L-45A Camera…Time To Bring It Forward?

[OK-944]

Scott...the tolerances I'd mentioned were from the prototype files. The production files are buried and I won't be able to get to these anytime soon...but I do remember that some of the tolerances were changed for production - some tighter, some looser. Wanted to post this here and not just go back to edit because you might have otherwise missed this.

[GH85Carrera]

Digital backs for a 4x5 is a real challenge. I doubt anyone makes a sensor that big, and if they did it would cost a large fortune. That just leaves the "scanning back" and those are great for static objects, but you can't shoot portraits or anything in a short exposure.

The aerial photography company I worked for paid $490,000 for the Wild (Leica) RC-30. It had a lens that was 150 pounds. It used 9 inch wide rolls of film, 500 feet long. A single exposure was 10 bucks with processing, at the raw cost. It was mounted in a $20,000 gyroscopic mount. Bolted to a Cessna 206 with a 20 inch hole in the floor. The mount would keep the camera lens pointed straight down as the airplane buffeted, or had to tilt the wings or nose up or down while in the air. The exposure was 1/1000th of a second, and the film actually moved inside the camera during the exposure, to compensate for the forward motion of the airplane. The camera we bought was the 3rd to the last aerial film camera Leica made. It was the final peak and end of the road for film based aerial camera.

Now they are mostly door stops or display pieces.



This is the camera body and magazines in one box, and the lens is in the other box. The most expensive load I ever hauled in my El Camino.


This the lens with the lifting handle-cover on it. To drop it into place into the airplane it was best to have two men lower it down, or one really tough man.


This is the rear element. The metal square is 9x9 inches.

[Scott Douglas]

Originally Posted by OK-944

Scott...the tolerances I'd mentioned were from the prototype files. The production files are buried and I won't be able to get to these anytime soon...but I do remember that some of the tolerances were changed for production - some tighter, some looser. Wanted to post this here and not just go back to edit because you might have otherwise missed this.

Thanks for that info. I've worked with the line-to-line fit of +1/0/-1 tolerances before. Mostly making parts my brother designed while at TRW. And yes, when working with black hard anodize you have to work backwards in order to get the fit you want. Very early in my career as a machinist I was given the task of making a coining machine my brother had come up with on one of his projects. The original machine was made from steel, but the users had 'acid' hands and it was deteriorating quickly, so they had me make another one. I convinced them to change the material to aluminum so it wouldn't 'rust'. Hard anodizing was the answer to how do we make it last long enough to finish the project. Machining micrometer threads for the anvil drive was challenging since I hadn't been a machinist for that long at the time. When I finished the project I considered it one of my most satisfying accomplishments. The only drawing I'd been given was a full assembly drawing that was the size of my mill when put up on the wall. I look back now and think they were really trying to scare me out of becoming a machinist. This was all done on a manual Tree mill, no CNC involved as they were just getting into that kind of technology in the model shops where I was working.
A lot of times the 'production' tolerances were the same as the 'prototype' tolerances. That's just how it is in the satellite business.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. This is a really cool project you have here.

[unclebilly]

PM me. I may be able to help.

[OK-944]

Thanks Unclebilly...check your inbox!

Scott - thanks for the understanding ear! The machine needs to look, and perform, as a unique whole...and not just as a bunch of disparate parts, lest it become a "frankencamera." Lots of folks, in considering the manufacturing process, don't seem to get this.

Glen that aerial camera is amazing! (I’ve been a Leica user since way back when). I have two heroes in the realm of aerial photography - one being William Garnett who was active back in the 1940's through '80s...the other being Bradford Washburn - who I actually met when he was ninety years old and still full of energy and enthusiasm. At any rate, if you are not familiar with Bradford’s work, you owe it to yourself to check it out!

[Steve Carlton]

OK-944 - I'd love to see more examples of images from your camera, especially links to larger images than Pelican allows.

[OK-944]

Steve...I'll pm you and give my website info. If you check my earlier photo-based thread ("Bread and Puppet" theater subject line), you'll see images posted there of the horizontal enlarger and large processing tank which I've built which enable me to print up to 40x60 inches. Kind of crazy in terms of "what can possibly go wrong?" - but the results, when finally dialed in...are well worth the wasted sheets of photo paper!

[Scott Douglas]

You might think this is weird, but I'd love to handle your camera. I know how those pieces would feel with the radii you used on the corners, even the smaller ones.
I just love a well machined piece of aluminum.

[Scott Douglas]

Rather than the 'lightning' holes in the slide pieces, I think I would have come up with a bridge work of webs all triangulated to remove material. I remember one engineer that made a mount like that and it was a thing of beauty and strong as all get out.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by OK-944

Thanks Unclebilly...check your inbox!

Scott - thanks for the understanding ear! The machine needs to look, and perform, as a unique whole...and not just as a bunch of disparate parts, lest it become a "frankencamera." Lots of folks, in considering the manufacturing process, don't seem to get this.

Glen that aerial camera is amazing! (I’ve been a Leica user since way back when). I have two heroes in the realm of aerial photography - one being William Garnett who was active back in the 1940's through '80s...the other being Bradford Washburn - who I actually met when he was ninety years old and still full of energy and enthusiasm. At any rate, if you are not familiar with Bradford’s work, you owe it to yourself to check it out!

The man that hired me to come to work at his aerial photography company was 80 years old when he hired me. He started the business in 1947 and his archive of aerial negatives were astonishing. He loved to fly and take pictures. The day he turned 90 it was impossible for him to get insurance to fly the plane, and take photos. That took his fun away, and he sold the company and in his words, took early retirement at age 92. He made his last airplane flight as pilot in command on his 92nd birthday and never flew again. He was 99, with a tack sharp mind, and kissed his wife goodnight and he walked himself up the stars to the bedroom. She came up a few hours later and found him dead from a heart attack.

The company that bought the business was great, when the dad ran it. The idiot son took over the business. He killed our company with his idiocy and shut it down. He ended up throwing away that fantastic archive of negatives away. That should be a crime, but it was his property.

We started our aerial company right after we were fired. Best thing that could have happened.

[OK-944]

Scott - not weird at all...I've had folks who upon seeing me with my camera come up to me and say "I would just love to touch that!" Pretty cool actually!

Glen, sorry to hear about that business going south after falling into what turned out to be the wrong hands. Always iffy to let something like this go (which is kind of on my mind at this point!), but good for you for turning things around!

Oh...and how cool is that - to take "early retirement" at age 92? Be tack sharp at 99, kiss his wife (turned out to be goodbye), and keel over? What was the name of that book..."Live Long - Die Fast?" Sounds like this guy could have written that book!

[GH85Carrera]

Yep, he did life right. I called him when he was just 98 and asked if he knew the number for the plumber he used. He just rattled off the guys name, and phone number off the top of his head.

No long hospital stay, no nursing home.

Having that idiot son fire us and close the business was the best thing that ever happened to me job wise. I prefer to be the owner of the company, and work from home.

[unclebilly]

Your prototype is beautiful.

I hate to be the turd in the sandbox but…

I am a professional at bringing products to market. I’m a professional engineer and was once pretty into analog photography.

I’d really like to assist with this project but I fear that like many other ‘inventions’, the developer has painted himself into a corner because of poor market research and no business plan. This is why there has been no VC investment or a purchase by other camera makers who fully understand the business.

This is a comparable 4x5 camera. It is 1/2 the weight and at $1310 is 1/10th the target price for this camera.

https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45f2

At $10,000 - $15,000 each for these cameras, how many do you think you could sell total? How many in a year? How big is the market for a 4x5 camera that costs the same as a new Honda Civic? Depending on the lens (if you plan to include one at that price point), your cost will be $500-$1000 each depending on volume. The margins look attractive at first glance.

How much do you think marketing will cost? You aren’t going to get these into the right hands for under $20,000 - possibly 2-3 time that. You have no brand.

Just doing quick napkin math, any investor is going to look at your $15k valuation, double it for unforeseen costs, add the cost of a marketing campaign at $20k, then he still needs to make parts to sell and assemble them.

To do this, the cost to an investor is minimum $50k and he has a camera that costs $500 - $1000 each to manufacture and competes directly with a $1310 product that has 1/2 the weight.

My estimate is that there is maybe a market for 20 or less of these over 5 years at $15,000. Maybe 25 over 5 years at $10,000, and likely 500 at $2500 over 5 years.

Doing quick math, this works out to $50,000/500 cameras or $100 each for the sunk costs, $1000 each for manufacturing, and at least $700 each for cost of sales (unless you plan to direct market which still is not free). At the end of the day, you have a $1800 cost per camera. Your gross profit is $350,000 over 5 years.

What if you can’t sell them for more than the $1310 competition?

Did you ever do a realistic business plan? What were your assumptions? How did they differ from mine?

How do you plan to pay yourself or any employees?

[LEAKYSEALS951]

I'll throw something out there. Just an idea- not necessarily a good one. Perhaps a high end kit camera. No one needs a 904 model or a porsche engine model.

Why not a high end crafty DIY model that you could take pics with at the end of the day?
Even if it had to be redesigned in a more cost friendly package.

edit- sure it's been done or discounted before.

[OK-944]

Unclebilly, you make some great points...many thanks.

But by almost every metric, that Chamonix does not come close and is a very different animal. To find something close to "comparable," you'd need to look at the current offerings from Linhof, Sinar, and Arca.

At any rate...thanks again.

[unclebilly]

Ok - seriously, I want to help with this because I really like what you have come up with and I know I came across harsh.

I sent this thread to a friend of mine, also an engineer and a photographer thinking this might be of interest to him.

He sent me the link to the Chamonix having just ordered one.

The Chamonix is sold out. It looks like this is the 2nd or 3rd run to sell out so this tells me a couple things.

1. There is a strong market at $1310.
2. They are not making enough in their production runs.
3. They are not charging enough.

Where do you think the market is on these? There is an high point on the price / demand curve and this is where you want to be. You need to build a product that fits that sweet spot and has enough margin to make a few bucks.

I think you have something here. I don’t know that you can sell enough at $15k each but given that your camera is a premium over the Chamonix, maybe $5k is realistic.

I think you can build these for $1000 each with labour.

Camera store markup on something like this is likely 30% or more. I think this is where direct sales becomes important to keep as much margin in your jeans as possible.

Have you thought about parts and service and what that model looks like?

[Zeke]

I'm not an engineer, am a fairly poor photographer, but I know little about marketing. Unclebilly has some strong points. I looked at the number of off-the-shelf pieces vs. proprietary ones and with some refinements aimed at simplifying, the camera looks doable to me.

With billy's estimate of 1K each to manufacture say 100, $15,000 retail seems out of whack.

Brand? Well, that can be as simple as a publicity stunt. One has to be really dedicated and sure to bring a product to market.

The best of all strategies is to expand the awareness of the product (through trade shows and exhibitions such as the field work shown above) to create a market. Then sell the rights to a manufacturer with established sales channels for a healthy advance on royalties and sit back and watch.

Let them brand it.

BTW, the wood prototype is a work of art. I'd certainly capitalize on that.

[OK-944]

Unfortunate about the forum’s “timeout” last weekend - but a good thing for me as I think I’d gotten a bit ahead of myself.

But many thanks for the very thoughtful and insightful questions and comments…which gives me even more to chew on as I’ll be taking time during the next couple of months to take stock of this project so I can decide how I want to proceed.

And thanks also for helping to facilitate some insightful dialogue relating to analog photography. Interesting I think…the kinship that I’m guessing is felt by many here relative to the equally analog nature of our beloved P-Cars. (Am I right?).

Speaking of which…my 944’s cruise control components are downstairs on my workbench - and I can hear them calling out to me! Thanks again!

[masraum]

Originally Posted by unclebilly

Ok - seriously, I want to help with this because I really like what you have come up with and I know I came across harsh.

I sent this thread to a friend of mine, also an engineer and a photographer thinking this might be of interest to him.

He sent me the link to the Chamonix having just ordered one.

The Chamonix is sold out. It looks like this is the 2nd or 3rd run to sell out so this tells me a couple things.

1. There is a strong market at $1310.
2. They are not making enough in their production runs.
3. They are not charging enough.

Where do you think the market is on these? There is an high point on the price / demand curve and this is where you want to be. You need to build a product that fits that sweet spot and has enough margin to make a few bucks.

I think you have something here. I don’t know that you can sell enough at $15k each but given that your camera is a premium over the Chamonix, maybe $5k is realistic.

I think you can build these for $1000 each with labour.

Camera store markup on something like this is likely 30% or more. I think this is where direct sales becomes important to keep as much margin in your jeans as possible.

Have you thought about parts and service and what that model looks like?

I'm assuming this camera is not really designed or marketed for "regular" photographers that would buy a $1500 4x5. I'm assuming that there is a very limited and specialized target group for this camera.

[Scott Douglas]

That's what I was thinking too, Steve. That Chamonix camera is for people who want to 'dabble' in large format photography without being too deeply involved or committed.
This L-45A is for someone who is really into this type of photography and doesn't mind spending money to get the best camera available.
Take a look at this guys thread over on the rangefinder forum:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/177091
He is the type that could/would be interested in what the L-45A offers, IMO. [But he's probably already so heavily invested in his cameras he'd have a problem justifying a switch.]