I've been patiently waiting for this to drop for ~5 years, and I was hoping that it would somehow be under $1000.
Oh my god. $4400 is... a lot of money. $175 shipping had better include a Jeff Bridges Cameo video.
Don't get me wrong: I suspect that he's spent millions of dollars getting the project to this point, and that it's a mechanically perfect instrument. Huge respect for caring this much and seeing the project through.
I feel better now about the $700 I spent buying a 35mm panoramic film back for my medium-format Bronica SQA. It seemed like a real splurge at the time, but for the price of this new camera, you could get a whole Bronica system - including four or five lenses, an alternate viewfinder, a couple of 120 backs, and the panoramic film back - with enough left over for a year's worth of film and processing.
People must really like that swing-lens effect. It's not for me, but I imagine that this camera must seem much more compelling if it's what you're after.
> Huge respect for caring this much and seeing the project through.
Second that: product development is hard, and manufacturing is really expensive in small quantities.
It’s an esoteric enthusiast product handmade in Germany to extreme mechanical precision. It’s a miracle they got it down to $4400… I bet they’re not making much money on this, and it’s more of a labor of love.
I saw an old Soviet-era model that was working and seemed similar to this one, it was bought by my photography instructor, he showed me his weird collection. It used to be attached to the underside of spy airplanes to take panoramic pictures not just satellite imagery and earth maps. Maybe you should look for swing-lens cameras on the used/vintage market today. Look for Horizon line from KMZ, their later models continued under Russian production rather than being brand-new Soviet stock.
I kind of expected that pricing - although even worse, in Europe, after VAT, it reaches $6000. Yeah it's not for me, and 350 units is probably capturing the whole target audience at this price.
The good part that could come out from it I would hope for would be new parts for old cameras. I managed to snag a Widelux F6 for about $800 last year that would need some servicing - sometimes it suffers from the infamous banding...
Yeah, I've been waiting for it for years too. I thought it was going to be substantially more than $4400 (more like $6-7K). Under $1,000 is unfortunately simply impossible. Used Wideluxes go for a fair bit more than $1K.
That said, too much for me right now. Maybe someday.
You can get a new panoramic film camera for $69 - the Sprocket Rocket [1]. It makes images with grungy lomography charm - edges are soft but center is surprisingly sharp for a plastic lens. I really like the look of the images it produces. It has a hot shoe and a bulb setting.
While cool, there is quite a bit of difference between this and what the widelux is. The widelux rotates the lens as the front cover moves, which creates a drastically different look.
A new Leica M6 goes for about $7K at B&H. When you could still buy them, Rolleiflexes were about that much. A mechanical camera hand-made in short runs in Germany? Not gonna be cheap. If you can afford and think you'll use it enough to make it worthwhile, there are worse things you could spend your money on.
I don't know much about how this camera is priced, but I think you're underrating the human desire for exclusivity. I won't be surprised when that first run sells out.
There is a whole class of people out there that think about money in ways you and I cannot comprehend, and this product is for them, not us. It'll be successful without us little folks.
I would put this in the luxury goods category, which has been doing really well. Photography has a lot of gear horders too, so I wouldn't be surprised if on that alone it sells out. Then people who actually want to use it will stay priced out.
It's my biggest peeve with artificial scarcity markets, speculators or collectors buy everything and people who actually want to use the item can't afford it.
Most people don’t understand why or how stuff is priced, or that low volume items like this probably have a decent amount of expensive human labor included in the price. You aren’t going to set up full automation to assemble 350 cameras.
For those that don't understand the connection: Jeff Bridges has been using Widelux cameras since at least the 80s. He's even got shots from the set of Tron!
Amusing that's he's praised the original for it's lack of precision and predictability, which makes it more "human" and "honest", then spends loads of money refining it. Must be craving precision crafted dishonesty in his photography these days.
Hah - yah a "new" panoramic camera. I'm glad to see we are seeing production on the kind of cameras that take full advantage of films' qualities. This both has an eye-watering price tag and it fits well into the "panoramic ecosystem" of older wideluxes and X-Pans ($1.5k - $3k and $4.5k+ respectively). The xpan 30mm is pushing $6k now (oh how I wish I would have paid $2k back in the day! It seemed crazy to spend the price of the whole kit again for one lens but it turns out it wasn't).
Also happy to see more enthusiast camera companies. I dunno that they'll manufacture the best stuff, but in the age of "financialize everything" I'll take Jeff or the Mint Camera folks over some multinational conglomerate any day.
It doesn't look like a photo, because at that time, the only way to mass produce an image was for an artisan to reproduce it as a wood engraving. I don't know if the ILN (which still exists! In Shoreditch high street lol) still has the original.
I unserstand this camera is pretty popular among street shooters/photodocumentary folks.
Personally, I prefer less distortion and XPan is the better choice for that (and of course interchangeable lens support). Too bad it's bloody expensive nowadays and since the shutter is battery-dependant, you just have to accept one day it may become a paper weight.
A decent electronics repair shop/individual should be able to replace the battery with an equivalent, it'll be worth it given the cost of them. I wouldn't be surprised if camera repair joints would consider it unsavable but the expertise will be at an electronics repair place.
It's not that the battery goes bad (it's just a CR2). It's the rest of the electronics - if any of that goes bad, the camera becomes a paperweight.
Whereas something like a vintage Olympus OM-1 is fully mechanical - if the electronic fails, you lose the light meter, but the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and shutter release are all mechanics, so the camera is still completely functional (enthusiast photographers can get exposure correct through experience, or an external light meter if they want to be fancy).
The tech specs are also really vague. Like, what is it made of? How big is it? How is the viewfinder? This product makes sense only to someone who already has used or has an old Widelux and wants a new one
> I confirm that this is a customized product and that the statutory right of withdrawal under Section 312g(2)(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not apply.
Interesting checkbox on the purchase page. I wonder what the implications are.
This rural German company is somehow affiliated with the actor Jeff Bridges who seems to always had an interest in photography.
> Bridges has been an amateur photographer since high school. He began taking photographs on film sets during Starman at the suggestion of co-star Karen Allen in 1984, with his favorite camera, a Widelux F8 that his wife bought him. He published many of these photographs online and in a 2003 book entitled Pictures: Photographs by Jeff Bridges. In 2013, he received an Infinity Award for his photos from the International Center of Photography in New York. A follow-up book, Jeff Bridges: Pictures Volume Two, was published in 2019.
This is neat, but I will stick with Instax wide. With a $1000 mint body you can get full control of the film. Is it the same aspect ratio? No. But I can get film at Target and it’s instant. Very cool, any analog film is awesome, but this price just isn’t sustainable.
but when i looked in Firefox Page Info there were some I had not seen on the page. I just grabbed these sorry for dupes or whatever, can't be bothered to clean up. I tried to skip maketing pictures, pictures of the camera
The other photos pop up in the drill down sections if you click some of the red buttons.
Worth noting that some of the photos appear to be ones from Jeff Bridges' personal collection taken with his original Widelux F8, rather than photos taken with the prototype of the WideluxX product they are selling here - some of these are on set photos from when he was shooting The Big Lebowski.
Dammit. Now Im out $4.5k.
Most people should not buy this.
I shot 200+ rolls last year, and specialize in rare / expired films. There are some people that will buy this and use it as a tool, and this is going to sell out. I can't wait to shoot on it.
This marketing copy is so obviously written by an LLM and not a domain expert, and that currently signals to me that I should not take the company or its products seriously, because who knows what other corners they were willing to cut.
It's neat that this exists, and I'm happy that people are still funding these kinds of projects.
But 6x17 panoramic cameras exist at a price point with money left over for film and processing, a much larger negative, instant shutter, flash sync, wireless, more space than a nomad, etc.
I have a Fujifilm G617 in a hard shell case a few feet away, and it's a beast. There's nothing whimsical or convenient about it. It's a tool but it's not a fun camera to use. In fact, it's one of the only cameras I've ever used that penalizes spontaneity.
I've never used a Widelux but having used the Pano mode on my iPhone, I kind of get the concept so I can say that nothing about shooting Widelux is like shooting an actual 6x17, and that's almost certainly a good thing.
When you're evaluating high end cameras, ultimately the most meaningful data point is how they make you feel when you're shooting them. A Hasselblad feels like what I picture driving a Lincoln Continental feels like. I suspect that the Widelux-X would make the user feel things, too.
I'm glad that this exists. I hope Wideluxx is able to make a profit and remain in operation.
But for me, while I think film is cool, that's one rabbit hole that I have no interest in going down personally. And if I did, I would probably buy used vintage gear rather than spending $4,400 on a new (and extremely niche) film camera.
Digitial photography and retro film simulations/filters are good enough for me if I want to add some "character" to my photos. And ideally most of the character would come from the subject rather than the medium. But I get that lots of people derive inspiration from the process and the medium - and that's why I'm glad things like this exist.
There's a pretty significant misunderstanding here of why people shoot with film or use any high-end camera; it's got very little to do with the end result. After all, very few people evaluate an image based on what camera it was captured on.
No, it's much closer to the reason car people still have manual transmissions. Shooting a rangefinder or TLR are completely different experiences than an SLR. Shooting a Hasselblad feels like sexy magic. It's as far removed from shooting with a phone and applying a filter as driving driving a Civic is from driving a fancy European sportscar around a track while wearing leather gloves.
I thought I covered that when I said "I get that lots of people derive inspiration from the process and the medium". I.e. people enjoy the act of shooting film.
But there's also a lot of people who covet the "film look" and the "character" of vintage lenses, even if that's not something you personally care about.
I personally love the look of movies that are shot on film, though I have no desire to ever try it myself (way too expensive).
Nothing but respect for Bridges. Also happens to be my all time favorite actor. This looks like a fascinating project and a genuine attempt to make films better.
I'm genuinely curious what a site designed to sell a niche, enthusiast camera could say that wouldn't be "fake marketing bullshit". Could you take a stab at how you would approach designing a sincere sales site for a product like this.
"Discover the worlds hidden in every moment with WideluxX™" -> "Take sweeping panaromic analog photos with WideLux"
"The WideluxX™ is not a nostalgic return to the past. It exists alongside contemporary tools, offering a different way to create." -> this is AI slop, but still, you could say "We've updated analog film technology with the absolute best in modern engineering" (assuming that's factually true)
"A Contemporary Tool, Not a Retro Gesture" also AI slop, something like "A contemporary version of a beloved retro style" or something is factual and earnest.
"Each WideluxX™ image is created in a single continuous exposure, capturing space and time as they unfold, right in front of your eyes." -> "Single continuous exposures panaromas over (whatever aspect ratio / etc) which split the difference between photographs and short films, giving the appearance of active motion" (or whatever, I didn't read too much about what it actually does)
"Who's it for? WideluxX™ is for photographers who enjoy shaping an image through timing, movement, and perspective — and for those drawn to finely made mechanical cameras." -> this is alright, but not great; I'd prefer it to be less fluffy, like "WideLux is for lovers of finely-made mechanical cameras and film photography who want to play with a new style of photography that opens up new artistic opportunities.
"Working with WideluxX™ means allowing space for surprise—images shaped by light, movement, and the unfolding moment." -> ugh. just delete this entirely.
"Designed to endure, the WideluxX™ can be adjusted, repaired, and restored—much like a mechanical watch." no shit it's mechanical of course it can be. this one isn't terrible but it's not great. delete the "designed to endure" (and de-sloppify it a bit)
also personal preference but having "^tm" on everything cheapens the hell out of it. I'm sure there's some sketchy legal reason for it but it looks stupid and makes everything feel plastic and corporate.
Anyway, the trick (which is not a trick) is to write things that are true and sincere and treat the reader like a human being. If you wouldn't say something to someone's face without them wanting to punch you, don't write it on your website. If you don't have factual things to say that make people want to buy your product, make a better product. No opinion about whether this is better for sales funnels, don't even care. But it will make me respect the company more.
That is indeed part of the charm. The people who like swing lens panoramic cameras like the Widelux like that look. The alternative is something like the Hasselblad Xpan, or even just a panoramic crop from a regular camera. A swing lens does something unique.
I'm curious, is it generally used hand-held, as in the website's pics? I would guess that it adds wobbling on top of the distortion (maybe a less desirable feat).
This is being pedantic. Actually, I'm not even sure it's pedantic so much as just wrong. Such is also the case for rolling shutter cameras, the top of the frame is older than the bottom. That's why you get strange artifacts when recording video of fast rotating objects on your smartphone. But we still call it a single exposure.
That's a fair point. I was comparing the claim to rolling vs global shutter rather than "take a photo, rotate, take a photo." You can, however, get a true global shutter single exposure panorama using anamorphic lenses.
I don't see, what Jeff Bridges has actively to do with it. Besides being the marketing bait. Thr about us section just repeats the pr biography. What was his part in this camera?
Jeff Bridges is a photographer (among other things) who’s been shooting with Widelux cameras for 40+ years. He’s the co-founder of the company who’s creating this revival. It would not exist without him.
I've been patiently waiting for this to drop for ~5 years, and I was hoping that it would somehow be under $1000.
Oh my god. $4400 is... a lot of money. $175 shipping had better include a Jeff Bridges Cameo video.
Don't get me wrong: I suspect that he's spent millions of dollars getting the project to this point, and that it's a mechanically perfect instrument. Huge respect for caring this much and seeing the project through.
But damn.
I feel better now about the $700 I spent buying a 35mm panoramic film back for my medium-format Bronica SQA. It seemed like a real splurge at the time, but for the price of this new camera, you could get a whole Bronica system - including four or five lenses, an alternate viewfinder, a couple of 120 backs, and the panoramic film back - with enough left over for a year's worth of film and processing.
People must really like that swing-lens effect. It's not for me, but I imagine that this camera must seem much more compelling if it's what you're after.
> Huge respect for caring this much and seeing the project through.
Second that: product development is hard, and manufacturing is really expensive in small quantities.
You can get an identical field of view with a 30mm lens on that setup.
2 replies →
It’s an esoteric enthusiast product handmade in Germany to extreme mechanical precision. It’s a miracle they got it down to $4400… I bet they’re not making much money on this, and it’s more of a labor of love.
I saw an old Soviet-era model that was working and seemed similar to this one, it was bought by my photography instructor, he showed me his weird collection. It used to be attached to the underside of spy airplanes to take panoramic pictures not just satellite imagery and earth maps. Maybe you should look for swing-lens cameras on the used/vintage market today. Look for Horizon line from KMZ, their later models continued under Russian production rather than being brand-new Soviet stock.
I kind of expected that pricing - although even worse, in Europe, after VAT, it reaches $6000. Yeah it's not for me, and 350 units is probably capturing the whole target audience at this price.
The good part that could come out from it I would hope for would be new parts for old cameras. I managed to snag a Widelux F6 for about $800 last year that would need some servicing - sometimes it suffers from the infamous banding...
Just because we're film enthusiasts doesn't make us SAPS!
Nice marmot
1 reply →
That's just like, your opinion, man.
Yeah, I've been waiting for it for years too. I thought it was going to be substantially more than $4400 (more like $6-7K). Under $1,000 is unfortunately simply impossible. Used Wideluxes go for a fair bit more than $1K.
That said, too much for me right now. Maybe someday.
My first thought is, that looks cool. [looks in wallet. Looks at cabinet with other cameras. Looks at wallet again.] Oh well.
You can get a new panoramic film camera for $69 - the Sprocket Rocket [1]. It makes images with grungy lomography charm - edges are soft but center is surprisingly sharp for a plastic lens. I really like the look of the images it produces. It has a hot shoe and a bulb setting.
[1] https://shop.lomography.com/us/sprocket-rocket-35-mm-film-pa...
They used to sell one that was much closer, the Horizon Kompact, that is reasonably available used (https://shop.lomography.com/us/horizon-kompakt)
Or people could start exploring panoramic mode on their phone. I do all kinds of stuff with it:
- vertical panoramas, like tall trees or buildings
- point it down while walking and do a "panorama" with your feet in it
- a "panoramic" photo by pointing it sideways in a moving car/train
- walk along a long shelf in a store taking a long "panorama"
- panoramas of moving vehicles going past stationary you
and...
- actual panoramas of some nice place you visit
While cool, there is quite a bit of difference between this and what the widelux is. The widelux rotates the lens as the front cover moves, which creates a drastically different look.
Cheaper than Leica
Only the ridiculous ones. You can get an M6 for 2500 or an M3 for 1200. Lenses are 400-2k unless you go for crazy glass.
2 replies →
That is bonkers pricing. There is no way they actually expect a sell out with this price.
A new Leica M6 goes for about $7K at B&H. When you could still buy them, Rolleiflexes were about that much. A mechanical camera hand-made in short runs in Germany? Not gonna be cheap. If you can afford and think you'll use it enough to make it worthwhile, there are worse things you could spend your money on.
1 reply →
I don't know much about how this camera is priced, but I think you're underrating the human desire for exclusivity. I won't be surprised when that first run sells out.
2 replies →
There is a whole class of people out there that think about money in ways you and I cannot comprehend, and this product is for them, not us. It'll be successful without us little folks.
I would put this in the luxury goods category, which has been doing really well. Photography has a lot of gear horders too, so I wouldn't be surprised if on that alone it sells out. Then people who actually want to use it will stay priced out.
It's my biggest peeve with artificial scarcity markets, speculators or collectors buy everything and people who actually want to use the item can't afford it.
1 reply →
Rolex sells a million watches per year. They’ll move 350 of these for $4500 with no problem at all.
people definitely buy Leicas and this is a much better value prop.
[dead]
[flagged]
Like I said, I was hoping that it would be closer to what an iPhone costs so that a lot more people can justify buying one.
I believe that it's better for their long-term viability if they sell 1000 for $2000 instead of 300 for $4400.
1 reply →
Most people don’t understand why or how stuff is priced, or that low volume items like this probably have a decent amount of expensive human labor included in the price. You aren’t going to set up full automation to assemble 350 cameras.
My car mechanic charges $160/hr.
6 replies →
For those that don't understand the connection: Jeff Bridges has been using Widelux cameras since at least the 80s. He's even got shots from the set of Tron!
https://archive.nytimes.com/lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/3...
https://www.reddit.com/r/lebowski/comments/1rjcrfj/behindthe...
Amusing that's he's praised the original for it's lack of precision and predictability, which makes it more "human" and "honest", then spends loads of money refining it. Must be craving precision crafted dishonesty in his photography these days.
Hah - yah a "new" panoramic camera. I'm glad to see we are seeing production on the kind of cameras that take full advantage of films' qualities. This both has an eye-watering price tag and it fits well into the "panoramic ecosystem" of older wideluxes and X-Pans ($1.5k - $3k and $4.5k+ respectively). The xpan 30mm is pushing $6k now (oh how I wish I would have paid $2k back in the day! It seemed crazy to spend the price of the whole kit again for one lens but it turns out it wasn't).
Also happy to see more enthusiast camera companies. I dunno that they'll manufacture the best stuff, but in the age of "financialize everything" I'll take Jeff or the Mint Camera folks over some multinational conglomerate any day.
It's surprising how long we've had these. On this page is a panoramic image taken in 1864:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ok-AQAAMAAJ&newbks=1&ne...
It doesn't look like a photo, because at that time, the only way to mass produce an image was for an artisan to reproduce it as a wood engraving. I don't know if the ILN (which still exists! In Shoreditch high street lol) still has the original.
The camera used was by the London Pantoscopic company, like this one: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/people/cp132843...
I unserstand this camera is pretty popular among street shooters/photodocumentary folks.
Personally, I prefer less distortion and XPan is the better choice for that (and of course interchangeable lens support). Too bad it's bloody expensive nowadays and since the shutter is battery-dependant, you just have to accept one day it may become a paper weight.
A decent electronics repair shop/individual should be able to replace the battery with an equivalent, it'll be worth it given the cost of them. I wouldn't be surprised if camera repair joints would consider it unsavable but the expertise will be at an electronics repair place.
It's not that the battery goes bad (it's just a CR2). It's the rest of the electronics - if any of that goes bad, the camera becomes a paperweight.
Whereas something like a vintage Olympus OM-1 is fully mechanical - if the electronic fails, you lose the light meter, but the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and shutter release are all mechanics, so the camera is still completely functional (enthusiast photographers can get exposure correct through experience, or an external light meter if they want to be fancy).
2 replies →
I was trying to understand what’s new in this version compared to the old one. From the site:
What Has Changed
Which is a bit too vague for my taste.
It says enough that the parts for the new version aren't compatible with the old (which is unfortunate)
The tech specs are also really vague. Like, what is it made of? How big is it? How is the viewfinder? This product makes sense only to someone who already has used or has an old Widelux and wants a new one
Well that's just like, your opinion, man
> I confirm that this is a customized product and that the statutory right of withdrawal under Section 312g(2)(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not apply.
Interesting checkbox on the purchase page. I wonder what the implications are.
When you buy something in Germany and the EU, you typically can return it.
That does not apply to custom buildouts, like this camear.
Is it that it’s a custom item, or is it because of the mandatory engraving of initials you have to do?
1 reply →
5200 € of camera and you don’t even get a guarantee? That’s bold
1 reply →
This rural German company is somehow affiliated with the actor Jeff Bridges who seems to always had an interest in photography.
> Bridges has been an amateur photographer since high school. He began taking photographs on film sets during Starman at the suggestion of co-star Karen Allen in 1984, with his favorite camera, a Widelux F8 that his wife bought him. He published many of these photographs online and in a 2003 book entitled Pictures: Photographs by Jeff Bridges. In 2013, he received an Infinity Award for his photos from the International Center of Photography in New York. A follow-up book, Jeff Bridges: Pictures Volume Two, was published in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bridges
I don’t get the hype. I own, use and also completely love my xpan so I like the format, wideluxx isn’t even close to that.
You get none of the Hasselblad glass and distortion (which I guess is what people go for with this?) for more than 100% the price of an xpan?
Yes I do admit that the xpan isn’t made anymore but imo it’s still king even if you have to buy another one.
They're apples and oranges. But aren't the Xpan's going for a similar price if you include a lens?
The Xpan is electronic so when it dies, there's a very low chance it can be fixed.
This one is fully mechanical so has a better chance over longer periods.
This is neat, but I will stick with Instax wide. With a $1000 mint body you can get full control of the film. Is it the same aspect ratio? No. But I can get film at Target and it’s instant. Very cool, any analog film is awesome, but this price just isn’t sustainable.
Did I miss something or are there only 3 example photos?
i saw 6 in the left-right scroller
but when i looked in Firefox Page Info there were some I had not seen on the page. I just grabbed these sorry for dupes or whatever, can't be bothered to clean up. I tried to skip maketing pictures, pictures of the camera
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/unbroken-tim...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/no-stich-art...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/unbroken-tim...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/widexluxx-je...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/widexluxx-je...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wlx-bending-...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wlx-street-p...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wlx-architec...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wlx-unique-l...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wlx-portrait...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wlx-landscap...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/widelux-to-w...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wolfgang-in-...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/widelux-f8-c...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wlx-preprodu...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/final-widelu...
https://wideluxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/film-strip-s...
now this layout is the real UI layout! UX sux and don't download the photo till I click on it, I'm on a modem!
The other photos pop up in the drill down sections if you click some of the red buttons.
Worth noting that some of the photos appear to be ones from Jeff Bridges' personal collection taken with his original Widelux F8, rather than photos taken with the prototype of the WideluxX product they are selling here - some of these are on set photos from when he was shooting The Big Lebowski.
Some of those photos were taken with the original Wideluxx, so somewhat misleading (the ones where Jeff is younger obviously)
Dammit. Now Im out $4.5k. Most people should not buy this. I shot 200+ rolls last year, and specialize in rare / expired films. There are some people that will buy this and use it as a tool, and this is going to sell out. I can't wait to shoot on it.
This marketing copy is so obviously written by an LLM and not a domain expert, and that currently signals to me that I should not take the company or its products seriously, because who knows what other corners they were willing to cut.
It's neat that this exists, and I'm happy that people are still funding these kinds of projects.
But 6x17 panoramic cameras exist at a price point with money left over for film and processing, a much larger negative, instant shutter, flash sync, wireless, more space than a nomad, etc.
I have a Fujifilm G617 in a hard shell case a few feet away, and it's a beast. There's nothing whimsical or convenient about it. It's a tool but it's not a fun camera to use. In fact, it's one of the only cameras I've ever used that penalizes spontaneity.
I've never used a Widelux but having used the Pano mode on my iPhone, I kind of get the concept so I can say that nothing about shooting Widelux is like shooting an actual 6x17, and that's almost certainly a good thing.
When you're evaluating high end cameras, ultimately the most meaningful data point is how they make you feel when you're shooting them. A Hasselblad feels like what I picture driving a Lincoln Continental feels like. I suspect that the Widelux-X would make the user feel things, too.
This is what I crave if I could find the budget for it:
https://www.kandaovr.com/Obsidian-Pro
I'm glad that this exists. I hope Wideluxx is able to make a profit and remain in operation.
But for me, while I think film is cool, that's one rabbit hole that I have no interest in going down personally. And if I did, I would probably buy used vintage gear rather than spending $4,400 on a new (and extremely niche) film camera.
Digitial photography and retro film simulations/filters are good enough for me if I want to add some "character" to my photos. And ideally most of the character would come from the subject rather than the medium. But I get that lots of people derive inspiration from the process and the medium - and that's why I'm glad things like this exist.
There's a pretty significant misunderstanding here of why people shoot with film or use any high-end camera; it's got very little to do with the end result. After all, very few people evaluate an image based on what camera it was captured on.
No, it's much closer to the reason car people still have manual transmissions. Shooting a rangefinder or TLR are completely different experiences than an SLR. Shooting a Hasselblad feels like sexy magic. It's as far removed from shooting with a phone and applying a filter as driving driving a Civic is from driving a fancy European sportscar around a track while wearing leather gloves.
Still, clearly not for everyone!
I thought I covered that when I said "I get that lots of people derive inspiration from the process and the medium". I.e. people enjoy the act of shooting film.
But there's also a lot of people who covet the "film look" and the "character" of vintage lenses, even if that's not something you personally care about.
I personally love the look of movies that are shot on film, though I have no desire to ever try it myself (way too expensive).
This is only true for gear hoarders. Many many many people still shoot film or use high end cameras explicitly for the end result.
1 reply →
It sounds like you are not the customer for this camera.
Probably not.
But I do think it's cool and look forward to seeing reviews when people start getting their hands on them.
Nothing but respect for Bridges. Also happens to be my all time favorite actor. This looks like a fascinating project and a genuine attempt to make films better.
Cool to have someone bringing back a piece of gear they loved, with their own time & investment
He built it in a cave. With a box of scraps.
Well, in Germany. Seems like a great fit for Germany, too – precision optics and mechanics and zero digital complications.
Iron Man reference.
the copy on this page is so grating. not uncommon but man can't anything just be sincere instead of fake marketing bullshit?
I'm genuinely curious what a site designed to sell a niche, enthusiast camera could say that wouldn't be "fake marketing bullshit". Could you take a stab at how you would approach designing a sincere sales site for a product like this.
What qualifies as sincere? Who decides?
It's so easy. Off the top of my head:
"Discover the worlds hidden in every moment with WideluxX™" -> "Take sweeping panaromic analog photos with WideLux"
"The WideluxX™ is not a nostalgic return to the past. It exists alongside contemporary tools, offering a different way to create." -> this is AI slop, but still, you could say "We've updated analog film technology with the absolute best in modern engineering" (assuming that's factually true)
"A Contemporary Tool, Not a Retro Gesture" also AI slop, something like "A contemporary version of a beloved retro style" or something is factual and earnest.
"Each WideluxX™ image is created in a single continuous exposure, capturing space and time as they unfold, right in front of your eyes." -> "Single continuous exposures panaromas over (whatever aspect ratio / etc) which split the difference between photographs and short films, giving the appearance of active motion" (or whatever, I didn't read too much about what it actually does)
"Who's it for? WideluxX™ is for photographers who enjoy shaping an image through timing, movement, and perspective — and for those drawn to finely made mechanical cameras." -> this is alright, but not great; I'd prefer it to be less fluffy, like "WideLux is for lovers of finely-made mechanical cameras and film photography who want to play with a new style of photography that opens up new artistic opportunities.
"Working with WideluxX™ means allowing space for surprise—images shaped by light, movement, and the unfolding moment." -> ugh. just delete this entirely.
"Designed to endure, the WideluxX™ can be adjusted, repaired, and restored—much like a mechanical watch." no shit it's mechanical of course it can be. this one isn't terrible but it's not great. delete the "designed to endure" (and de-sloppify it a bit)
also personal preference but having "^tm" on everything cheapens the hell out of it. I'm sure there's some sketchy legal reason for it but it looks stupid and makes everything feel plastic and corporate.
Anyway, the trick (which is not a trick) is to write things that are true and sincere and treat the reader like a human being. If you wouldn't say something to someone's face without them wanting to punch you, don't write it on your website. If you don't have factual things to say that make people want to buy your product, make a better product. No opinion about whether this is better for sales funnels, don't even care. But it will make me respect the company more.
2 replies →
They use AI for that probably
The camera abides.
The originals were mechanical challenges.
It really ties the room together.
It seems to suffer from an un-necessary amount of panoramic distortion, unless that is supposed to be part of the charm.
That is indeed part of the charm. The people who like swing lens panoramic cameras like the Widelux like that look. The alternative is something like the Hasselblad Xpan, or even just a panoramic crop from a regular camera. A swing lens does something unique.
I'm curious, is it generally used hand-held, as in the website's pics? I would guess that it adds wobbling on top of the distortion (maybe a less desirable feat).
1 reply →
Huh ... he must have picked up some engineering knowledge in the grid.
The "single exposure" brag is a bit silly. Since it's a swinging lens one side of the frame will be older than the other.
This is being pedantic. Actually, I'm not even sure it's pedantic so much as just wrong. Such is also the case for rolling shutter cameras, the top of the frame is older than the bottom. That's why you get strange artifacts when recording video of fast rotating objects on your smartphone. But we still call it a single exposure.
That's a fair point. I was comparing the claim to rolling vs global shutter rather than "take a photo, rotate, take a photo." You can, however, get a true global shutter single exposure panorama using anamorphic lenses.
Huh. Panoramic cameras. That had not occurred to us, Dude.
[dead]
[dead]
I don't see, what Jeff Bridges has actively to do with it. Besides being the marketing bait. Thr about us section just repeats the pr biography. What was his part in this camera?
Jeff Bridges is a photographer (among other things) who’s been shooting with Widelux cameras for 40+ years. He’s the co-founder of the company who’s creating this revival. It would not exist without him.
TIL Jeff Bridges isn't just a pretty accomplished actor, but also a photographer who got an award and released multiple photo books [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/photography/2019/12/04/did-yo...
2 replies →
Right. The whole revival was his idea, according to the story told by the other founders. Also, presumably he has funded the whole effort so far.
A lot of effort was put in to minimize the rolling shutter effect in digital cameras, and here we are implementing it on purpose for film!