is something you actually want.

As for "coming out way ahead in results," you are assuming that the final image is all that matters (and assuming that megapixels, sharpness, and dynamic range are all that matters). For many of us, it's the process of photography, not just the final product of photography that matters as much or more. Look at what BigMackCam and Jean Poitiers wrote and that I agree with wholeheartedly. Many of us simply enjoy collecting old cameras and lenses, learning what they can do, and extending the life of forgotten products that may have been the pinnacles of technology of their time. For us, the time spent seeing what we can get out of something is more important than making the pixel peeper's perfect picture

This isn't extending the life of a piece of equipment. You can't claim that when it's an absolute downgrade from the original format which isn't dead last I checked. This is a chunky piece of plastic strapped to the back of an otherwise perfectly good camera, not sure how that's conducive to enjoying the process of photography.

If you want my opinion, this product is a cash grab to nostalgic folk that can't be bothered to load in a roll of film. Probably using a bottom tier sensor with a crappy plastic shell. I somehow doubt this will live up to any expectations especially at the pricepoint.