[Lord Lucan]

it is a novel solution for those that might want it. It doesn't involve 'hacking' cameras to bits

The camera back needs to be removed. This happens almost like magic in a video on their website, and there is a long list of cameras that I'm Back is claimed to fit. However, do they really all have removable backs? The K1000 for example? I don't know, but if they are not removable then hacking will be required, maybe irreversible.

It may look a bit unwieldy (but not really more so than an LX with motordrive & battery pack)

I have an LX with a motordrive and it is not at all unwieldy. I can put my eye to the viewfinder comfortably for example. OTOH, the I'm Back has a substantial "chimney" down its back for the light path to the sensor. The chimney is even larger at the bottom, presumably to house the sensor and additional lens(es) to re-focus the image of the focusing screen onto the sensor. This chimney obviously makes using the viewfinder awkward as the video clip of the guy using it seems to confirm.

This really is the least expensive new full frame digital camera on the market

There is little point in comparing its price with that of FF cameras because it is not one. It is a very small format camera. The sensor is a 14MPx 1/2.33 type (the size of a little finger nail). The fact that it employs a FF lens and body does not make it a FF camera any more than using a DFA (full frame) lens on a K-5 makes the K-5 into a FF camera, however good it might be.

I think the I'm Back will have a very limited appeal, even if it appeals to some, and good luck to them. I see it as a solution looking for a problem, and I don't think the silly name will help the marketing.

---

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 04-17-2020 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Tpyo

[photoptimist]

There is little point in comparing its price with that of FF cameras because it is not one. It is a very small format camera. The sensor is a 14MPx 1/2.33 type (the size of a little finger nail). The fact that it employs a FF lens and body does not make it a FF camera any more than using a DFA (full frame) lens on a K-5 makes the K-5 into a FF camera, however good it might be.

That is entirely untrue. I'm Back is NOT a crop-format camera even if it does use a tiny sensor. The system design is such that a 28 mm lens on 35mm film body will have the same FoV with I'm Back as it does with film. Moreover, an I'm Back-equipped camera will have the same shallow DoF as an FF digital camera. For all intents and purposes, this really is a FF camera albeit one with a 14 MPix sensor that's not going to win any DXO awards. But it is FF in its optical behavior (an FoV like a FF camera and DoF like a FF camera).

I think the I'm Back will have a very limited appeal, even if it appeals to some, and good luck to them. I see it as a solution looking for a problem, and I don't think the silly name will help the marketing.

I don't think anyone doubts that it has limited appeal. Only a small fraction of consumers want a "real" camera; only a small fraction of real camera owners still have a 35mm film camera sitting around; only a small fraction of those cameras are in use with film; only a fraction of people with usable film cameras would want a digital back; and only a fraction of those who want a digital back would consider buying this. It's a product targeting a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche. But who cares how small the fraction is as long as the number is large enough.

This kind of "limited appeal" product is exactly what Kickstarter was designed for. There are plenty of niche-niche-niche possible products with such limited appeal that no "big boy" manufacturer is likely to risk their money. Kickstarter lets designers who have an idea for a niche product raise the money from the customers who want it. If the appeal is too limited, the Kickstarter campaign doesn't reach its funding minimum, and it fails - end of story. But this campaign hasn't failed.

What's funny is this is the third Kickstarter by these people with this idea. The first in 2017 was even more geeky/kludgy than this one (The unique Raspberry Pi case and low cost 35mm digital back by Samuel Mello Medeiros ? Kickstarter). It was for people who had both an old film camera and a Raspberry Pi computer (what are the chances of that!!?!?!?!?!). People here on PF scoffed at the idea (I'm Back - PentaxForums.com) and yet that campaign succeeded and they delivered. The second Kickstarter by these people successfully funded a medium format version of the concept (I'm Back® - Low cost Medium Format digital back by Samuel Mello Medeiros ? Kickstarter) including versions for Pentax 645 and 6x7.

Just because you don't want the product doesn't mean nobody wants the product.

[lmd91343]

I have an older I'm back and I like it! It is FUN!

I have a dedicated back for my Canon F1 and a modified back for my Canon 7s. I swap the digital part between them.

With my F1 I need to use my speedfinder. It feels just as clunky as my old F1 with a motor drive. I get to use all my old Canon and Takumar lenses.
With my 7s I can use the viewfinder on the left edge. It is very clunky. I get to use my RF lenses including my Dream lens 50mm f0.9.

The output is 16mb. It is a full frame device. My k10, k20, and k5 have better iq. But it is fun. I get to use my old FD lenses. I get to use my Dream lens full frame, not on a crop Sony.

[BigMackCam]

I have an older I'm back and I like it! It is FUN!

...

The output is 16mb. It is a full frame device. My k10, k20, and k5 have better iq. But it is fun. I get to use my old FD lenses. I get to use my Dream lens full frame, not on a crop Sony.

Thanks for posting this! Whatever the opinions of others here (myself included), nothing trumps those of someone who actually uses the product. Ergonomics, sensor size, image quality... we can debate these all day long, but the fact is you have FUN with it, and that counts for a lot

[Lord Lucan]

I'm Back is NOT a crop-format camera even if it does use a tiny sensor. The system design is such that a 28 mm lens on 35mm film body will have the same FoV with I'm Back as it does with film....... For all intents and purposes, this really is a FF camera albeit one with a 14 MPix sensor

I understand what you are saying. I think this depends on how we interpret the term "Full Frame Camera" , and in the end it does not really matter because it is what it is.

What the I'm Back does, and anyone correct me if I'm wrong (as its own website is not entirely clear) is this :

The film camera has its back removed and, in place of film, a rectangle of ground glass (or plastic/paper/something translucent) is pressed against the film guides. This forms an image of the subject on the ground glass. The I'm Back consists of a second camera with its own close-up lens and a 1/2.33 sensor which takes a digital photo of the ground glass image via a 45 degree mirror. The optics and sensor of this second camera are housed in the prominent "chimney" on the back of the I'm Back.

The I'm Back works therefore in exactly the same way as if you took a colour transparency picture of the subject with an unmodified 35mm film camera, and after developing it, taking a photo of that transparency with a digital 1/2.33 sensor camera (filling its frame with a close-up lens). An example of such a 1/2.33 camera is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH27 Panasonic debuts Lumix DMC-FH27 and DMC-FH25: Digital Photography Review

So you finally have a picture taken by a small frame camera of a picture taken by a full frame camera.

[BigMackCam]

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.

With respect, how can it be a "cash grab" if it's merely a product that folks can choose to either buy or not buy, based on the inventor's (very honest) claims and their own common sense? If it's a cash grab, so was my K-3, or my A7 MkII.

As for folks that can't be bothered to load a roll of film... I have film in my fridge, but I choose not to shoot it because it costs so much to have it developed and scanned... a minimum of GBP £6 + postage per 35mm film for run-of-the-mill, mass market quality development and lo-res scanning, for a yield of between zero and 36 keepers. I suppose I could learn to develop film myself, but I have so many other projects on the go that I really don't have the appetite or time for that. It's not a case of "can't be bothered". In any case, I have my A7 MkII for shooting all of my old glass (the main reason I bought that camera). It cost an awful lot more than $250 though

[Jean Poitiers]

Y'all remember those first cell phones ... well, they've come along a bit with the passage of time.

Maybe THE BACK will have this type of development curve ... time will tell.

And are not people installing electric motor and batteries in vintage cars? And cell phone have cameras in them? Go figure ...

[c.a.m]

Reading through this thread makes me think of other passtimes and hobbies that attract niche communities:

• Shortwave radio listening (Why bother, when we have Internet radio?)
• Vinyl records and audio tape (Digital audio is so much better, no? What about that Mix Tape of instrumentals?)
• Classic or vintage cars (Certainly the poor petrol economy and lack of modern safety features should put off anyone from driving an old auto.)
• Woodworking with non-powered hand tools (You mean, you have to use manual labour? Isn't it so much easier to just buy an Ikea table?)
• Shooting film (Pfft, that old stuff? It's so 1960s. And the local One-Hour Developing Kiosk at the K-Mart parking lot has been long closed.)
• Writing cursively with a pen (The keyboard is so much faster and more legible!)

And yet, all of these genres have their aficionados who enjoy the process and the fun in doing something different or special.

I'd guess that is the aim of the designers of the I'm Back 35.


- Craig

[Dartmoor Dave]

Y'all remember those first cell phones ... well, they've come along a bit with the passage of time. Maybe THE BACK will have this type of development curve ... time will tell.

I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that I still use a Nokia just like the one that's third from the left in that photo. I bought it in 2001, the battery lasts a month, it's got proper buttons instead of a touchscreen, and it picks up a signal when newer phones have stopped trying. No camera though, so I just use a camera instead.

[c.a.m]

I still use a Nokia just like the one that's third from the left in that photo.

Wow, a near-20 year old mobile phone! Yeah, some of those devices were (are) bomb-proof.


- Craig

[RobA_Oz]

please be more specific in the description, I have Pentax F x1,7AF and K1, I own Pentax FA80-320 / 4,5-5,6 and sometimes I play with K1 +Pentax FA smc 135-550/8 (telephoto lens: Pentax FA smc 135-550/8 - PentaxForums.com), it is my great wish that my first next purchase is the DFA70-210 / 4, I am interested in the first hand experience of the DFA70-210 / 4 + F x1,7AF on the K1

Have a look at some of my recent posts in the Post your K-1 Pictures thread.

[Wasp]

In a way, the medium format I'm Back thing makes a bit more sense. A digital back for a Hasseblad 500C is prohibitively expensive. At "only" $399, the I'm Back solution looks like a bargain. Then again, image quality is never going to be in the same league. For the money, a lot of film can be exposed and quite a few prints can be made. The value proposition is not apparent, but this is more about fun than rationality.

[Wasp]

Here is a proper adapter that turned a 35mm Leica R8 or R9 35mm film camera into a 10MP APS-H digital camera. It worked very well, apparently. The only problem was that the Leica Digital Module R cost $6000! On top of the cost of the body, mind you. Back in 2004, that was still a lot of money.



In fairness to the I'm Back folks, this is not really doable for a startup - not for $249, anyway.

I have often wondered why this was not done by the big camera manufacturers. You could get a Kodak version of the Nikon F3, but AFAIK that was digital only. It could not be made to take film.

Apart from this Leica kit I am not aware of any other 35mm film camera that could be configured for digital.

[BigMackCam]

Here is a proper adapter that turned a 35mm Leica R8 or R9 35mm film camera into a 10MP APS-H digital camera. It worked very well, apparently. The only problem was that the Leica Digital Module R cost $6000! On top of the cost of the body, mind you. Back in 2004, that was still a lot of money.

...

In fairness to the I'm Back folks, this is not really doable for a startup - not for $249, anyway.

The R8 and R9 were both designed at the outset to accept interchangeable film and digital backs, with an exposed interface allowing for complete and seamless integration between the camera's controls and the fitted back. If any of the target bodies supported by I'm Back provided such an interface, the product would look a lot different and would have been designed and released by numerous vendors long before now, I suspect...

[Dartmoor Dave]

The R8 and R9 were both designed at the outset to accept interchangeable film and digital backs, with an exposed interface allowing for complete and seamless integration between the camera's controls and the fitted back. If any of the target bodies supported by I'm Back provided such an interface, the product would look a lot different and would have been designed and released by numerous vendors long before now, I suspect...

It does raise an interesting question though. Given the ongoing renaissance of film, would there be a market for a camera designed from the ground up by a major manufacturer to have interchangeable digital and film backs like those Leicas were?

I know it'll never happen, but it's such a cool idea.