6 ms·

A 20MP Sensor in a Film Canister Reinvigorates Vintage Analog Cameras

127 points by mikece 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago
Intriguing idea, and something I might consider. Once it is shipping, and not just a marketing announcement.
cfr2023 3y ago
I'd love to test something like this. It doesn't matter if the end result or the experience are not that great compared to using film or a purpose built digital camera. The idea of manually replacing physical film with a sensor that fits inside that footprint is just so damn cool that it's entertainment on its own.
- nsxwolf 3y ago
  It would be interesting to see what digital photos would look like if it was nothing but you and the subject and the lens, with no intermediate processing. Without Samsung drawing a fake moon and whatnot.
  - tambourine_man 3y ago
    DSLR and mirrorless do mostly that. The RAW file stores the number of photons that hit each photodiode. It’s phones that take these liberties. Samsung and Google in particular are not concerned with capturing the moment as it were, if you can even say such a thing, but an idealized (and pasteurized, perhaps) version of it. The thing is, it’s often what most people want. I think there’s no turning back.
  - astrange 3y ago
    If you saw the raw image from a phone sensor, you'd understand why you'd want ML moon enhancement. It's very difficult to photograph the moon with a small sensor. It's not true they're trying to "idealize" your photos; they're trying to make it look like something at all.
  - HughIngram 3y ago
    This might be interesting to you - https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/105272/79282 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/105272/79282
nicolashahn 3y ago
First, this is a cool project and I'm glad they're doing it, for the people who want this thing. However, I see it as combining the main downsides of film and digital. The reason most people shoot film these days is the look that film gives the image which digital just can't seem to reproduce. People shoot modern digital cameras primarily because of the huge amount of features and improvements over film cameras. This gives you neither. The main reason I can see for someone to want one of these is that you really want to shoot using a film body but you don't want to pay for or deal with the hassle of film. I wonder how many people that's actually going to end up being when this ships.
- jnovek 3y ago
  So this is just me, I don’t speak for all film shooters. I actually really prefer the interface of a film camera. It’s hard to explain, but I feel like there’s an additional layer of abstraction between me and the final image. I spend less time thinking about the camera and more time thinking about the photograph. But I don’t see myself spending $650 on a m4/3 sensor to digitize that process. If I wanted a new digital camera with a similar experience I’d rather put that money towards a film-like digital, e.g. a Fuji XPro3.
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    Sony user here, but my understanding is that Fujifilm cameras have a much more analog look & feel. I had someone ask me to take a photo for them in the spring on one, and there were the typical film knobs and a feeling of solidity I'd quite forgotten in cameras. It sounds silly, but pressing the button felt like such a clear solid action, had such great feel.
    - jnovek 3y ago
      Yup! I have an X-E1 and I love it to death, but it’s quite long in the tooth these days. I’d love to get a modern X100 or Xpro but Fuji is still recovering from supply chain issues and prices are through the roof. No shade re Sony’s mirrorless cameras, btw. Great cameras. I’m pragmatic about what I shoot and, honestly, the number one reason why I pick up a mirrorless instead of my rangefinder is because I often don’t want to spend my weekend processing and scanning 10+ rolls of film. :-)
galago 3y ago
Its micro four thirds so its a major crop of the 35mm frame. A normal lens will have the image angle of a telephoto. Its cool that they actually have it working though.
- jnovek 3y ago
  This is a big problem because there aren’t many ultrawide lenses for older cameras and those that exist are often slow, bulky, expensive and have mediocre rendition.
- redundantly 3y ago
  It's full 35mm. The sensor isn't directly exposed to the light from the lens. They've got a projector screen + periscope configuration going on. https://petapixel.com/2023/10/06/a-20mp-sensor-in-a-film-canister-reinvigorates-vintage-analog-cameras/ https://petapixel.com/2023/10/06/a-20mp-sensor-in-a-film-can... Not sure how I feel about this configuration, I'd like to know more about the amount of light lost with this set up, image distortion, etc.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    Took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. So, the article mentions an older product by the same people that used your "periscope" arrangement, but THIS product is a m4/3 sensor hanging off the end of a ribbon.
    - redundantly 3y ago
      I provided the wrong link before. Here is the one I meant to share: https://imback.eu/home/new-model/ https://imback.eu/home/new-model/ But, yeah, I missed that it's a new version of the Back35. Side note, their website is terrible.
neilv 3y ago
During the transition from film digital, there were "digital backs" for some specific models. That this 35mm roll form factor works with any camera is neat. A different idea to keep in mind is that a lot of the value in a camera system is not from the body, but from the lenses. Nikon DSLRs will take old film-era Nikkor lenses, and there are also various adapters for using older lenses on modern DSLRs. There also at least used to be a cottage industry of modifying some old lenses that couldn't be used as well with adapters (such as if the adapter introduced too much distance between rear element and sensor, or if there was a protruding motor shaft).
- redundantly 3y ago
  There's value in the body as well, at least from some bodies the exposure level and auto focus options. However, $600 USD for a 20MP? That had better be a high quality sensor...
philjohn 3y ago
When the transition to digital was starting I was relatively young, and idly thought "Surely someone bould put a digital sensor into a film form factor to convert cameras. Lo and behold, a few decades later someone's done it!
vannevar 3y ago
I remember sketching out the idea for something like this when digital cameras came out in the 90s. I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to do it, seems like it would've made more sense back when everyone had film cameras. I always assumed there was some technical barrier I wasn't aware of.
- mcpherrinm 3y ago
  They've been around for a very long time for medium and large format cameras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back This product definitely looks like it would be challenging to design an manufacture. Without having seen this post, I wouldn't have imagined it would be possible to fit a sensor and associated electronics in the small space meant for film!
  - zoomablemind 3y ago
    My first question was... dust! Film always presented a new frame from the canister, so reasonably it would be free of dust for capture. With such open sensor the dust accumulation may soon become an issue.
- extragood 3y ago
  There was one in '99 - $800 for a whopping 1.2 MP image [1]. It did not do well [2], although to be fair there were a number of issues with that implementation: > The lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around, especially considering that this had to work in more than one model of camera. And that made the large assumption that many modern photographers would be willing to live without a rear LCD to check their images. [1] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3149799436/siliconfilm https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3149799436/siliconfilm [2] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4804601936/faded-dream-blogger-looks-back-at-the-failure-of-the-silicon-film-project https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4804601936/faded-dream-blo...
jonah 3y ago
I remember some prototypes of that same packaging many, many years ago. Cool to see someone finally "bring it to market".
anonymousiam 3y ago
"The I’m Back Film’s 20-megapixel Four-Thirds sensor can work alongside a wide-angle adapter to ensure the smaller-than-full-frame sensor covers a whole 35mm-format image area. Or users can take advantage of the crop factor enabled by a Micro Four Thirds sensor (2x crop factor compared to a full-frame image sensor). As for why I’m Back Film uses a Micro Four Thirds sensor instead of a full-frame sensor, the team behind the product says it comes down to cost. A Four-Thirds sensor offers “excellent image quality at a more affordable cost compared to a full-frame sensor.” Further, as mentioned, when combined with a wide-angle lens filter, users can achieve the same field of view on their lens as they would have when using a 35mm camera sensor." As someone with a bunch of 35mm equipment, this concept is appealing to me, but why not also offer a full-sized sensor at a higher cost for those who want one? This product will always cripple the camera so it's no longer WYSIWYG. The viewfinder will no longer represent what the photo will look like, even with the "wide-angle lens filter" attached. Yeah, when you add their magnifier (what it should have been called) the CCD sensor will "see" the same area that normal 35mm film would see without it, but the photographer will continue to see a larger viewfinder frame than the CCD will see. This makes it a non-starter for me. Does anybody know of a similar product with a full-size 35mm sensor?
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  No way to overlay crop lines on a viewfinder?
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    Not without modifying the camera. The traditional 35mm camera has a mirror and prism so the viewfinder sees what the film will see. The crop lines would need to be added somewhere in the mirror/prism/viewer path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera
    - dylan604 3y ago
      You could etch/overlay them onto the lens of the view finder itself. similar to the cross hairs on a telescope eyepiece
cmgriffing 3y ago
I think they are missing something about their target market. They say they went with micro 4/3 because of cost, but camera enthusiasts would happily pay a premium for a full-frame sensor. I know I would, at least.
sottol 3y ago
I'd like to echo that Micro 4/3 sensor just makes this really not that useful imo unless it's for toying around, but then you might as well get an older M43 or Fuji digital camera. M43's crop factor changes the field of view and thus the lenses character. Which imo is the main reason to shoot older cameras - the lenses. Along with the qualities of the film itself. It undoes both imo.
mongol 3y ago
This is not a new idea. I saw it in the 90s. But obviously, sensors have become infinitely better since then.
ncann 3y ago
I remember about 15 years ago there was a very convincing april fools called "Re-36" about this exact digital film concept, with website and fancy product pictures and all. Strange that I can't find any mention of it on google now. Does anyone remember this? Perhaps I remembered the name wrong? Edit: found it! It's called RE 35: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popphoto.com/news/2011/04/re-35-will-not-turn-your-35mm-film-camera-digital/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popphoto.com/news/2011/04/r...
- djmips 3y ago
  The website itself. It's quite amusing it mostly came true! https://web.archive.org/web/20110413220031/http://www.re35.net/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110413220031/http://www.re35.n...
Lammy 3y ago
Sad to see all the the usual anti-MFT FUD in the comments here
squokko 3y ago
I would absolutely love this because I could use the camera that my father used to take all of my baby photos to take photos of my own kids. I would unironically pay $2000 for it in full frame
replete 3y ago
After hunting around for some footage of it in action, it looks like you're going to end up with lots of improperly exposed images and a clunky UI. It is going to be far more practical to simply buy a Sony A7 type mirrorless body and some lens adapters to shoot with histogram view, for 35mm at least. Digital medium format back is another story entirely perhaps more suited to this scenario.
- vr46 3y ago
  The precision to align the sensor doesn’t appear to be present. In any case, the camera body isn’t where the magic is, and old lenses can be fitted to new bodies in a crazy number of permutations these days. I only today picked up a Contax Zeiss 300 f4. It fits on my Canon now. I love my Contax but the cost of this sensor this would likely pay for a lot of film and processing. Let’s see when it launches.
threeseed 3y ago
I actually want the opposite of this. Modern lenses, autofocus / manual focus with peaking and an electronic viewfinder with medium format film back. All in a x100v or Leica M form factor.
- vr46 3y ago
  Lol, how about some unicorn pizza while you wait?
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  So… basically a Fujifilm GFX?
fnord77 3y ago
there's been a number of these through out the years. the first one I saw was in the late 90s https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/prototypes-rarities/category/imagek https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/prototypes-rarities/ca...
wdb 3y ago
Pretty sure I read about a similar product 10-15 years ago? Final a non-vaporware product?
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  If we saw the same one, it was originally an April Fools prank. That’s a shame, because it was a beautiful page and product design - probably because it wasn’t constrained by physics ;p
tlhunter 3y ago
I was able to buy a barely used Sony a7ii for around $650 which sports a full frame sensor. Adapters and vintage lenses are cheap and I'm able to use some pretty interesting lenses with it. Maybe the main selling point is that you'll look like you're using film?
samellos 3y ago
Do you want a full-frame image or a full-frame sensor? Because if your desire is to have a full-frame image, then with our product, despite using Micro 4/3, you'll have the opportunity to achieve a full-frame image using our filter. I hops can understand this. Thank you. I’m Back team
samellos 3y ago
Do you desire a full-frame image or a full-frame sensor? Because if your goal is to achieve a full-frame image, then with our product, even though we use Micro 4/3, you'll have the opportunity to capture a full-frame image by utilizing our wide-angle filter. I hope you can understand that the reason we didn't opt for a full-frame sensor was solely due to the exorbitantly high cost factor! Thank you. I’m Back team
always-suspect 3y ago
Where can I buy one of these

127 points by mikece 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

Intriguing idea, and something I might consider. Once it is shipping, and not just a marketing announcement.

cfr2023 3y ago

I'd love to test something like this. It doesn't matter if the end result or the experience are not that great compared to using film or a purpose built digital camera. The idea of manually replacing physical film with a sensor that fits inside that footprint is just so damn cool that it's entertainment on its own.

nsxwolf 3y ago
It would be interesting to see what digital photos would look like if it was nothing but you and the subject and the lens, with no intermediate processing. Without Samsung drawing a fake moon and whatnot.
- tambourine_man 3y ago
  DSLR and mirrorless do mostly that. The RAW file stores the number of photons that hit each photodiode. It’s phones that take these liberties. Samsung and Google in particular are not concerned with capturing the moment as it were, if you can even say such a thing, but an idealized (and pasteurized, perhaps) version of it. The thing is, it’s often what most people want. I think there’s no turning back.
- astrange 3y ago
  If you saw the raw image from a phone sensor, you'd understand why you'd want ML moon enhancement. It's very difficult to photograph the moon with a small sensor. It's not true they're trying to "idealize" your photos; they're trying to make it look like something at all.
- HughIngram 3y ago
  This might be interesting to you - https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/105272/79282 https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/105272/79282

nicolashahn 3y ago

First, this is a cool project and I'm glad they're doing it, for the people who want this thing. However, I see it as combining the main downsides of film and digital. The reason most people shoot film these days is the look that film gives the image which digital just can't seem to reproduce. People shoot modern digital cameras primarily because of the huge amount of features and improvements over film cameras. This gives you neither. The main reason I can see for someone to want one of these is that you really want to shoot using a film body but you don't want to pay for or deal with the hassle of film. I wonder how many people that's actually going to end up being when this ships.

jnovek 3y ago
So this is just me, I don’t speak for all film shooters. I actually really prefer the interface of a film camera. It’s hard to explain, but I feel like there’s an additional layer of abstraction between me and the final image. I spend less time thinking about the camera and more time thinking about the photograph. But I don’t see myself spending $650 on a m4/3 sensor to digitize that process. If I wanted a new digital camera with a similar experience I’d rather put that money towards a film-like digital, e.g. a Fuji XPro3.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  Sony user here, but my understanding is that Fujifilm cameras have a much more analog look & feel. I had someone ask me to take a photo for them in the spring on one, and there were the typical film knobs and a feeling of solidity I'd quite forgotten in cameras. It sounds silly, but pressing the button felt like such a clear solid action, had such great feel.
  - jnovek 3y ago
    Yup! I have an X-E1 and I love it to death, but it’s quite long in the tooth these days. I’d love to get a modern X100 or Xpro but Fuji is still recovering from supply chain issues and prices are through the roof. No shade re Sony’s mirrorless cameras, btw. Great cameras. I’m pragmatic about what I shoot and, honestly, the number one reason why I pick up a mirrorless instead of my rangefinder is because I often don’t want to spend my weekend processing and scanning 10+ rolls of film. :-)

galago 3y ago

Its micro four thirds so its a major crop of the 35mm frame. A normal lens will have the image angle of a telephoto. Its cool that they actually have it working though.

jnovek 3y ago
This is a big problem because there aren’t many ultrawide lenses for older cameras and those that exist are often slow, bulky, expensive and have mediocre rendition.
redundantly 3y ago
It's full 35mm. The sensor isn't directly exposed to the light from the lens. They've got a projector screen + periscope configuration going on. https://petapixel.com/2023/10/06/a-20mp-sensor-in-a-film-canister-reinvigorates-vintage-analog-cameras/ https://petapixel.com/2023/10/06/a-20mp-sensor-in-a-film-can... Not sure how I feel about this configuration, I'd like to know more about the amount of light lost with this set up, image distortion, etc.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  Took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. So, the article mentions an older product by the same people that used your "periscope" arrangement, but THIS product is a m4/3 sensor hanging off the end of a ribbon.
  - redundantly 3y ago
    I provided the wrong link before. Here is the one I meant to share: https://imback.eu/home/new-model/ https://imback.eu/home/new-model/ But, yeah, I missed that it's a new version of the Back35. Side note, their website is terrible.

neilv 3y ago

During the transition from film digital, there were "digital backs" for some specific models. That this 35mm roll form factor works with any camera is neat. A different idea to keep in mind is that a lot of the value in a camera system is not from the body, but from the lenses. Nikon DSLRs will take old film-era Nikkor lenses, and there are also various adapters for using older lenses on modern DSLRs. There also at least used to be a cottage industry of modifying some old lenses that couldn't be used as well with adapters (such as if the adapter introduced too much distance between rear element and sensor, or if there was a protruding motor shaft).

redundantly 3y ago
There's value in the body as well, at least from some bodies the exposure level and auto focus options. However, $600 USD for a 20MP? That had better be a high quality sensor...

philjohn 3y ago

When the transition to digital was starting I was relatively young, and idly thought "Surely someone bould put a digital sensor into a film form factor to convert cameras. Lo and behold, a few decades later someone's done it!

vannevar 3y ago

I remember sketching out the idea for something like this when digital cameras came out in the 90s. I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to do it, seems like it would've made more sense back when everyone had film cameras. I always assumed there was some technical barrier I wasn't aware of.

mcpherrinm 3y ago
They've been around for a very long time for medium and large format cameras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back This product definitely looks like it would be challenging to design an manufacture. Without having seen this post, I wouldn't have imagined it would be possible to fit a sensor and associated electronics in the small space meant for film!
- zoomablemind 3y ago
  My first question was... dust! Film always presented a new frame from the canister, so reasonably it would be free of dust for capture. With such open sensor the dust accumulation may soon become an issue.
extragood 3y ago
There was one in '99 - $800 for a whopping 1.2 MP image [1]. It did not do well [2], although to be fair there were a number of issues with that implementation: > The lack of battery space, the need to open the camera to change ISO, White Balance or any other image setting, and the need to indicate a crop in the viewfinder if anything less than a full frame sensor is used, are all difficult to get around, especially considering that this had to work in more than one model of camera. And that made the large assumption that many modern photographers would be willing to live without a rear LCD to check their images. [1] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3149799436/siliconfilm https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3149799436/siliconfilm [2] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4804601936/faded-dream-blogger-looks-back-at-the-failure-of-the-silicon-film-project https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4804601936/faded-dream-blo...

jonah 3y ago

I remember some prototypes of that same packaging many, many years ago. Cool to see someone finally "bring it to market".

anonymousiam 3y ago

"The I’m Back Film’s 20-megapixel Four-Thirds sensor can work alongside a wide-angle adapter to ensure the smaller-than-full-frame sensor covers a whole 35mm-format image area. Or users can take advantage of the crop factor enabled by a Micro Four Thirds sensor (2x crop factor compared to a full-frame image sensor). As for why I’m Back Film uses a Micro Four Thirds sensor instead of a full-frame sensor, the team behind the product says it comes down to cost. A Four-Thirds sensor offers “excellent image quality at a more affordable cost compared to a full-frame sensor.” Further, as mentioned, when combined with a wide-angle lens filter, users can achieve the same field of view on their lens as they would have when using a 35mm camera sensor." As someone with a bunch of 35mm equipment, this concept is appealing to me, but why not also offer a full-sized sensor at a higher cost for those who want one? This product will always cripple the camera so it's no longer WYSIWYG. The viewfinder will no longer represent what the photo will look like, even with the "wide-angle lens filter" attached. Yeah, when you add their magnifier (what it should have been called) the CCD sensor will "see" the same area that normal 35mm film would see without it, but the photographer will continue to see a larger viewfinder frame than the CCD will see. This makes it a non-starter for me. Does anybody know of a similar product with a full-size 35mm sensor?

wahnfrieden 3y ago
No way to overlay crop lines on a viewfinder?
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  Not without modifying the camera. The traditional 35mm camera has a mirror and prism so the viewfinder sees what the film will see. The crop lines would need to be added somewhere in the mirror/prism/viewer path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera
  - dylan604 3y ago
    You could etch/overlay them onto the lens of the view finder itself. similar to the cross hairs on a telescope eyepiece

cmgriffing 3y ago

I think they are missing something about their target market. They say they went with micro 4/3 because of cost, but camera enthusiasts would happily pay a premium for a full-frame sensor. I know I would, at least.

sottol 3y ago

I'd like to echo that Micro 4/3 sensor just makes this really not that useful imo unless it's for toying around, but then you might as well get an older M43 or Fuji digital camera. M43's crop factor changes the field of view and thus the lenses character. Which imo is the main reason to shoot older cameras - the lenses. Along with the qualities of the film itself. It undoes both imo.

mongol 3y ago

This is not a new idea. I saw it in the 90s. But obviously, sensors have become infinitely better since then.

ncann 3y ago

I remember about 15 years ago there was a very convincing april fools called "Re-36" about this exact digital film concept, with website and fancy product pictures and all. Strange that I can't find any mention of it on google now. Does anyone remember this? Perhaps I remembered the name wrong? Edit: found it! It's called RE 35: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popphoto.com/news/2011/04/re-35-will-not-turn-your-35mm-film-camera-digital/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popphoto.com/news/2011/04/r...

djmips 3y ago
The website itself. It's quite amusing it mostly came true! https://web.archive.org/web/20110413220031/http://www.re35.net/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20110413220031/http://www.re35.n...

Lammy 3y ago

Sad to see all the the usual anti-MFT FUD in the comments here

squokko 3y ago

I would absolutely love this because I could use the camera that my father used to take all of my baby photos to take photos of my own kids. I would unironically pay $2000 for it in full frame

replete 3y ago

After hunting around for some footage of it in action, it looks like you're going to end up with lots of improperly exposed images and a clunky UI. It is going to be far more practical to simply buy a Sony A7 type mirrorless body and some lens adapters to shoot with histogram view, for 35mm at least. Digital medium format back is another story entirely perhaps more suited to this scenario.

vr46 3y ago
The precision to align the sensor doesn’t appear to be present. In any case, the camera body isn’t where the magic is, and old lenses can be fitted to new bodies in a crazy number of permutations these days. I only today picked up a Contax Zeiss 300 f4. It fits on my Canon now. I love my Contax but the cost of this sensor this would likely pay for a lot of film and processing. Let’s see when it launches.

threeseed 3y ago

I actually want the opposite of this. Modern lenses, autofocus / manual focus with peaking and an electronic viewfinder with medium format film back. All in a x100v or Leica M form factor.

vr46 3y ago
Lol, how about some unicorn pizza while you wait?
Ancapistani 3y ago
So… basically a Fujifilm GFX?

fnord77 3y ago

there's been a number of these through out the years. the first one I saw was in the late 90s https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/prototypes-rarities/category/imagek https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/prototypes-rarities/ca...

wdb 3y ago

Pretty sure I read about a similar product 10-15 years ago? Final a non-vaporware product?

Ancapistani 3y ago
If we saw the same one, it was originally an April Fools prank. That’s a shame, because it was a beautiful page and product design - probably because it wasn’t constrained by physics ;p

tlhunter 3y ago

I was able to buy a barely used Sony a7ii for around $650 which sports a full frame sensor. Adapters and vintage lenses are cheap and I'm able to use some pretty interesting lenses with it. Maybe the main selling point is that you'll look like you're using film?

samellos 3y ago

Do you want a full-frame image or a full-frame sensor? Because if your desire is to have a full-frame image, then with our product, despite using Micro 4/3, you'll have the opportunity to achieve a full-frame image using our filter. I hops can understand this. Thank you. I’m Back team

samellos 3y ago

Do you desire a full-frame image or a full-frame sensor? Because if your goal is to achieve a full-frame image, then with our product, even though we use Micro 4/3, you'll have the opportunity to capture a full-frame image by utilizing our wide-angle filter. I hope you can understand that the reason we didn't opt for a full-frame sensor was solely due to the exorbitantly high cost factor! Thank you. I’m Back team

always-suspect 3y ago

Where can I buy one of these