DISQUS

Anonymous · 1 year ago

not to nitpick, but that's not an SLR (Single Lens Reflex).

tastewar · 1 year ago

Geez, do you know what the S in SLR stands for? *Single,* dude! There used to be TLR's (twin lens reflex), and I guess this could be, too, if you substitute triple for twin.

Rick Keir · 1 year ago

Judging by the styling of the camera, with its cheerful but plastic "3d World" top, it's not going to be a $1500 camera, let alone a $4500 camera.

At the moment, new medium format SLR 80mm (i.e., "normal") lenses cost $1500 because, at the moment, the only significant market for them is a high end, specialist market that wants to see names like "Zeiss" on the lense.

But that doesn't mean they can't be made far more cheaply: in the heyday of the medium format twin lens reflex they were a common choice for vacation snapshots. Even Sears sold TLRs under the "Tower" brand name, and they were definitely not $1500 lenses on them. (Another comparision point: you can buy used 80mm medium format lenses in "excellent" condition from reputable dealers like KEH for under $100 these days.)

The 3rd lense that you use for focusing and sighting can be far cheaper, since the image will not be enlarged for printing. That means you don't need exotic glass, aspherical surfaces, and all the other tricks that push the price of "taking" lenses up.

Evan Ackerman · 1 year ago

Oops... I just sort of associate "SLR" with "not a point 'n shoot," you know? But I stand corrected. I'll fix the title.

@ Rick: that's certainly true. So you think that the current cost for a good new 80mm lens is due to the lack to demand and a specialized market? I guess in my experience, good glass is always expensive, new or used, but maybe not $1500 expensive for an 80mm prime.