Ridiculous Yashica DigiFilm Camera Y35 Kickstarter Announced

Hmmm, interesting concept. Create a digital camera that harks back to film. However........ The sensor size is tiny. More a smartphone sensor than a compact camera sensor. The lens may hark back to classic film point and shoot with a 35mm(equiv) F2.8, but we will be talking in reality a lens with monster depth of field. Think of it as a fixed focal length fixed focus cheap film camera that I had when I was a kid. Looks like a high quality rangefinder or Olympus trip style camera, but literally a point and shoot. Image quality and noise, low light, detail definition etc will just be just like your phone but without the control and app support. If it had a 1" sensor, then it would have been more interesting, but of course more expensive. Digital photography has moved the game on an awful lot since film, with immense control and ability, even with some point and shoot cameras, and dare I say it, smartphones too. I can understand why people would hark back to the tactile and process of film, but this is not it. It is cheap, it is good looking, but to be perfectly honest, if you really want to have the effect of a small camera where you have to change a cartridge(film) for different looks and ISO, may I suggest go to a secondhand dealer, car boot, or auction site, and actually go and buy a classic film camera, put some of the finest film produced today, and use that instead.Scan the film and have high quality images. Not only will it be initially cheaper, but long term you will get your money back for the camera, unlike this excuse for a Yashica, but you will love using film again. No this is a good looking toy, nothing more, nothing less.

Hmmm, interesting concept. Create a digital camera that harks back to film. However........

The sensor size is tiny. More a smartphone sensor than a compact camera sensor. The lens may hark back to classic film point and shoot with a 35mm(equiv) F2.8, but we will be talking in reality a lens with monster depth of field. Think of it as a fixed focal length fixed focus cheap film camera that I had when I was a kid. Looks like a high quality rangefinder or Olympus trip style camera, but literally a point and shoot.
Image quality and noise, low light, detail definition etc will just be just like your phone but without the control and app support.
If it had a 1" sensor, then it would have been more interesting, but of course more expensive.
Digital photography has moved the game on an awful lot since film, with immense control and ability, even with some point and shoot cameras, and dare I say it, smartphones too.
I can understand why people would hark back to the tactile and process of film, but this is not it. It is cheap, it is good looking, but to be perfectly honest, if you really want to have the effect of a small camera where you have to change a cartridge(film) for different looks and ISO, may I suggest go to a secondhand dealer, car boot, or auction site, and actually go and buy a classic film camera, put some of the finest film produced today, and use that instead.Scan the film and have high quality images. Not only will it be initially cheaper, but long term you will get your money back for the camera, unlike this excuse for a Yashica, but you will love using film again.

No this is a good looking toy, nothing more, nothing less.

I'll stick with my £16 Cosina C1...

I'll stick with my £16 Cosina C1...

This will only appeal to young hipsters who’ve only shot digital and have this misguided nostalgia for something that was expensive and low quality and creatively restrictive in so many ways. When I think of all the money I spent (and wasted) on film...

This will only appeal to young hipsters who’ve only shot digital and have this misguided nostalgia for something that was expensive and low quality and creatively restrictive in so many ways. When I think of all the money I spent (and wasted) on film...

[quote]changing the "film" cartridge every time you need to change camera settings[/quote] Or you could buy a proper camera and read the owner's manual...

Quote:changing the "film" cartridge every time you need to change camera settings


Or you could buy a proper camera and read the owner's manual...

Ok, but it's a poor substitute to previous similar attempts, which involved a 35mm sized sensor; The thing is, what many would go for, is an APS or 35mm format digital camera body where the back can be upgraded to a higher Mp unit in a similar fashion that some MF cameras offer. - Why do the manufacturers just refuse to offer such a camera? Ok, so they could still sell newer and 'enhanced' versions of the body, so far no-one wishes to bite the bullet on this. It's the digital 'bit' which costs the R&D money each time, so probably an interchangeable backed system would probably make them even more money, or rather recoup the R&D costs incurred quicker, because they don't also 'Have' to produce a different body design.

Ok, but it's a poor substitute to previous similar attempts, which involved a 35mm sized sensor; The thing is, what many would go for, is an APS or 35mm format digital camera body where the back can be upgraded to a higher Mp unit in a similar fashion that some MF cameras offer. - Why do the manufacturers just refuse to offer such a camera? Ok, so they could still sell newer and 'enhanced' versions of the body, so far no-one wishes to bite the bullet on this. It's the digital 'bit' which costs the R&D money each time, so probably an interchangeable backed system would probably make them even more money, or rather recoup the R&D costs incurred quicker, because they don't also 'Have' to produce a different body design.

It's easy with film - you "upgrade" by buying better film. To upgrade the back of the digital camera you need to replace not just the sensor but the microprocessors, the firmware, the autofocus system, the light metering, basically the whole thing. The only bit you don't change is the camera body and the control buttons, the cheapest part. MF is different - almost all MF SLRs are modular, so changing the back is easy because the back is self-contained.

It's easy with film - you "upgrade" by buying better film.

To upgrade the back of the digital camera you need to replace not just the sensor but the microprocessors, the firmware, the autofocus system, the light metering, basically the whole thing. The only bit you don't change is the camera body and the control buttons, the cheapest part.

MF is different - almost all MF SLRs are modular, so changing the back is easy because the back is self-contained.

Ok, Euan65, so almost all MF SLRs are modular; That doesn't mean a digital camera with an APS-C or FF 35mm-sized sensor cannot also be; Nikon, Canon, Minolta system cameras in the days of film, had detachable backs so you could fit bulk-film or data imprinting units on them. Machine tools that can work within the tolerances required so that two faces can be mated together with tolerances of +/- .01mm, whilst Lapping machines can give a surface flatness measured in light-bands for over 25 years, (Because I was regularly using both of these 'tools' to these standards of accuracy,30 years ago!) - It's just that the manufacturers don't want to go down this route, or are 'stuck' in their current mindset either from habit or it would require them to develop a completely new marketing strategy. The body encompassing the sensor and it's electronics isn't likely to evolve dramatically - Ergonomics and our hands are changing, are they?

Ok, Euan65, so almost all MF SLRs are modular; That doesn't mean a digital camera with an APS-C or FF 35mm-sized sensor cannot also be; Nikon, Canon, Minolta system cameras in the days of film, had detachable backs so you could fit bulk-film or data imprinting units on them. Machine tools that can work within the tolerances required so that two faces can be mated together with tolerances of +/- .01mm, whilst Lapping machines can give a surface flatness measured in light-bands for over 25 years, (Because I was regularly using both of these 'tools' to these standards of accuracy,30 years ago!) - It's just that the manufacturers don't want to go down this route, or are 'stuck' in their current mindset either from habit or it would require them to develop a completely new marketing strategy. The body encompassing the sensor and it's electronics isn't likely to evolve dramatically - Ergonomics and our hands are changing, are they?

You could build the kind of DSLR camera you're thinking of. The only thing is it would cost about twenty thousand pounds. The comparison is not so much changing the back cover so you can load 100 foot rolls as it is bolting a whole film production factory onto the camera. It's not that camera companies don't want to do it, or that they actively conspire to make people upgrade, than that the product would cost a small fortune and sell in the few hundreds over the whole world. Whilst it is technically feasible, it isn't economically feasible.

You could build the kind of DSLR camera you're thinking of. The only thing is it would cost about twenty thousand pounds.

The comparison is not so much changing the back cover so you can load 100 foot rolls as it is bolting a whole film production factory onto the camera. It's not that camera companies don't want to do it, or that they actively conspire to make people upgrade, than that the product would cost a small fortune and sell in the few hundreds over the whole world. Whilst it is technically feasible, it isn't economically feasible.

On the ergonomics, DSLRs are the shape they are because that's the shape of the film SLRs they evolved directly from, and film SLRs are that shape because of the need to have a film can at one end and a take-up spool at the other. A more rational shape might be a cylinder. The move to digital removes the need to copy the old film SLR layout.

On the ergonomics, DSLRs are the shape they are because that's the shape of the film SLRs they evolved directly from, and film SLRs are that shape because of the need to have a film can at one end and a take-up spool at the other.

A more rational shape might be a cylinder. The move to digital removes the need to copy the old film SLR layout.

Ok, get a coke can, now locate on it the positions for the shutter, f-stop controls, LCD screen, interchangeable lens mount and firing button, in a manner that enables you to control this camera, as effectively as you can on an oblong-shaped body. You presumably have a PC, in which you can upgrade virtually all of it's circuit boards for better ones, either gradually or at one fell swoop. The cost of doing this, isn't much different to buying a replacement PC. The vast majority of the R&D spent on a camera is within it's 'guts', not the body. I would contend that what is needed is a complete 'mindset' change by manufacturers and the buying public so that they think about changing the 'guts' on a much more regular basis than they do the body. Maybe many people think that if you purchase something new, it should look in some way, different to what they had before, or that it must have a badge on it showing it's indeed different, because of that old chestnut, 'Look, mine is better than yours!'

Ok, get a coke can, now locate on it the positions for the shutter, f-stop controls, LCD screen, interchangeable lens mount and firing button, in a manner that enables you to control this camera, as effectively as you can on an oblong-shaped body. You presumably have a PC, in which you can upgrade virtually all of it's circuit boards for better ones, either gradually or at one fell swoop. The cost of doing this, isn't much different to buying a replacement PC.

The vast majority of the R&D spent on a camera is within it's 'guts', not the body. I would contend that what is needed is a complete 'mindset' change by manufacturers and the buying public so that they think about changing the 'guts' on a much more regular basis than they do the body. Maybe many people think that if you purchase something new, it should look in some way, different to what they had before, or that it must have a badge on it showing it's indeed different, because of that old chestnut, 'Look, mine is better than yours!'