Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

[SMBooth]

We know for sure that the ƒ/8 types fit... I haven't checked the big ƒ/6.8 lenses yet, but I believe they should fit. Really, only one lens fits "perfectly", and that's the Angulon (not Super) ƒ6.8. The Super Angulons and similar have a longer FFD by design (to make them easier to use on view cameras). For us means you have to start with the helical partially extended, which means you lose close focus. (With the original Angulon, you can focus down to about 2-3 feet.)

Ben, whats the internal diameter and depth of the lens cone, then people can measure the rear element and decided for them self if the lens will fit inside. I assume the len mounting hole is for a Copal 0.

Best of luck.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, whats the internal diameter and depth of the lens cone, then people can measure the rear element and decided for them self if the lens will fit inside. I assume the len mounting hole is for a Copal 0.

Best of luck.

Because the rear element is conical, it's not especially easy to measure. Justin posted that the ID of the helical is around 80mm... But even if your rear element is wider than 80mm, it could fit, as long as it can clear 80mm at the place where that lip is.

I think even the ƒ/5.6 giants could technically fit, but without any clearance to get your fingers or a lens wrench in there to tighten it to the camera. But really, we made this thing for the Angulon ƒ/6.8, and made sure ƒ/8's could fit too. Anything else is probably an expensive lens that you shouldn't put on a $99 camera with a relatively narrow hand grip. The ƒ/5.6 would be so radically front weighted that I guarantee it will slip right out of your hand and land on the pavement, lens-first.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup. I'll order one for sure.

[Shootar401]

Why not make it modular where you can swap out cones for a 90mm or 65mm with a back common for both? I wouldn't buy one if it was for 90mm (already have a camera for that) but if you made one for a 65mm I'd buy one for sure, especially if you can hit $99.

[dave_whatever]

But If its only $99 then why push up the cost by making it modular? Just buy two!

[Ben Syverson]

Why not make it modular where you can swap out cones for a 90mm or 65mm with a back common for both? I wouldn't buy one if it was for 90mm (already have a camera for that) but if you made one for a 65mm I'd buy one for sure, especially if you can hit $99.

In a nutshell, it doesn't make sense. The cone is the expensive part to produce, and now all of a sudden you need to find a way to attach it to the body, which makes it more complex.

So basically, we can sell you a $99 unibody camera, or a $40 camera and $99 lens cone.

Cost aside, why would you want to spend time in the field detaching and reattaching cones? The cone itself is what takes up space and weight, so there's nothing convenient about carrying one body with multiple cones. It's much easier to simply carry multiple cameras.

Unibody is the way to go. It makes the camera tougher, lighter, simpler, cheaper, and reduces a point of entry for light and dust.

[Corran]

I'd still like to see a super-wide-angle model at some point. I'd buy one for a 47 or 58 XL. Bonus points for some sort of collapsible body.

[Ben Syverson]

We certainly don't want to rule anything out... I would love to make a version for every major focal length up to 150mm. It really comes down to whether or not this Kickstarter is successful, and if it is, how many production units we sell. The best way you guys can help is to spread the word once we launch!

[Nicolasllasera]

You guys have my word that I have and will continue spreading the word in Spain! I have a few friends who are going for one.

[EdoNork]

I can confirm Nicolas is spreading the Word here