I had a 30 year career with Fujifilm in the US starting in 1975. When Fujifilm introduced professional films for the 1984 LA Olympics I was assigned the task of introducing those films to the press working the Olympic games. Soon after we introduced professional cameras and I was fortunate enough to get the first G617 sample camera. I can't tell you how many hundreds of rolls of film I put through that camera (all at 4 shots per roll) and how much I enjoyed getting the film back and seeing what I got since with the original G617 you were never sure until you got the film back. I think the use of the iPhone with the Noble camera is a brilliant idea. I wish I had it back in the 80s when the camera was first introduced here in the US. When Fujifilm introduced digital cameras I was moved over to that division. Hearing you talk about the feeling you get when you pull out a film camera in front of all those digital shooters was the antithesis of what I experienced when I pulled out a digital camera with all film shooters around. Perhaps still a place for both but I've gone total digital now. For what it's worth, I enjoy shooting multi-shot panos and stitching and processing in Photoshop. Enjoy your channel.
Every older photographer I have the privilege of learning from swears by digital. I did learn on film briefly in the late 90's. It's been digital, DSLRs then mirrorless. For anything I care about, I'm seriously shooting film again. I bulk load, develop 35mm, 645, 67 myself, and scan. Ektachrome mostly. I love my digital Fujifilm camera too, I scan my film with it, not to mention make a living with it. Possibly some of my business could be transitioned into my film process, once it's robust enough. Film is just so much more beautiful. The costs really are about the same.
Hey Thomas! I understand your points and I thought to share my experience. I shoot the fuji G617 and I know how bad it can be bringing it around (with a tripod that supports its weight) but I still brought it on some 4000m peaks during a photo project I'm doing and I would do it every time. It's sturdy, it feels great shooting with it and the added weight makes the challenge even more challenging - which is a plus if you like that as I do. So my point is: use the camera that inspires you the most and if you can have a setup that will deliver everywhere in the world even without a charged up phone well go with it! We will all suffer from low back pain anyway lol
I love the hybrid nature of it. Old and new coming together is a great thing IMO. Thanks for sharing this with us Tom. Looking forward to seeing what images it produces in the future.
It's actually an issue. When I shoot the mahogany and gold plated Zone VI 4x5 anywhere there's people a round I spend 75% of the time talking about the camera. People just love asking questions about it and what I'm doing. So I have to factor in extra time which I don't mind at all. 🙂
Vanity-oh yes, absolutely. That's likely to be the greatest hurdle. Iphones are decidedly not cool. But perhaps the coolness of the format will outweigh it somewhat? Maybe a case that disguises the phone adequately would help? I don't know. You're shooting film, right? You end up with a negative. You process it. It's pretty near to analog, but with a computer giving you a leg up in terms of settings. I'm very excited about this... in fact, it is an idea I had recently, and was shocked to google my fingers bloody and not find anything like it. Well done, Noble. And you as well. Cheers!
it is a two edged sword, you can't have it both ways, cheap camera gear and no film, or plenty of film stock including new film, and more expensive gear.🙃
Love the video. first. You're not in a wet dark room anymore, so the images are processed in photoshop or light room and printing on a digital printer, you are also not developing the film, you're sending it out, and scanning it into the computer. Don't feel guitly about mixing up analog and film photography. You're doing it already with the other film cameras you have. Enjoy the experience.
I definitely understand the feeling of pride in pulling out an old film camera, but I’m also a firm believer in it not being about the gear. Great video in the conversation it starts!
Good point Michael. Other than the roll of film, everything about the image is ultimately digital. Analog/digital whatever. They are just tools. Use the tool that gives you the results and enjoyment you desire. Thomas, my 6x17 camera is a roll film back that I use on an old Graflex. It's bulky, heavy, but gets the job done at a reasonable price.
A company trying to lower the price and availability of a film pano camera shows a real passion for film photography. Using a digital viewfinder is required in film cinema cameras so you are in good stead using the phone. The weight and cost of the camera should be enough for you to get over the clash of technologies. Else there is always hypnosis. Thanks for bringing this camera to light.
Considering how unattainable a pano film body is nowadays, this seems a really good option. An optical viewfinder module (preferably with a built-in meter) would be welcomed.
I think the hybrid approach has a lot going for it, especially if the phone meters correctly, as you found. The iphone display is WAY better than the optical viewfinders I have used in the past.
Personally I would be quite happy with an accurate viewfinder without a meter. I have enough meters I could use. In a pinch, I could also use the iPhone app for framing, but I would not use the film simulations and metering, that does seem like cheating.
A few years ago, I definitely thought that film photography was 'pure' and unadulterated, but I have come to realize that ultimately the pictures you take are YOURS and you can do whatever you need to do to them to achieve your artistic vision. There is no right or wrong way to approach film photography - some highly accomplished film photographers physically cut their negatives to use on collages or develop them in film 'soups' to get weird effects; I personally would never do that, but it's their photography, and it helps them achieve their vision. I don't think using a IPhone as a viewfinder and meter really detracts from the image itself, since you still have a beautiful 6x17 negative!
To me film still allows for some things that aren't doable with digital cameras, unless you go into CGI, that's what keeps me shooting it. And the feeling of doing more things yourself, cause I like to mix my chemicals and develop at home. Digital doesn't have that aura of everything being self-made and laid with traps along the way.
Personally, I think this hybrid method is not that bad. For newcomers, learning how to shoot film can be quite a brutal experience: committing to 10 to 36 shots and knowing weeks later if you were in the right ballpark slows down the progress. If this can help people to continue to shoot film and get camera companies to build new gear, I’m all for it.
This thing is bridging the gap. We all want film to stick around and the next generation of young photographers have so little experience with film, especially any format larger than 35mm. Phones are ubiquitous. If this keeps the format alive, I’m all for it. If my kids were old enough to shoot with me, I’d definitely consider using this to teach them about the format.
Film SLRs had metering and through the lens view if the world so you can think of the smartphone as returning to that functionality. I'm not picky on film cameras so if I had the money, I would definitely buy some thing like a 3D printed Pano camera rather than "Big Bertha" then spend the money I saved on film. The images were stunning by the way!
Great video. The camera is a very impressive engineering feat. Computing the solution parallax issue raised by the location of the apple lens and the film exposure area. My answer to the question, “Why not just use the phone, is some people want a true analog image not an ai derived digital image. If the new camera’s lens is worth the money, then the camera’s real value is probably justified. There are not many potential buyers that do not have a smart-phone. Why should they buy an additional light meter or viewfinder. I think Sigma uses an attachment to make their digital screen visible in bright conditions. The new camera makes every photographer’s smartphone more valuable. My last observation , the smartphone can be used to document the location of the film image.
I’d love to know what justifies the £775 cost. No viewfinder, no metering system, no complicated internals. It’s a 3D printed box with a shutter speed selector. Maybe I’m missing something but, if not, someone’s getting taken for a ride.
Stuff is just expensive to do in small scales. They either have a very expensive 3D printer to manufacture with set service contracts and skilled operators minimums part quantities etc. or they have a supplier who has all the same issues and a profit to make themselves. This segment is very small, not many people shoot MF let alone 6x17 Its understandable why the cost is so high but it does seem high in comparison to the 'made in millions with cheap labor' products we are all used to.
My guess is that each 3D print takes a lot of time, especially if the 3D printer fails, the cost of filament of failed prints, if the manufacturer does not have a lot of 3D printers available, manually finishing the product and possibly quality control of each unit to make sure there are no light leaks. Also, offer and demand.
@@christianlainesse4281 No filament here. It's an MJF part no chance of failure and much better than FDM but owned by hp so you get an idea of how much that will cost if you have owned a reglular 2D hp printer somewhere around $200k starting price for most of their machines.
You are paying for the development engineering, depending on the extent of patent protection, there may be competitors that will result in a lower price. Also, what is the cost of a medium format body. Hasselblad , Bronica, Mamya etc? Anyone who purchases an iPhone 14 pays that amount for a camera without a viewfinder.
I've used my iPhone with a viewer app to find compositions when shooting 4x5. It makes it easier than setting up the camera, looking through the ground glass, only to find that you're not happy with the composition. I've even used the level function on my phone to make sure the camera is set up flat.
It’s true. My son, a fine and intuitive photographer, gave up on digital. Also back to vinyl and tube audio. He swears he can tell the difference. I certainly appreciate the old stuff and get the psychic reward but I’ll stick with digital. At that, it’s annoying that iPhones take such good fotos.
Thomas, thanks for the great video, as usual. I too am a "grumpy old man" (in his 30s), and I started going to film photography because I feel digital tech has just become... "empty" (?) on a personal level (and I'm a software developer, so that's my bread and butter). Yeah the digital camera will take a perfect image _exactly_ as you set it. And that's great for someone who lives off of photography and needs to get a great shot almost every single time! But it does feel there's way too much faff around gear and pixels and dynamic range and FPS and... it's just tiring. I do enjoy my X100V when I'm out traveling with my partner because it lets me take vacation snaps and it's more than good enough to get creative. But there's this feeling when using film where, I don't know, yes it's a bother with metering or doing sunny-16 in your head, and yes you get this feeling you probably blew it because you can't just SEE it, but I feel like I get more in the moment than whenever I'm shooting with any of my digital cameras. To me there's just this feeling of magic where you go "this thing is ENTIRELY mechanical, the process is ENTIRELY physical and I can't believe that it just captured the view in front of me" that I can't shake off. Having to strap a phone to my camera to do metering would pull me entirely off of that zone, and in fact it does every time I pull out a phone to calculate exposure, to the point where I got an old Sekonic off eBay. I've also gone off rambling somewhere, but I guess that is the way of things. It's an entirely subjective experience and if the experience means something to you, then it's hard to justify, but you also don't need to and one can just hope to transmit a hint of that feeling to someone else. Cheers mate!
I think the ability to use the iPhone for framing and especially metering would be a big attraction to those shooting film for the first time and give them more confidence that the images with be properly exposed and not be wasting film.
So, I’ve been shooting (and processing film in my darkroom) for over 40 years and shooting digital for 20 years. When I rock up at a location / event I don’t really take much notice of what other folks are using nor does it make me feel cool / superior / inferior if I’m using my film camera instead of my digital camera. I’m only really bothered about coming away with some decent pics. I enjoyed your video and sharing your thinking…interesting to see these “trauma’s” you have. Plus I’d never heard of that camera so I defo learnt something new.
The results that you produced with Big Bertha are gorgeous. I'd gladly take her on most any hike. She's worth it. I think old film cameras are like beautiful old classic cars. They should be cherished and revered.
To me it just seem a bit too expensive for essentially a plastic box, you can get a fully featured TLR or a large format camera for less than this. That said it's true that the pano backs for large format are also very expensive for what they are (even the new Chinese ones), I guess the market is just very small.
I'm with you. Why is it so dang expensive? There's no precision shutter/aperture - that's all in the lens. There's no good lightmeter, there's no precision manufacturing. No mirror for a reflex camera. There's literary nothing which would warrant such a price, for what is a plastic box. We're not talking about a few dozen percent too much. We're talking a few hundred percent too much. This is not worth a fifth of its nominal price.
I agree, quite pricey even for a single medium format image camera. I would rather stitch images together on my Bronica even though it is heavier but smaller so I will stick with it. Interesting though that they will improve it. And will look forward to future videos on new upgrades of this camera.
I totally understand the "purity of film and older analogue techniques" angle. For me from the opposite direction, I have a Lumix S1 and the most interesting shots I take with it are usually with a reconditioned Helios 44/2 that I bought from Ebay for cheap strapped on the front. There's more work, more decision making, more character and the feeling that I'm shooting through a lens that's only two years younger than my not young self definitely adds to the experience. Everything feels more intentional if that makes sense. It's made me want to invest in more characterful old lenses rather than chase all the 'ultimate corner to corner sharpness and near instant autofocus with the new something something motor...' that you get with modern lenses. I expect after 10km of hiking with the lighter pano camera and without a light meter in your pocket it might feel easier to give up some of the purity for practicality and less sore shoulders.
I have an old film camera that was given to me. I bought a new battery and a roll of film for it 5 years ago. The battery is now dead and I’m only half way through the roll of film. Safe to say shooting film does not interest me. I do like some of the old cameras though. I’ve purchased a few non working ones for display.
I loved shooting with my xPAN, may be more than with every other camera. All manual. I shot landscape on a tripod, reportage in hand, even hand held panning on cars & things. Some great keepers are still in my mind and archive. Today I shoot digital. The instant feedback makes me advancing as better photographer. The downside: I miss the panoramic aspect ratio! This wide framing is so great. No, shooting and cropping never comes close in experience - and stitching is a very different thing (but not too bad as well if the scenery is static)
You are so right about film cameras being ‘cool’! As I am now too old to carry heavy digital systems, but enjoy the process of photographing when out and about, I have treated myself to a couple of folding medium format cameras, one from about 1937 and the other from the 1950s. Lightweight, portable, fun to use, produce great photos and enhance my image as a mad old woman 😂! Love your videos - so ‘real’ and unpretentious.
Thomas I always enjoy your videos. I began in photography when film was the only option. Today I continue to shoot Hasselblad film and also Hasselblad digital. 4x5 and 6x12 film cameras are an option I shoot with, and APS-C digital. I agree with you on most everything except the iPhone being used as a viewfinder and light meter. It is still analog if you use an electronic viewfinder and light meter; film is FILM. I find some optical viewfinders attached to a camera to be too much out of the composition for my needs. I have used the Artist Mark II iPhone app for viewfinder with my 4x5 pinhole camera and without it, I would simply be wasting film. Cheers from across the pond.
Loved it! At the age of 59 I have given in to the modern world and have to say I’ve never had so much fun, not just photography based but in all aspects of life. The one thing I hate though is social media, but then that’s just to far for me to go. Why would someone want to watch an old man dancing for 30 seconds.
The Fuji GSW690III is a 6x9 Rangefinder with an excellent 28mm “equivalent” lens. About $1,200 in excellent condition, and you get 8 shots per roll! The 6x9 negative can easily be cropped to 16x9 aspect ratio, or wider. IMO - best affordable solution for Film Pano 😎👍📷
I think it's the same with turntables and vinyl, that wonderful feeling of analogue 'coolness'. I grew up with only film and vinyl, so I understand that retro need, but now I just love the ease and creativity that digital recordings and cameras give me. Film is so expensive to process and scan here in New Zealand, but I remember developing and printing my own black and white film with fondness.
For me, the final result is what counts. In that regard, film falls short. I grew up when film was the only thing available. In fact, I owned a one hour photofinishing store. I understand film quite well. I love the freedom, control, and, above all, results my digital cameras (D500, D850) give me. I am not the market for this camera. One day I may try shooting 4x5, or larger film again, but I don't know if I could put up with the hassle of dealing with film again. But for street cred, nothing beats a large format camera.
@@AlanKlughammer how exactly does film fall short? Digital is easier to get a perfectly exposed, in focus photo. With film it’s easier to get the color ones after. But for experienced shooters neither falls short imo. Quality wise it depends as well, but i do think film with its dynamic range and up to over 1000mp (large format) wins. Even 35mm can produce very high quality photos hence why movie studios still choose the format for their blockbuster movies.
@@AlanKlughammer how exactly does film fall short? Digital is easier to get a perfectly exposed, in focus photo. With film it’s easier to get the color ones after. But for experienced shooters neither falls short imo. Quality wise it depends as well, but i do think film with its dynamic range and up to over 1000mp (large format) wins. Even 35mm can produce very high quality photos hence why movie studios still choose the format for their blockbuster movies.
@@dre400 I would argue that film is not easer to colour balance. I guess if you are paying someone else to print your images, or you just rely on default scanner presets. As for resolution, you can't compare large format film to a much smaller digital sensor. Size for size, I would say digital has more resolution. Negative film may have a bit more dynamic range than most digital sensors, but for real world use, ie printing, (or even scanning film to show on a screen) the limiting factor is the print process, so it is a wash. Reversal film (is that even still a thing?) has much lower dynamic range than modern digital. Personally, having grown up with film, gone to school to learn film photography, (in other words, I really do know about film) I much prefer digital.
@@AlanKlughammer I agree, my argument was more based on beginners. As one can also argue about the digital benefits i mentioned won’t necessarily be true for an experienced photographer either. A 35mm film photo has the resolution equivalent to 87mp. A 6x45 film camera which can be compared to a medium digital has a resolution of 360mp. And then you have the opportunity to go much larger if you’d like. Digital has many benefits as well of course and it all depends on what suits the photographer the best. But when we’re discussing the final result, digital is not necessarily better than film on the spec sheet. If we compared film vs digital overall, i’d say it depends on the photographer. One format is not superior over the other
I haven't shot a film camera since taking up photography seriously only within the last decade. Before that I had film point and shoot cameras as a kid. I love the idea of exploring film though and this seems like a perfect hybrid to me. I would be tempted to take this as a step forward
Fun video! As always, your candor is refreshing. Since I am close to 3 times your age, I have a slightly different take on film versus digital. My favorite camera was probably the Pentax 67, followed by its little sibling the Pentax 645. The most useful powerful camera I ever used was the medium format Arca Swiss 69. Just like Darth Vader said “ You don’t know the power of a view camera.” None the less, as one of your commenters said, you scan film and print digitally. So you are already 67% digital anyway. I really love that little 3D 617 camera, but honestly if you want to shoot 617 I think you are much better off with a Shen Hao 617. More flexibility and more power. Lastly, my solution is to use a GFX 100S and shoot 65::24 aspect ratio. This gives a 50MB image that is 11,648x4304 pixels. It just seems a simpler approach. And given that my first camera was an Ansco box camera was used blue flash bulbs, I’ve tried a few options in my day.
To me when I go out with my Hasselblad or Nikon FM it's all about trusting my skill in photography, be it the focus, the metering and composition and also my knowledge about the film which when combined together and it turns out to be a good image gives me a feeling like no other. With film I can turn off and take a step back from social Media and technology and with it being fully mechanic it just feels different. I'm sure there will be people buying this but I think it'll be more of a gateway drug than the hard stuff you'll get into after
I think its awesome that film photography is making a comeback, and that there still are new brands coming out making them, one thing im not sure of is using your phone as a viewfinder, the idea using an app for your settings and getting a preview is great but it does makes film photography seem less ''magical'', I understand they also want to attract a younger audience but I think most of them including me actually prefer a ''oldschool'' viewfinder. Technology is great and all but everyone wants a break from it sometime. We already spend so many hours on our phones to keep our social lives together I dont need another thing to be run by my phone.
I really like that camera, I like the Fuji one as well, but they're all well out of my price range. For my panorama fix I've just bought myself a Vermeer 617 pinhole camera. I won't get pinsharp pictures, but I do get the fun of shooting wide angle panos, and the relief of seeing images on the film after I've developed it! I'm doing the same as that camera does though. There's no viewfinder on the Vermeer, so I'm framing by placing my phone on top of the camera to get an idea of what I'm pointing at. The Vermeer's angle of view is wider than my phone though lol. You're so right on that feeling of superiority as well! I try so hard not to, but you see all the others checking they've got the shot, that it's sharp, there's no blur etc and you've just got to trust your ability and go away and hope you've got something. And when you have, that sense of achievement can't be matched by any digital camera.
great insight . i actually did a video last year with a few of us using a 100 year old medium format camera vs my a7riv at the time and it was really interesting to see. one you slow down loads and the image quality was still amazing.
I believe that if we really want new film cameras to be produced, we have to face the fact that they will for sure be something "half-digital-half-analog". The digitalisation of these cameras will make them a lot lighter (a microchip doesn't need all the space that old circuitry does, which still is electronic and somewhat "digital") and a lot more functional. I also think that it will be cheaper to produce such kind of cameras, and also to repair them. Thank you Thomas for making this video and giving an insight on where "modern analogue" photography is going, it really brings up a lot of philosophical and ontological questions that add up to the "where the analog ends and where the digital starts?" discussion that goes on from decades
I'm not sure I see the issue with using a cellphone as a viewfinder. The negatives get scanned and edited on a computer anyway (at least in most cases these days) so film photography is no longer an exclusively analog process anymore. Regardless, this looks like a cool camera (way outside my price range though).
Coming from a pre digital film background I drifted back to shooting film initially just for channel content however I found I loved the experience so much I shot more and more on older cameras I developed the film at home then went digital to scan the negs and produce a digitised image at the end for me it’s about enjoying the process and not worrying about the whole film v digital thing they are both incredible mediums. Great vid love the convent of the 3D printed camera
If camera makes the job and you enjoy it - let it be. Regarding phone - best part of my beginner photographer path is, that I put it in the pocket and forget about it (until it rings). I would say dedicated view finder is needed to remove distraction that phone adds to the process. But I don't photograph on film.
I totally appreciate the analog process, it has a value on itself, the value of the craft, the artisan, the care that is placed in each piece, I can see there is a value on it by itself. But I wouldn't draw a line between analog and digital processes. The best example I can tell you are the platinum palladium old methods applied using a digital negative. It is a wonderful way to mix both processes. People like nick brandt have been moving from film, to scanned film, to digital and i don't think no one can complain about the results.
A fascinating idea Thomas, A digitally produced wide format FILM camera that relies on an iPhone for composition,....interesting. I am one of those "Older generation" who grew up with only FILM. I love digital and the reliability of being able to get the shot I want without wasting many roles of film ($$$$). I still have a PENTAX 35mm FILM camera, I use it occasionally for nostalgic reasons. That Panographic camera is fantastic and I'm sure many will want to have one for the sheer pleasure of using it and being the coolest photographer in the group LOL!
I totally agree it’s mostly about having fun BUT I’m going to take the nay side on this one. I see a parallel with how we navigate while driving on a road trip. Bear with me…when I am on a road trip, one the best parts is the meditative aspect of total immersion in the environment, the observations, the mind wandering, the getting lost and finding new things. When we navigate with a physical map (the analog) we can achieve those things most trips. When we navigate with a gps/phone (digital) we often cannot. I suppose you could expand to hiking as well, with topo maps vs something like AllTrails. So I actually say: stick with full analog if what you are seeking is full disconnection and immersion without distractions.
I still shot on 35mm film but photoshop and the digital domain are way superior for me for scanning and getting my image right. I don't miss the darkroom. I've always shot on slide film and being able to make a printable image of my slides and be able to get past the nature of slide as a projection medium is amazing. Would never have thought 40 years ago we would be this far ahead today in now 2023..... So room for both analogue and digital. They make a nice mix.
I rented an XPan not too many years ago and loved it. Shortly after the rental company stopped renting it and the used prices went crazy. That was a super fun little camera. For the viewfinder you could always go the cheap and lightweight route: some card stock, cut a rectangle in it matching the "film" size, then attach a pre-cut string to match the focal length of the lens. Hold it up to your eye, using the string to gauge the focal length. I still have that for my 4x5 to make "seeing" easier.
This is something I can’t explore but I shoot digital for 95% of my photography. However when it comes to black and white I have always preferred film. There is just something about the look of the film itself. If I take a picture with both film and digital in black and white. My clients will choose the film 60-70 % of the time.
Love that camera! Love that concept of bridging the technologies of a fully manual camera (as far as it looked like) and a phone. I have been shooting film since 1986 (with a 5 year break between 2004 and 2009) and for me its never about feeling better or doing better, its what I know best. I have a canon 60D, I have had a couple of other digital cameras, they just do not produce results I want. I would feel a bit strange to have an EV on a film camera, but if it allows magnification that might actually be useful. Also, as others have pointed out, if you are not in the dark room, but in Lightroom or Photoshop, you already made that transition. I strongly believe we need to camera manufactures and I am glad to see this, next to the efforts with Pinhole and Insta and Lomography, etc. Personally I cannot related to the feeling off superiority when pulling out one of my cameras. For me its what works, its a tool. I love developing my film and I finally get back to wet printing. But if you go film to scan, good for you. Use the tools that feel good and give you the results you want. Purity checks never go to good places :D
Liked your thoughts on the mix of digital and analog. Some film photographers are hard core, using a light meter or the camera light meter, capturing the image on film, developing it themselves, and maybe even dark room printing the winners themselves. I take my hat off to them, but few people will see that print. If you want to display your images on line, there's a digital element to scan it, either by a scanner or digital camera, which involves digital software, then however you choose to edit in Lightroom/Photoshop/other software. So the mix of digital and analog doesn't bother me. I put film through a Fujica GW690 and Canon 7, and love the experience with both. I recently was in Yukon's Tombstone park with the GW690, and while I really liked the digital images, I am over the moon with some of the film images. And you're right about the conversation. I go out with my Canon digital, and nobody looks twice. But go out with the film cameras, and every time I have had a conversation with strangers about the camera or film in general.
I used to shoot the Fujifilm 6x17 monster from time to time when I could borrow it, just after it came out. It was great for shooting long loads on long trucks. Don’t forget you can turn those monster sideways to get some pretty interesting shots in the city doing verticals from mid way on one building to another you want to capture. Now, a 6x17 digital sensor, that would be interesting. That app looks interesting. Might try it on a Fujifilm X-E camera.
Hey Tom! Even though I’m saddened about you using less Fuji cameras these days, I still understand why you moved onto you Nikon full-frame camera. I also just wanted to mention that I really enjoyed how you would preview the images you took again at the end of your videos. I thought that was a really nice touch that you added about a year ago and I hope you bring it back again. All the best and I can’t wait to see where you shoot next! P.S. You should come to Ohio sometime and shoot the landscape around here. I think I could point you in the direction of some pretty interesting locations. Haha
Nothing beats a nice pano. I've been using a Shen Hao 6x17 view camera for several years now. Definitely not "portable", but its a joy to shoot with. There is a bit of suspense when waiting to have the film developed and then seeing your results...but that's all part of the experience.
I agree with your generalization of film photography on RU-vid. There seem to be a number of channels that take mediocre images using portra 400 in an expensive pro-level body from back in the day. It's cool and the better channels are entertaining. Use the tool that inspires you. No one's cares about the hammer used to build their house, but they do care how well it was built. I want to take better photographs not just film photographs.
Loving the video, as always :-) the Mark II Artist's Viewfinder looks wonderful but not a available on Android? Perhaps a beta version is available? Couldn't find any info on that though.
In the end it comes down to: Is it fun making photographs with it? Does it make you want to go out with it? Do you like the results? Other than that, I find the combination of analog and digital very cool (the body design as well) and the setup will probably draw even more attention to it than a classic film camera. But even then, I mean, how often are you taking panorama landscape photos among other photographers? ;-)
Nice video! This will suit a lot of people. For those who don't use "smart phones" (for whatever reason) it'd be nice to have a viewfinder of some sort. On the whole, though, it's great to see people innovating. Well done to Noble design, and good luck to them!
Clearly. Big Bertha is way too sexy to be replaced by a plasticky product … then about the experience it cannot be compared. However it’s quite an interesting way to try wide format film photography before going to the 4 times the price solution.
Another great video and didn't even know they still made film cameras. So there you go! Must say that first shot of the wind turbines was amazing. I like the film photographs, it makes a change to see something that just is!
It seems to me that one can shoot film for a number of reasons, being cool is only one of them and the only one that this setup might compromise. The aesthetic is still there and the manual metering *can* still be there. I am intrigued by the idea of shooting film for simply capturing locations with a result that has a period feel. The process, the vibe, and the place all sending me back in time. Anyway, faffing on. Cheers!
I just found out today that my Lumix s1r can take 24x65 (actually, in raw it is the full 3x2, but at least the viewfinder and editor shows 24x65) and I am looking forward to try that out. It is a different experience. What a coincidence.
I guess that if we’re talking about ‘polluting’ the digital experience, we should think about when we scan our analogue negatives and we end up with a digital image from an analogue source. Personally, the fun for me is in shooting the image on film - taking my time and crafting a good negative. I have no qualms about realising my final image through a digital,process.
Analog meeting digital, you get a mixed world. It looks like it is helping each other and then I believe it is fine. The most important thing is, did you enjoy shooting with it? If yes than every form of photography is good!
Definitely interested in this camera. Using the app/phone doesn’t bother me. I already use a light meter app on my phone quite often when shooting medium format, which speeds up the problem solving process prior to the shot. How the image is recorded is what matters most to me because that’s where digital just can’t replicate film.
It's analogue if it's film. Film cameras have silicon photocell metering or CdS metering, etc. A real purist would go for an incident light meter like David Bailey! So film cameras use electronics, so don't worry. The phone is only a viewfinder. Though the camera with its own viewfinder would be nice.
2:07 I guess pulling out a Phase One has the same effect. Anyhow: my thoughts about film photography: I was shooting film for landscape subject for more than a decade using a Graflex, then a Cambo monorail system which was fun to hike with. At least that was part of the experience. :) I have a complete 6x6 setup which I used more for street / macro subject. I even built my own dark room with jobo processor and durst enlarger. So I was quite involved. Back then I never had this isseu about pureness and I used my phone or my digital camera for metering with no problem. The purpose of shooting LF was to reproduce the details which was quite impossible back then with a ~12MP digital cameras I could afford. Since I became lucky enough to be able to shoot with Phase One system, which can reproduce even more detail than 4x5 film (except high resolution ortho film), and it can do it in stormy weather, I feel less and less intrigued to load my film holders. Once upon a time GAS kicks in, and I contemplate on buying 8x10 camera (I already have a set of lenses for that size), but then I realize that I'd never use it enough to validate the investment. The current film prices are one thing that pulls against this setup. But this 617 camera might be a fun camera to shoot with, and it might be the golden middle way... :)
This is quite cool. I also enjoy shooting with something like a Nikon F80 which no one notices. Agreed it is more fun with something like a Nikon f2 but the convenience factor makes up for it.
I have a similar camera from another manufacturer. One suggestion is to slide you phone over so that your phone’s lens better lines up with your camera lens. Probably not an issue with far away shots, plus close up shots will match your phone screen better.
I think it's a good mix of analogue and digital. your getting the best result on film using the advantages of the digital app/technology. you always have your phone so less kit to carry. but £700+ for a plastic box is a bit much with no lens. thanks as always. ps, how's the peak design tripod? love their straps. cheers
Super interesting setup. Probably for many the only chance ever to photograph 6x17. (I would have nothing against an iPhone as a viewfinder. The lens should just be in the middle and not the iphone itself that would make more sense. :D
Well in fact neither 6x17 camera has no movements, so both fail as a landscape camera on a tripod. Take a look at a Horseman 985 series body. It shoots a 6x9cm neg, if you use 3x9 of the shot you still get the super wide aspect ratio & a 300mb file. Most importantly you get the camera movements that eliminate the curved horizon and other distortion.
Definitely interested in this camera. Using the app/phone doesn’t bother me. I already use a light meter app on my phone quite often when shooting medium format, which speeds up the problem solving process prior to the shot. How the image is recorded is what matters most to me because that’s where digital just can’t replicate film.
Been shooting a lot of film lately, its amazing how quick you burn through a roll 120 on 6x7!! Wish you would do a 6x17 film pack i got your Hasselblad pack and loved the shots, would love to buy a set of 6x17 prints!!
I totally get the special feeling when shooting with such iconic analog cameras. This “Noblex” seems to be able to become a functional no nonsense tool for shooting analog panoramic pictures though
My 4x5 always draws a crowd for sure. And let's not even get into how pleasurable it is to put the transparencies/negatives on the light table. Excellent video Mr Heaton.
I think it's a clever idea. the blending of the two mediums. It's also a good bet that once this camera gets more popular that someone will 3d print a rangefinder for it.
In amateur digital photography 'coolness' of gear creeps in the same way like in film photography. Difference is, you want newest gear instead of oldest gear. That intro before logo was magic 👌
It's great that adding the digital part means you can rely on getting a great image, but I think it kills the film experience. Part of the film experience for me is never being completely sure how your image will turn out, and the pure joy when you nail a shot. Adding the phone almost guarantees the result so, as you say, you might as well shoot digital.
What is the bit you'd be unsure about when not using the iPhone. The metering was identical after all, and with an analog viewfinder, you'd arguably have a better idea of your composition, because the iPhone isn't quite the same focal length/aspect ratio.
Thanks, Thomas. I think the same thinking can be applied to those who like to use and feel superior when using Fuji XT-series cameras. There's just something about fiddling with camera settings that set you apart from the purely digital camera crowd. In fact, it's the logical extension of the auto vs manual debate.
As a subscriber to your channel for years Thomas, I think you value the experience first and the image second and I think that's amplified when you are shooting film as there is the unknown until you get the film processed. if you feel using the hybrid approach takes away from that experience by using the Noble then your own personal enrichment line between digital and analogue will no doubt become more blurred. Personally I would keep the two entities separate as that way you have the option of jumping between the two when you fancy a change
I suppose it depends on what is more important for you, the experience of the journey or only the destination itself. For your customer I suspect it is the final product because they are isolated from the tools and processes used by the artist.
Back in the 70's I used a Kodak 8X10 field camera. It was a great way to make beautiful black and white photographs. Black cloth and ground glass focusing. The Kodak field cameras are fairly light and are still not too expensive. Shooting paper negatives (ASA 6+/-) can be an affordable way to make images. Paper is blue sensitive so the sky burns out and gives an old time look to the image.
Great video. Would love to see that setup in real life this weekend at the Heaton Baxter Meet-up. I’ve just had my first roll of film developed in years having bought a Pentax Super-A SLR. I love the idea of the Noble Designs pano camera. Brings together both old and new tech.
I was a commercial photographer in the last couple decades of the twentieth century. I shot 35mm, medium format, and large format. While I loved the beefy feel and exquisite images that came out of my Pentax 67s, what I really miss is seeing an image come together in the big, bright viewfinder. That moment when you knew you had the shot is one of the best feelings in life. I’ve yet to find a digital camera that can replicate those moments. My business included processing lab services, so I could get my film back in an hour if I wanted them. Having said all that I’ll never go back to film. Modern digital cameras and editing software let me do things I could not even dream about doing with film. Color transparency film had a usable dynamic range of less than five stops. Even black & white film couldn’t go much beyond ten. My $500 Sony A6000 has a range of 13 stops and most high end cameras go a couple beyond that. If I had a couple spare kidneys lying around I think I would try one of the new Hasselblads. They remind me a bit of my old 67s.
Well as far as 6x17 is concerned, there is no digital equivalent even close (in terms of resolution at least). So if that is all you're concerned with then it's a no brainer! Then you get the fantastic Schneider glass, with an equivalent focal length of about 21mm! If I were to shoot it, I would definitely be eyeballing the frame lol, or using an external viewfinder (like a Voigtlander hotshoe one). I'd ditch the phone immediately!! Shooting film is all about the feel and seeing that negative, and this is a cheaper way to get into panoramic film . That all being said, it's definitely a very specific tool so I personally wouldn't be bringing it everywhere I go EDIT: Also this reminds me of Chris Chu's latest video where he used a modded Fuji Instax camera with a Schneider lens to get beautiful instant film photos.
Great Video! The quarrel between analog and digital is very real. I really enjoy shooting black and white film and processing it in the darkroom. I also enjoy shooting photography with digital cameras as well. The cameras and gear are just tools to allow you to create your vision in my opinion. I say, use whatever tools work so you get the final printed image you desire. Thank you for the video.
I haven't been able to articulate why I shoot film ( plus digital, when the occasion calls for it ), but your explanation of your reasons hits home. Using film just gives me a greater sense of accomplishment than digital, and when it goes wrong, I work it out and try again. I use my phone to calculate reciprocity factors, as well as using the same viewfinder app to work out compositions when I'm too lazy to get the camera out of the bag, so I'm all for it. I'm interested in this camera when it becomes generally available!
Indeed. Loved this video too. I actually love the idea of this camera/concept and that new analog offerings like this are coming to market. I would love to own a copy
Great video Tom - as always. Personally, I shoot both analog (from half frame up to 6x6) and digital. However, regardless whether the images end up on my wall as a print or on the web, there's always a digital part in the process: after I develop my films, I scan them. So, adding another digital step wouldn't bother me. What would bother me is the price tag of what's basically just a plastic film container with a lens mount. To me, part of the joy of using analog cameras is the experience of using old skool precision mechanical and optical engineering: the shutter mechanism, aperture blades, the optical system... so carefully designed and built that they still work flawlessly, even though they're 60, 70 years old. The satisfying whisper of a leaf shutter, the clack of a mirror and a shutter curtain quickly getting out of the way of the photons rushing to my film... ;-) This body doesn't contain any of that, not even a frame counter. It's a box with a hole in the front to mount some glass, a hole in the back to peek at the frame count that's printed on the back of your film, and two spindels. Everything that is advanced is part of the lens and sold separately. I think I'd rather opt for one of these cheap Cartridge Adapter Canister Converters (14 euro on Amazon), that allow you to use a 135 film in a medium format 120 film camera, mount a wide angle lens, mask part of the focussing glass to assist in composing and shoot XPan style panos :-)
Super-interesting camera. I understand your concerns. For me, going out with the analog camera is more about enjoying a time-out from dealing with ANY computer of any sort. Maybe I'm old haha. Even if I will scan and digitally post process the pics at home, when I'm out, there's nothing electronic about my photography experience. Having said all that, this app that you are using does look very well-made and versatile. It is surely fun to use in itself. And if you really dislike it, just put an optical finder on the thing and use the external meter in your hand. So in the end, the big news is maybe just the 3D printed analog 6x17 camera, not the digital-or-analog viewfinder you put on top of it ! What would be really cool is if anyone could design a rangefinder app. I mean the phone has different lenses that are spaced apart. Just a tiny bit but maybe it could work still? I have no clue. Just a fun idea.
Cracking idea for a camera if you ask me!!! I've used that app a few times for shooting 35mm and always been impressed with how close the meter is. Still though.... way too pricey for something thats 3d printed which is a shame as I'd love pano cam
Год назад
Feels like LP vs CD. CD is objectively better. If you want good net results, go digital. If the "feeling" is better, go analogue.
For me film photography is about the process of thinking through and capturing the image. This includes thinking about the limits of the film that I'm using, the limits of the shutter speed/aperture and also just the more tactile feeling of using a film camera. I shoot mechanical film cameras, so this feeling is amplified when you feel everything happen with depressing the shutter. I think digital is more convenient and the images you get are "Better" as you can make them look like whatever film you want. but for me it comes down to the process and the art of creation from the old cameras.
I use an iphone sometimes as a meter if i don't have mine with me. I shoot film because of all the reasons that make me sound like a hipster; nothing looks like film, you can't replicate analogue with a digital process etc etc...but then i scan with my mirrorless camera and edit in photoshop. Art is always a collage of contradictory forces at work, but i think those tensions are good and ultimately, the only real test I ask myself is, was the shot i took any good? I don't go out with a camera to think, in fact I try and think as little as possible when "making photos". I know other artists can have an almost directly oppositional mentality and process to mine and those people make great work. My point is, those images of the turbines are beautiful and I'm glad I got to look at them, I don't really care about anything else. This channel is fantastic, you're great Tom.
think you're spot on about the aesthetic/cultural capital aspect of shooting film. I love the images celluloid yields but i'm yet to work on a project where it would be even vaguely practical.
3D printed cameras are a great idea, there's quite a few out there including my Goodman Zone Z1 from Dora Goodman Cameras. 3D printing camera bodies to accept lenses and film backs that are already out there gives these items new life rather than being sat on a shelf or even worse, going into landfill. My Goodman Zone uses a Mamiya RB67 Pro S 6x7 film back and a Schneider - Kreuznach Super Angulon 90mm f/8 lens. It was a steep learning curve and I have grown to really enjoy using it. I don't get hung up about mixing digital with film either. A mobile/cell phone is a tool to be used with an app for just about everything.
I've used the Viewfinder app for a couple of years, or so. I find it very useful, so I'd have no qualms about using it as the viewfinder. I'd been eyeing a 6x17 back for my view camera. Now, I see a 3D printed camera in my future.
I love your work and your personal story. I appreciate your love for film, for the challenges and the unique look of film. But for myself, I've been "taking pictures" for decades, but I didn't start !thinking! about my photography until well after the digital world was fully entrenched. So, speaking for myself alone, film or hybrid digital/film has no appeal. Still, please carry on (as I know you will do) - I love the story!
I gotta agree with you on the phone ruining it a bit. I've shot digital for several years, and just found a Pentax Spotmatic in a antique store in France for 15 Euros. Figured "what the hell", bought it, found some film. And the feeling you get when you can just walk around with a film camera is really nice. Like having a book instead of a Kindle or tablet. At first I had to download an app for metering, but once I got a battery for the internal meter in the Pentax to work, it felt so good. Not sure what it is. Just nice sometimes to leave your phone and digital camera behind, and go search for photos with just a film camera. Been loving it.
