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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
don't even have to get esoteric, a Nikon Z9 body only is $5000 at Target right now
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.
>and I was hoping that it would somehow be under $1000.
Does this product have iPhone levels of sweatshop manufacturing and economies of scale, that such a price point would be realistic to you?
From what I know, the price is exactly where low-volume hand-made artisanal hardware is in the west, especially given the supply chain geopolitical challenges Trump caused.
I fact, the value for such a niche boutique engineered product seems pretty decent. Just look how much Swiss watches cost.
>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.
And as I said, the realities of profitably shipping boutique developed and manufactured HW, are vastly different that what you'd wish for them to be, if your only reference is products from the likes of Apple. It doesn't matter what you hope for, the math of economics is what dictates the end result.
>I believe that it's better for their long-term viability if they sell 1000 for $2000 instead of 300 for $4400.
That's like wanting 9 women to deliver a baby in a month.
Why doesn't Apple choose to sell 100 million units of their iPhone 17 Pro Max at 700€, instead of selling 30 million units at 1300€, so more people can enjoy it?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
> 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 concerns Widerrufsrecht, i.e. the right to cancel an order or contract shortly after signing it. For certain services you also waive this when you get to use it immediately (cellphone service, for example), and for custom-made items it also does not apply, as in this case.
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).
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.
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.
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!
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).
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.
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...
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.
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
Yeah dude, keeping an amphibious rodent within the city, you know, for domestic?
That ain't legal either.
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.
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.
A new old stock M6 is $7000. Otherwise you're comparing used cameras to a new one. And more like $3500 for a used M6
That is bonkers pricing. There is no way they actually expect a sell out with this price.
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.
> the human desire for exclusivity
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.
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.
Same. When hobby/professional products become luxury/category goods, prices of everything go up because they're now Veblen Goods.
The craziest thing is seeing companies closing because of saturation, and prices of discontinued products shooting up immediately.
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.
don't even have to get esoteric, a Nikon Z9 body only is $5000 at Target right now
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.
>and I was hoping that it would somehow be under $1000.
Does this product have iPhone levels of sweatshop manufacturing and economies of scale, that such a price point would be realistic to you?
From what I know, the price is exactly where low-volume hand-made artisanal hardware is in the west, especially given the supply chain geopolitical challenges Trump caused.
I fact, the value for such a niche boutique engineered product seems pretty decent. Just look how much Swiss watches cost.
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.
>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.
And as I said, the realities of profitably shipping boutique developed and manufactured HW, are vastly different that what you'd wish for them to be, if your only reference is products from the likes of Apple. It doesn't matter what you hope for, the math of economics is what dictates the end result.
>I believe that it's better for their long-term viability if they sell 1000 for $2000 instead of 300 for $4400.
That's like wanting 9 women to deliver a baby in a month.
Why doesn't Apple choose to sell 100 million units of their iPhone 17 Pro Max at 700€, instead of selling 30 million units at 1300€, so more people can enjoy it?
This is what I crave if I could find the budget for it:
https://www.kandaovr.com/Obsidian-Pro
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.
Cool to have someone bringing back a piece of gear they loved, with their own time & investment
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 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 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.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
It says enough that the parts for the new version aren't compatible with the old (which is unfortunate)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
They use AI for that probably
> 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.
5200 € of camera and you don’t even get a guarantee? That’s bold
This concerns Widerrufsrecht, i.e. the right to cancel an order or contract shortly after signing it. For certain services you also waive this when you get to use it immediately (cellphone service, for example), and for custom-made items it also does not apply, as in this case.
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).
Is it that it’s a custom item, or is it because of the mandatory engraving of initials you have to do?
Scummy approach, we have buyer protections for a reason.
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.
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.
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...
The originals were mechanical challenges.
It really ties the room together.
The camera abides.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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...
Among other things, he is The Dude! ;)