New mechanical panoramic film camera from Jeff Bridges(wideluxx.com) |
New mechanical panoramic film camera from Jeff Bridges(wideluxx.com) |
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/photography/2019/12/04/did-yo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/amiga/comments/obe3v6/95_year_old_d...
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.
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.
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...
That said, too much for me right now. Maybe someday.
[1] https://shop.lomography.com/us/sprocket-rocket-35-mm-film-pa...
- 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
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.
https://archive.nytimes.com/lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/3...
https://www.reddit.com/r/lebowski/comments/1rjcrfj/behindthe...
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.
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...
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.
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).
What Has Changed
- Modern precision
- Serviceable parts
- Modern glass
- Improved rewind
- Custom finishes
Interesting checkbox on the purchase page. I wonder what the implications are.
That does not apply to custom buildouts, like this camear.
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.
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.
> 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.
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'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.
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.
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!
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).
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!
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.
What qualifies as sincere? Who decides?
"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 ain't legal either.
completely different camera but it's a straight up camera and not strange format. for people who are serious/professional about photography multiple thousands is stiff but that's what they cost.
The craziest thing is seeing companies closing because of saturation, and prices of discontinued products shooting up immediately.
This is independent of warranty (which is something the manufacturer may or may not offer), or Gewährleistung (which concerns the vendor and is typically the easiest way of dealing with damaged or defective goods).
So far, I think there's no one for 35mm. For medium format shooters, there's the much bigger Fuji/Linhof 617. Of course pretty expensive. Perhaps 3D print is the only viable option...
The Infidex looks like a good option for 3D printing.
And there are 1-2 camera techs who will butcher an old 35mm SLR body, graft on an old press lens, and make it panoramic. But at that point, the body is just the film spool/winder. The old press lens has the shutter attached and controls exposure.
I believe that you made your point, and yet I also still think it's not a binary. There's certainly room for more flowery, metaphor-driven descriptions in marketing even if it's not as bluntly spec-driven as you'd prefer. For a lot of customer demos, it's trying to strike the right balance between intimidating and approachable.
I do think that people need to chill out on the knee-jerk declarations of AI slop every time something isn't as tight and poetic as they'd like. I remember (and am still bothered by) commercials in the 90s showing eg smiling moms shaking empty McCain frozen French fry bags upside down to illustrate how they are so desirable, you literally can't have enough of them.
In other words, what you're uptight about is not slop so much as late stage capitalism.
(Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't try to start my own tech company that respects people to my standards so as to make all the other ones look worse in comparison. Of course I don't know if I would succeed... but heck, maybe all it takes is caring a lot? I'm not an entrepreneurial sort of person but when I think about doing it, this is why: to try to put the asshole companies, which is most of them, out of business.)
In this specific case though I just want people to read my criticism and maybe realize that they agree---that, yeah, you know what, maybe Jeff Bridges' bespoke camera company should be better than this; writing that crap on your site should be embarrassing for them.
anyway, yeah, we've been drowning in slop our whole lives. The only thing AI did is automate the creation of it and make it easier (for now) to identify.
So by that measure, this is in the ballpark. It's a niche product, you'd have to be really into film photography, want a panoramic that uses 35mm film (vs a 6x9 or 6x12 medium format camera).
On the flip side, if you want to get something similar on a budget, you can 3d print a body and get a used large format press lens for <$2000 all in. But, that's far more on the tinkering/project side of the market, where the Widelux is very much in the luxury end.
I sense some resentment for people with money.
Personally, I don't find it hard to imagine at all that there's 350 photographers who whom $4000 is not a big deal (many of them on this site), who are looking for something interesting and new.
