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.
Most people don’t understand why or how stuff is priced, or that low volume items like this probably have a decent amount of expensive human labor included in the price. You aren’t going to set up full automation to assemble 350 cameras.
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.
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.
There is a whole class of people out there that think about money in ways you and I cannot comprehend, and this product is for them, not us. It'll be successful without us little folks.
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.
Same effective fov but the image will not look the same at all. The swing lens makes all areas of the frame look as if the lens is facing the subject dead on, without the same distortion that a wide produces at frame edges.
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...
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.
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.
It’s an esoteric enthusiast product handmade in Germany to extreme mechanical precision. It’s a miracle they got it down to $4400… I bet they’re not making much money on this, and it’s more of a labor of love.
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?
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.
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!
Amusing that's he's praised the original for it's lack of precision and predictability, which makes it more "human" and "honest", then spends loads of money refining it. Must be craving precision crafted dishonesty in his photography these days.
> 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
58 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 61.7 ms ] threadOh 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.
My car mechanic charges $160/hr.
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.
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...
[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
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!
https://archive.nytimes.com/lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/3...
https://www.reddit.com/r/lebowski/comments/1rjcrfj/behindthe...
Interesting checkbox on the purchase page. I wonder what the implications are.
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&#x...
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.
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.
What Has Changed
Which is a bit too vague for my taste.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.
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...
https://www.kandaovr.com/Obsidian-Pro