Future of Film

I spent the past couple of hours looking at a few of the digital camera
review sites. It seems as though not a day goes by that some new camera is
introduced.
Thinking back over the past year, I am unable to come up with any
manufacturer introducing a new 35mm film camera, Zeiss Ikon excepted (and
that serves a niche market).
Nikon has discontinued their Lite-Touch P&S line
Nikon has discontinued all but two models of film SLR
Hasselblad may have stopped production of the 500-series SLRs and may be
selling off remaining stock
Contax (Kyocera) is out of production
I thought I read somewhere that Pentax MF is on the verge of disappearing
(not certain of this)
Bronica has announced that they've folded up their tent
Minolta has exited the market, and Sony has no plans to market any film
cameras
Leica has introduced a digital back for the R9, presumably in an attempt to
prolong the camera's life
Kodak has been selling some film under its brand that is manufactured in
China, not Rochester
Cosina's Bessa TM (M42) and Voightlander rangefinders are never in the news.
Nikon has walked away from its line of manual focus film SLR lenses
So, if someone were trying to buy a decent film-based SLR and lens series,
what is still out there? Leica R? Ouch! The prospect of building a
camera/lens system over 5 years seems to be in jeopardy, because what will
remain in production in another 5 years?
Are we to look to the used market and hope that we can find everything we
need? That might work out if one is in no hurry, but could a pro afford to
wait around until a specialty lens or finder were to become available on
eBay or KEH? It sure is beginning to look like the doors and windows are
closing for buyers of new film gear. Most disturbing is that the
accessories that make up one's "system" may be disappearing without fanfare,
even though some camera bodies continue to remain available.

Jeremy

Re: Future of Film

In article <kn6qc2dng3phhv65eg3s7ae1n2oec4b78d@4ax.com>,
Well, I'll just wait until something gets announced. There is still
plenty of film around.
$8200 is lot of money. A lot more than I intend to spend on a DSLR body.
On the other hand, 24 Mpixels is probably about the maximum you can get
out of a 35mm system (and it is certainly more than my scanner delivers).
So that would be then end of upgrading just to get more resolution.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


Philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)

Re: Future of Film

To me, the biggest advantage of the, "digital darkroom" is the ability to
use color, instead of just B&W. With new film/slides, there is little to do
with Photoshop other than a little cropping, and level adjustment, which
takes only a minute or two. But the fact that color is just as easy as B&W
makes it all worth while......


William Graham

Re: Future of Film

Rafe,
If you don't use a wet darkroom any longer, how do you do your
printing?
Agreed. Using that argument, anything besides a glass plate negative
isn't "real" photography. The glass plate is "real," as in slow and
inconvenient to use, and probably hard to find today in stores.
What do you have in your digital darkroom, besides a scanner?
Pere Kodak


Father Kodak

Re: Future of Film

Huh? Ever hear of this other company located in Tokyo called _Nikon_?
They still have two film cameras in production, using the same lens
mount in use since 1959. Aside from all the new lenses, there are a
gazillion lenses used available on ebay and other sources. Plus all
the accessories, etc.
If film continues to die off, then Canon at some point will stop
making film cameras.
This is a debatable point.
Father Kodak


Father Kodak

Re: Future of Film

Philip,
There are persistent rumors from multiple sources, some that I would
consider credible, that Nikon is preparing two different FF D SLRs for
2007 announcement.
One model has 18 mp, the other 24. Pricing of the more expensive
model is expected to be "under 1 million Yen." About $8200 at the
current exchange rate.
There are, of course, the usual cryptic quotes from Nikon execs that
mean nothing in of themselves, because in Asian business cultures, no
one will ever come out and say, "No." Just, "We are considering it
for when the market is right." People try to parse those remarks and
infer their "true meaning," when there is none. And spend endless
amounts of time and electronic ink discussing all this.
Padre Kodak


Father Kodak

Re: Future of Film

In article <2006072818513716807-notreallymeNOSPAM@ixnetcomcom>,
notreallymeNOSPAM@ix.netcom.com says...
There are several things that film cameras can do that are not (yet)
available in digital. One of the ones I make use of is a swing-lens
panorama camera. I also don't think there is a lens/format combination
that is equal to the Voigtlander 12mm lens on 35mm film, although some
of the new lenses are getting close.
Short exposure times and full swing and tilts that you can do with
view cameras are also not available. Most view camera digital backs
use a scanning system which means exposures are protracted.
Some of these technical features may be duplicated, but since the market
is small they will be expensive if they are released as commercial
products at all.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com


Robert Feinman

Re: Future of Film

On 2006-07-24 15:28:15 -0400, "rafe b" <rafeb@foobar.com> said:
I never said "if it ain't optical from A to Z it's just not
photography." What I said was if you end up scanning and digitally
printing, then there is no difference between film and pure digital so
why bother with film? The film that, therefore, SHOULD survive, is
chrome, because inherently you save the original film image for
viewing. You CAN scan from it, you CAN still print optically from it if
someone still does Ilfochrome, but basically what you have is a slide.
I am not dumping on digital. I am merely trying to argue that as film
goes away or at least fades into the background, the films that SHOULD
stay front and center, logically, are slides and pure b&w.
--
Michael | "He's dead, Jim."


Michael Weinstein

Re: Future of Film

Unlikely that Nikon will go full-frame. Sure would be nice for owners of
Nikon 35mm lenses if they ever did.


Jeremy

Re: Future of Film

The difference between film and digital is more than just the film captures
and an image one way a sensor in a different way.
Until Nikon makes a full-frame DSLR that also cheap enough that I want to
buy it, my prefered process is scanning film.
The advange of film is in this case that I can use cameras and lenses to
get features that I can't get with my current digital setup.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


Philip@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg)

Re: Future of Film

I won't excuse sloppy processing by one-hour labs.
That's not the issue I'm concerned about.
I do my own printing (and scanning) because I can
control the process and don't need to rely on a lab.
But I don't buy Michael's notion that if it ain't optical
from A to Z it's just not photography.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm having a wonderful
time using film along with "the digital darkroom." I've
got some experience (from long ago) with wet darkroom,
and no real desire to go back to that.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


Rafe b

Content - Future of Film
Found 30 post(s). Page 1 of 3
| 1 | 2 | 3 |










 
Mortgage Rate - Web-design - Dell Laptop Battery
Photoshop questions