[photoptimist]

Will someone explain to me why in the world anyone would spend money on this??????

Maybe they want to use their old "vintage camera" (or all their old cameras) but don't want the hassles, high costs, or long delays of film.

Maybe they love (or at least don't mind) fiddly things bodged together -- a hacker sensibility rather than fashion designer sensibility.

There's a segment of the photography population out there that really really really wants a 35mm digital back for old film cameras. This is the best option so far even if it doesn't come close to the vision of a slip-in digital film cartridge.

The other issue is that even if 99% of the film camera owners think this product sucks, Kickstarter helps the company find the tiny sliver of users that want this thing. So far, they've gotten about 100 backers and they think that's enough sales to make the project viable.

[c.a.m]

The new Back is fairly sophisticated. It produces RAW and JPEG files, has several connection options including WiFi, stores on MicroSD, records video, and is powered by a decent battery. It adapts to a range of cameras, and it has evolved from earlier versions.

I find that the integrated system looks quite attractive from the front, especially with the Canon F1, Nikon F and Spotmatic. Of course, the back side is not as finessed, but possibly there's room for further refinement.

I downloaded and looked at the sample JPEG images. No, they're not comparable to high-quality images from a modern 'pure' digital camera, but I don't find them to be awful. I can see how the images would appeal to some folks.

If I understand correctly from what I read on their Kickstarter page, they've exceeded their modest funding goal by a factor of three, and the team has been recognized with awards. Interestingly, five backers are from Canada, including two from the city of Gatineau, Quebec, which is just across the river from my home city, Ottawa.


- Craig

[stevebrot]

Yet again trying to bring a poorly-conceived product to market.

With respect, I think some folks here are being pretty harsh. The "I'm Back" represents a one-man effort to invent, design, prototype, troubleshoot, finalise and productionise an admittedly-quirky product that nonetheless does exactly what it promises. It doesn't claim to offer amazing image quality. The limitations are fully disclosed on the inventor's website.

I believe he has also admitted in interviews that his invention is intended as a novelty item only. My big issue might be getting my eye to the viewfinder.


Steve

[Astro-Baby]

Well I think if someone could do it with something more like a standard databack it could work. I have read that it would not be possible due to the tecnicalities but my experience has always been if someone wants it bad enough they’ll find a way.

[I'm Back]

Hello people!
Ok, thanks to the constructive criticisms that we have improved our work and we are grateful. As for the key point of the motivation that led me to start this journey in 2016, it was the fact that like many, I have a small collection and see the sales of my loved analog for little money on Ebay. The fact is that there is no interest in these cameras anymore, only by passions like you who are here in this forum, so my idea was ... "if I could create something, updating to digital in order to make the" dinosaurs of photography "to be used again by the IPhone generation? And so I have continued my journey. I know as well as you do the difference between digital and analog, which is why I am so embarrassed to say that I'm Back" was not created for lovers of the analog, but for those who forgot its existence "Well, it has been difficult but we have been very successful and I can say that we have a final goal ... and we will reach it ... one day! Wait. Well I spoke a lot. An image (or video) is worth a thousand words. Virtual hug ... directly from Italy! Look this Video by I'm Back and a normal zenith 122 helios 58 : Ciel Rouge - Playground Love (AIR cover) - YouTube

[Astro-Baby]

Well I wish you well. It takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get these things to life. I have been involved recently in a minor way with a Kickstarter project so understand the passion but also the strain these things create. Good luck with your dream.

[VSTAR]

Oh my god, not this crap again.

Again...and again...and again....fake news again ; only humans could go to all the trouble of manufacturing something that has no purpose.

[photoptimist]

Again...and again...and again....fake news again ; only humans could go to all the trouble of manufacturing something that has no purpose.

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.).

[david94903]

Conceptually, I like the idea of converting an older film body into modern digital. But I think in reality it's too little too late. It reminds me of my old Pentax 1.7x teleconverter/AF adapter that I bought in 1991 so I could use my M-series glass as AF glass on my new PZ-1 (yeah, it was a okay teleconverter too but it's appeal was the AF function). It was a novel idea but short lived. It's ability to turn manual glass into AF glass was quickly eclipsed by the reality that AF glass soon became not only available but also affordable. Today, there are so many inexpensive digital camera options available, I don't see a market beyond nostalgia for this product. But maybe that is the market. A few years ago, original Sony Walkman's became all the rage once again at my kid's high school, orange foam covered headphones and all. Thank goodness I still had a couple of them in an old box of electronics. Go figure.

[MarkJerling]

I'm just amazed how many backers this already has.

[stevebrot]

I'm just amazed how many backers this already has.

My thought as well.


Steve

[E-man]

I remember thinking many, many years ago that it would be cool to be able to 'futureproof' my beloved Minolta X-570 by adding a 'digital data back' to it. Of course, that never happened and I eventually migrated to Pentax DSLRs. While the idea still intrigues me in a theoretical sort of way, it doesn't make practical sense when I can buy an outdated Pentax Kx that will take better pictures than that thing for well under $100 with a kit lens.

[ZombieArmy]

This idea seems like it'd take all the fun out of a film body. Film bodies are great because of the size, the feel and the process. This seems like it craps all over the first 2.

[Astro-Baby]

If only somone would do a digital version of an OM1 or MX ie small with actual knobs eg works just like a film camera. i wouldnt even want a screen on the back just digital capture, no video, no histograms, memory to take 36 pics so cheap on the chip front. Sighs.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I really like the idea of this gadget in principle, because it appeals to my fundamental urge to always want to try to make technology do stuff that it wasn't originally designed to do.

Looking at the sample jpegs, the limiting factor really seems to be the tiny sensor that takes the digital shot of what the film SLR projects onto the screen. It gives the results a sort of cheap digital point-and-shoot look that isn't very appealing. A version with at least an APS-C sensor would surely give better results but at a much higher price.

Even so, it would be interesting to get hold of some raw files and play around with them. I think that with some careful profiling and film simulation work, the results could probably be brought up to a similar quality as a lot of the home scanned film shots that I've seen online.