Kodak factory tour: How does Kodak make film? [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
This was shortly before the very steep decline in Kokak's business. That year there were over 14,000 employees working just at that one facility (Elmgrove). Our start and end times were staggered in 5 minute increments to manage traffic flow. Kodak now employs only about 5000 worldwide. Kodak famously invented the digital camera around 1975. But they failed to envision a future without film.
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/20...
https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/kodaks-first-digit...
> But they failed to envision a future without film.
I'm not sure this is true. I think Kodak had no way of salvaging their business. They used to make a dime every time someone pressed the shutter on a camera. That type of revenue stream simply doesn't exist.
Of course, they could have become a completely different company, but there was no one company that dominated photography in the post-film world.
They definitely screwed up not developing the digital camera more - does not make sense to me why they even invested the money developing one in the first place.
What would you have even put a photo onto to view it in 1975? A television I guess - at 320x240 NTSC resolution. Which is wildly inferior to an actual photograph in terms of quality at that time (35mm negatives are around 20 megapixels at 75 lp/mm).
How would you have distributed it? Photo CD? CDs weren't standardized for another 5 years. Laserdisc I guess? Not standard equipment for anyone at the time (even leaving aside that nobody had PCs either).
In 1975, the market for digital photography would have consisted of: satellite reconnaissance, military applications, and wire-service news photography. Military applications and wire-service being large fixed-installation cameras and not a SLR format.
Bear in mind, this is what a digital camera looked like in 1991, let alone in 1975: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_100
Blasting Kodak for "not envisioning a future without film" in 1975 is like blasting IBM for not envisioning the personal computer in 1950. They were correct that the worldwide market for computers didn't exist at that time. And when the opportunity came to pivot - like the DCS-100 - they largely did. The military were early adopters of that for special operations teams for example.
What they didn't do was dive into consumer photography aggressively in the early 00s. And I'm sure that seemed like a reasonable business decision at the time: margins were much lower for consumer gear than professional, and kodak was not really a semiconductor firm.
Anyway, "kodak could have become kings of digital photography!" is one of those bits that has just sunk into the pop-culture psyche but isn't really true at all. Much like the IBM "there is only a worldwide market for five computers" line - they actually were right at the time they made that observation. The real problem was that when the time was right they were too blinded by their higher-margin businesses to pivot, but 1975 was not it.
The world was nowhere near ready for consumer digital photography in 1975 and it doesn't even pass the smell test that it might possibly have been. There's about another five technologies you really needed before digital photography could have become a thing commercially let alone viable for consumers.
Look at the second link I had posted originally. It has a nice photo of that first digital camera. I was built by a 24 year old new hire:
"Soon after arriving at Kodak, Mr. Sasson was given a seemingly unimportant task — to see whether there was any practical use for a charged coupled device (C.C.D.), which had been invented a few years earlier."
All that to say: Learning something new that is completely outside your current comfort zone is great, and watching it live was a wonderful experience.
There's a lot in the background before you see the actual video. Destin is one of those people who would prepare a ton before going in to shoot so that he doesn't waste time (both his and the people he's interviewing). It's how he is able to get access, for example, to the nuclear sub series.
You can tell by the prepared equations, etc that he has all ready. He won't know the information that the interviewees will tell him (since it's a learning journey) - but you better believe he does his homework before he goes.
For example, in the Coast Guard zig zag search pattern video, you can tell that he was doing his research in between visits to different coast guard stations. at the beginning he was like "what is search pattern" and by the end of the video, he was feeding the coast guard questions, etc - and that's all in 1 video, shot over a long length of time - it's not like he just goes in without learning more about the things that he's going to ask his interviewees. It's more like a knowledge search pattern, and with each interview he learns more. And that's all stitched together in 1 short 30 min video, when in reality that all took place over several months or even a whole year, etc.
Destin does his research and calculations. He just doesn't show it on the video itself.
Also in some videos you can see him trying to test his own knowledge in order to have the interviewee tell him that his understanding is wrong. You can only do that if you know the field/subject already (and you're anticipating what the correct answer is).
Kinda like an instructor in a unix class feeding a question to the class - well, why don't we just sudo everything? - and having the students reject you by saying what you really wanted to say, that using sudo is a security risk. Makes for better instructional video.
film has also become really popular among gen Z recently, as evidenced by the meteoric rise of prices of used point-and-shoots, and i’m seeing a lot more film photos on instagram as well.
Not at all: https://emulsive.org/reviews/film-reviews/film-list/every-si...
There are also a few new film producers coming around. Film Ferrania (https://www.filmferrania.com/) I'm most excited about as it's the first new analog film factory built. You can see a full list of current film producers and film stocks here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photographic_films
Then again the place is clearly ancient and their stock price has been sliding for years so I’m sure it’s not all roses.
I'm a big SED fan, and love watching it with my kids especially, I just found the podcast to come off as lacking any kind of self-awareness.
Depending on where you are, buying from a second-hand camera shop is a good avenue because you'll get some sort of warranty, and you can also ensure the camera is working before you buy it.
I highly recommend the Nikon FM2 instead of the FE or the Pentax MX
I don't have a better answer though - I still buy from them from time to time. eBay is the big alternative if you're looking for something specific. Note that Japanese sellers list a lot of stuff on ebay but they tend to do it at fairly high BIN prices that don't necessarily move instantly - so don't look at those prices and think that's normal, they're just waiting for someone with a nice thick wallet to get impatient. The prices stuff actually sells at will be much lower.
Pentax MX is a good camera though, very similar to the FM2 (although lacking the 1/2000th shutter of the FM2n). Maybe you're thinking of the Pentax ME, which (like the Nikon FE/FG) are another early-electronics camera and suffered very high failure rates over the years (with depleted spare parts reserves at this point). Nothing wrong with the MX though - it's a mechanical workhorse, small, reliable, bright viewfinder. I'd actually categorize it as an underappreciated gem, even though it's fairly well-appreciated in the Pentax community.
Most of those left in the world need repair or at least CLA.
Both are why there aren't twenty Nikon FE's for sale at KEH right now.
So buy an old rangefinder and spend some of the savings on a decent light meter.
There are billions of working rangefinders on eBay.
They are simpler mechanically so less likely to be broken and are easier to repair yourself.
And by owning a light meter, all-mechanical cameras become an option.
(as opposed to the mechanical rube-goldberg approach of previous models - a camera is basically a series of mousetraps each springing the next mousetrap in the series. Pushing the button triggers the mirror and the stopdown lever, the mirror triggers the shutter curtain, the curtain triggers the flash and the timer, the timer triggers the second curtain, the second curtain triggers the mirror down, etc etc. Electronics let you orchestrate that all a lot more simply, but early electronics weren't as reliable in the long run.)
Generally, people seem to go for all-mechanical cameras (usually only the light meter is electronic, or sometimes they don't have a light meter) because at least those are repairable when they break. For the Nikon line the FM1 and FM2 and FM2n are very popular, the F and F2, as well as the Nikkormats. For Pentax, the highest end camera is the LX, but they are known as somewhat flaky, the MX is very common and a very nice camera with an extremely large and bright viewfinder.
In general you may just have to resign yourself to buying something and sending it in to be serviced. You can seek out someone else who's already done it for you, and maybe you can get a better deal like that vs buying something cheap and sending it in yourself, but either way, they are mechanical devices and someone has to clean and lube them every 20 years or so.
Unfortunately a lot of the people who do that repair are extremely old at this point, a lot of them did repair work at $BRAND service centers in the 70s and 80s and branched out on their own when it closed down. But there is no equivalent pipeline training new repairmen and when they die, that's it, the knowledge dies with them. And a lot of them have warehoused a lot of parts, and unless someone else buys the whole lot then parts get a lot tougher when they die too. So if you want something, don't hesitate, buy it and get it serviced and hopefully you will only run into minor cleaning/seal replacement/etc type issues.
As usual, 90% Of Everything Is Crap. Nobody wants to shoot a Kodak Pony 135 (or even something like the Argus C3, which I'd argue is actually OK in comparison...). The stuff that's spiking in price is the premium, professional-tier gear that people actually want and that can produce high-quality results. There is also a preference for certain name-brands that have better service chains or parts availability as a whole - I have no idea who I'd send a Kowa or Tokina (or even Canon FD) camera to, but someone is always going to be able to service Nikon or Hasselblad. The ability to put modern glass like Sigma or Samyang onto an older Pentax or Nikon body is really nice too, it gives you a full-frame body fairly cheaply, so "mount is still in use today" is a bonus IMO.
(note you don't need to buy a digital of the same brand... mirrorless cameras can use almost all the glass if you focus and stopdown manually, and this is actually more accurate because most digital cameras aren't designed for manual focusing, while mirrorless usually have some helper functionality like "focus peaking" on the Sony line...)
I personally think coatings are one under-appreciated characteristic. Pentax was a very early mover on multi-coatings with "SMC", Nikon had their own version that is alright, Hasselblad struck a deal where they adopted SMC as the T* coating in exchange for trading a license to the Distagon lens design (SMC Pentax K28/2 and SMC Pentax 67 55/4 late variant), Fuji had the "EBC" multi-coating. A lot of other 70s cameras either were single-coated or had inferior multi-coatings, and suffer from flare much more heavily. When Pentax's SMC patents expired in the early 90s, everybody else quietly copied SMC because it was just so far ahead of everyone else.
Sorry I don't have more specific information about pricing, but it's been years since I really looked, and I was kinda shocked by the prices I saw recently too. I don'tknow that I would have paid the prices these days either, some stuff is 4x or more what I paid 10-15 years ago. But maybe this helps explain some of the market psychology a bit.
I personally think the Pentax MX and Nikon FM/FM2/FM2n or Nikkormat FT2n are some of the best options all around, but I'm sure everyone else has realized that too. I mostly shoot medium format these days, and the Fuji GW690 and GSW690 are still fairly reasonable and provide top-tier optical quality.
Then again it is probably one of my favorite cameras of all time
I started shooting film about 2 years ago. Within a few months, I had my first medium-format camera, and I was developing my own black-and-white film in my bathroom. The (relatively) slow, intentional pace required to operate a 60s/70s SLR is calming for me. At the same time, that era isn't so far past that the ergonomics of the camera are unrecognizable. Sure, a digital camera is substantially better for any practical purpose. But as a hobby? Give me the film.
In short: If there's an old film camera sitting in your basement (or a relative's basement), go find it. Go for a walk, and take it with you.
Eastman (or related affiliates) also make a lot of film for window tinting, and a friend of mine in the biz occasionally will get a roll with floating particles or an insect.
Yes. Patent literally means the opposite of latent (hidden).
[0] https://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
Edit: I forgot that patents are only valid for 20 years, but at any given moment there were still likely to be thousands of valid patents.
But yeah all them jucy patents from the 90's were extremely desirable.
Kodak basically invented the modern digital camera. They made the first digital still image sensor, had the first commercially available DSLR and pretty much owned the (admittedly very small) Pro DSLR market in the early-mid 90s.
However management was scared that digital would eat into their film profits and pretty much killed their digital business.
The lions share of their profit came from producing the chemicals and equipment used to develop the film. The digital switch wouldn't have "eaten into" their profits, it would have required a massive restructuring and refocusing of the company and they would lose most of their employees in the process.
Of course they didn't, and it happened anyway, just a few years later. I'm not saying it was a good decision, but it would have been an incredibly difficult decision to go the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineon
They had an end-to-end (scanning, compositing, film out) 4K system back in the early 90s. They were able to crack the colour technology allowing for an image to be accurately represented and recorded back out to film without deterioration. I believe they pioneered using Lasers for this (Kodak Lightning Film Recorder).
*I don't know if it was actually RGB or a YUV type of format. I never asked. I was just told separate color channels, and assumed RGB on my own.
I've heard for some of the 3 strip technicolor restorations, they scan the 3 individual B&W camera negative rolls separately (red, green, blue) and do the technicolor printing process in software effectively. This can give better results if the final technicolor print has issues.
*Restoration has multiple stages like film scratch removal, dust removal, color correction, shape restoration from any warping/shrinking in the film being scanned, etc. Lots of work goes into this that most people never even consider
It's a good video, Kodak are open and answer questions. The chemicals later might be more of a trade secret.
One of the big problems with film is the cost. I was surprised to find out last year that disposable cameras cost an average of $25 after you factor in development.
I've been working on a new product called Later Cam that turns your phone into a disposable camera and automatically mails you the prints. I just published this video about it last night: https://www.tiktok.com/@latercam/video/7078825219833580843
I'm excited to watch this series over the weekend. This reminds me of a Boston-area envelope factory where I create all the envelopes for a photo delivery service I operate, NanaGram.co (Text your photos and we'll mail glossy, frameable 4x6 prints to your nana). USA manufacturing is awesome to see and support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toVfvRhWbj8 Do watch it if you are interested in IC engines/ photography/ fluid dynamics or you're just curious about everything.
I understand it comes with the territory in the US south (he's also a devout christian, another hallmark of that archetype) but it's just not something I can stomach. Weapons of war are cool tech but we shouldn't be actively promoting ways we can kill other human beings, and we absolutely should not be promoting taking those types of jobs as a reasonable or legitimate choice.
When we promote content, we do so in a wider context: we are also promoting the creator of that content, and their views on society, and our attention and linking is materially enriching them to further those views. Watching his videos and suggesting that others do the same literally puts money in his pocket to advance this worldview.
However, I think that just because a person holds a different view on things we should accept that and not disregard other things this person does based on a diverging worldview. This tolerance can of course have boundaries, but these boundaries should be reasonably broad.
I can accept him, and will interact with him, but I won't do things that put money in his pocket to further advertise his views. Increasing his view counts, either via my watching, or my linking others to watch, does that. I am morally opposed to doing that. It's nothing to do with "the ability to accept or interact" with him; I just won't fund him.
> In my country there used to be a mandatory military service or alternatively a longer civilian service; I choose the latter
I'm sorry that your country condoned slavery. These sorts of policies and laws will eventually be condemned universally by history once they fall out of fashion.
Now I am truly at a loss for words
Using words like "slavery" just for added effect is not good style.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water here.
Entirely professional armed forces risk filling up with people who actually want to go to war and shoot people. Conscription is a moderating force. You want a more representative selection. Americans probably wouldn’t vote for so many disastrous foreign interventions if they would have to personally fly over and do it themselves.
Carry on!
> I'm sorry that your country condoned slavery. These sorts of policies and laws will eventually be condemned universally by history once they fall out of fashion.
Tell that to the people in Ukraine, which has mandatory service:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Ukraine
For more open societies, the people themselves can decide what is part of the social contract. Some places have made the collective choice that citizens being able to defend against external threats is a good thing. Not everyone has friendly neighbours.
It is no different than taxation (IMHO): through their representatives, people have chosen that each person shall given up a portion of their income for the collective good. Under your logic taxation would be theft. Some societies have decided that labour is part of what needs to be given up.
Nobody can decide for someone else that they should be enslaved.
I also inform others about the situation so they can make their own informed content consumption choices as may align with their own morals. Decisions are always better with more data, even if I don't agree with the ones others may reach.
I like his presentation otherwise, but I consider his information harmfully deceptive and thus mildly dangerous to watch.
Side note: I don't really agree with a lot of his other videos. Yet I am sharing this one, because I believe it's worthwhile and am not taking his other videos into account for a context that doesn't matter :)
It seems like you are implying that someone who works for the military cannot be religious or have morals. But even if your religious beliefs or morals prevent you from working for the military, surely you must recognize that there many people whose morals and religious beliefs do not conflict with military service. And that’s not being disingenuous, that’s just having a different point of view.
Couple that with a grinning photo of him sitting on top of an industrially-produced cannon-type weapon in that same video just made me uneasy. The end of every video on that channel has a bible verse citation so it's especially mind boggling. Isn't the fifth commandment "do not kill"? I believe if you're a religious person working in weapons development and choose to compartmentalize your beliefs for a paycheck then you are either naive or malicious, I don't know which is worse.
I see this a lot where people try to use christians’ beliefs against them to try pigeonhole them into thinking and acting a certain way, or call them hypocrites for not acting the way they believe christians should act. But religion is open to many different interpretations - just look at the number sects within every religion - and we shouldn’t really assume anything about a person’s beliefs just because they are “religious”.
My sense is that he genuinely believes that the military performs a necessary role, and has a lot of interesting components, and is just trying to show that to the world. And we shouldn’t be so quick to label someone a shill just because we disagree with them.
Transparently advocating for people to join up with the military is no improvement. My issue is more fundamental than whether or not it is disclosed as an ad. My issue is with all of those who would promote violence as a solution to problems, regardless of how such promotion is carried out.
You are completely delusional. Nobody wants war, but the truth of the matter is might makes right. We must be good at making war not because we want fighting, but because we want to be so good at it that other countries cannot just take over. You can choose to abstain from war, but you will quickly lose to those who do not. And those who do not may have systems and politics that make life much, much worse for those in the country.
Conspiracy by definition means secrecy. As the previous poster said, he’s been more than open that he worked on rockets for the military and his relationship with it. I don’t think there’s any secrecy here.
> My issue is with all of those who would promote violence as a solution to problems
I strongly promote non-violence, but there is always value in speaking softly and carrying a big stick. You need to be able to defend yourself or someone less keen on non-violence will obliterate you.
Sometimes force is the solution to problems. If the Ukrainians didn't respond to Russia's violence in kind, do you think they'd still have their own country?
That is all well and good up until the point where the other side uses violence against you and yours to get their way. Human nature, sadly, takes a very long time to change while destroying the lives and works of others takes much less time.
Most of us are appalled at the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine. While we all wish it would just stop with fine talk and reason at this point only the bravery of the Ukrainian people and the use of defensive weapons is going to limit Russia's advances until they see no further benefit from what they are doing.
An open, democratic and pacifist society can only continue to exist if it defeats those who try to end it.
War is awful. It's horrific and has killed millions and traumatized or impacted millions and millions more. But someone has to be good at it. Because if we as a nation decide to not be the best at it, someone else will. And I would much rather have the United States and it's moral systems be running things than our enemies.
>I understand it comes with the territory in the US south
Please, please, please stop talking about the south as a monolith. Or as if you are somehow so above the dumb hicks in the south, who are not enlightened with your amazing views such as "why don't we just stop killing eachother?".
>When we promote content, we do so in a wider context: we are also promoting the creator of that content, and their views on society, and our attention and linking is materially enriching them to further those views
This is such a horrible and terrible way to think about things on the internet. This type of thinking is how you get extremists and complete and utter polarization. Because when you not just unconsciously surround yourself with media that only you agree with, but WILLFULLY do it, you hurt yourself and make extremism even more likely. And that's only for things that are relevant - you are going a step further, and taking this to a level that makes no sense. If you were in charge of hiring people, would you never hire anyone who was pro-military? You putting money in their pocket is enriching them to help further their views which are oh-so-terrible. This type of thinking gets really bad, really fast, and it's not something we want to promote. It's exclusionary thinking that can only result in missing out on very talented people because of something that isn't actually relevant.
"I believe serious progress (in the abolition of war) can be achieved only when men become organized on an international scale and refuse, as a body, to enter military or war service."
- Albert Einstein (both quotes)
> If you were in charge of hiring people, would you never hire anyone who was pro-military? You putting money in their pocket is enriching them to help further their views which are oh-so-terrible. This type of thinking gets really bad, really fast, and it's not something we want to promote.
With the exception of those who are military veterans, who are a protected class in the United States for purposes of hiring (it's actually illegal to discriminate against them on that basis), yes, I can and do actively avoid hiring anyone pro-military who is not presently (and has not been) actually in the military (which is the maximum extent permitted by law).
There's no injustice in discrimination for purposes of association when such discrimination is based on the informed, adult choices of a person (as opposed to someone's inbuilt traits, which they have no control over). We rightfully discriminate during hiring based on whether or not someone chose to attend university, whether or not someone chooses to espouse racist views, whether or not someone chooses to use or avoid certain technologies, whether or not someone has chosen to develop (or not) their social skills, whether or not someone chooses to move to the location of the proposed job offer. These are great and useful.
Freedom of association is one of our most powerful tools for improving society (both in the macro, as well as in the micro, such as in a company or organization). We don't owe anyone our time or attention or association (or YouTube views) if we don't agree with the kind of world they're trying to build.
It also makes for a nicer workplace when you opt to avoid hiring people who are racist, or pro-violence, or anti-human-rights, or anti-equal-application-of-the-law, or any manner of a big list of optional adult choices that tell you a lot about a person's thinking (or lack thereof) about the world around them.
(Before the straw man argument: this is not an argument for hiring people who are "just like me", or only who share my views, or an embracing of the status quo, or any of the other obvious traps that are endemic in hiring. This is an argument for exercising judgement on specific constrained topics which should be universal in a civilized culture and unfortunately are nowhere near universal in our current culture.)
If I am advocating for anything, it is to discriminate more using your own criteria to build a better world, however you see best to do that. It's fine if you have different opinions from me (maybe you want to prefer hiring military promoters or something?), the point is that we should be making these choices more consciously to steer society in the right directions.
These are mine. Yours will be different. Choose to be a moral person, and do what is right. We'll all get there together eventually, because there are vastly more of us who don't want violence (or violent ideologies) in our societies.
We discriminate on those things during hiring because all of them are directly relevant to the job. If you have a social job, you need good social skills. If you work with other people, then someone who makes the people around them or certain groups of people they work with/could potentially work with feel unsafe shouldn't be there. If you have to use a certain technology to do your job, and there is no reasonable workaround for that, then they aren't suitable for the job.
Discriminating on literally ANYTHING else, on ANYTHING that is not relevant to the job being done, is blatantly awful and should not be promoted on any level of any organization. This shouldn't even be a controversial issue.
>this is not an argument for hiring people who are "just like me", or an embracing of the status quo. This is an argument for exercising judgement on specific topics which should be universal in a civilized culture.
What those specific topics are, or what you think should be "universal in a civilized culture", is completely up to each person. That's pretty much what political opinions are. And this type of thinking is the basis of a lot of discrimination that we should not be promoting in absolutely any way. If someone had a religion that promoted war , would you not hire them? What about if someone is from the south, and you haven't heard them be racist but you know how those southerners are. Is the law literally the only thing that's preventing you from saying no to these questions? If the answer to any of these are yes, then you are contributing to discrimination that has absolutely no place in the world.
Why? Organizations are always subsets of the world in which they operate, and I don't see how being picky about the types of people with whom one associates is any sort of inherent injustice (other than the fact that, if applied improperly, it may hinder or otherwise impede/impair the organization, or (again, if applied improperly) deny opportunity to the disadvantaged on the wrong/unjust basis).
If I theoretically wanted to never hire people who are, say, sports fanatics, what's bad about that (outside of the fact that it may or may not make my team perform better or worse)?
Or, for a more concrete example: I do actually refuse to hire people who are both a) presently addicted to nicotine and b) consume tobacco combustion smoke to service that addiction. My personal thesis is that not quitting smoking in 2022 (and further not switching to a vaporizer now that such is widely available) is correlated with a specific lack of important personality and cognitive traits that make someone maximally effective in life (and at work). Am I being awful, and why?
You seem to approach it as something inherently bad, and I'm curious as to why, because I don't see any (external) harm whatsoever in it, and I should be free to make bad(?) hiring decisions that potentially kneecap (or benefit) my own team/company if I choose.
In fact, given that people working within the team/company are entirely opt-in, I see the ability to shape a team on other important social axes using these sorts of methods as a very important competitive differentiator (for better or worse; one would hope it results in competitive advantage) with regards to attracting and retaining talent (from relatively insignificant "your coworkers won't be ashtray stinky" all the way up to things like "your coworkers won't be TERFs").
What's the social/moral downside? Is there one?
I don’t smoke but I’ll hire a smoker!
Aren't you precisely making the point that you would be discriminating on something relevant to the job being done?
As cool and as interesting as that was, it was kinda off-putting to realize how a big part of it was very much PR for the US military.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
What is not legitimate about wanting to defend your country and defend the principles and values that it lives by? Especially in the context of current world events.
This turned into a weird ad hominem attack.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
- * TOP MINT * Nikon 35Ti 35mm ... - $899 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/134054436349)
- 【Near MINT】Fujifilm TX-2 (Hasselblad Xpan II) ... - $4799 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/265571335419)