35mm - One Step Closer to the End 627
Anonymous Coward writes "A colleague of mine just pointed out that Nikon UK has posted a press release here indicating that they are all but ending production of their 35mm film cameras, medium- and large-format lenses and enlarging equipment. The F6 35mm SLR will remain in production and be available in Europe and America, and the all-mechanical FM10 will be available outside of Europe. A handful of manual lenses will remain in production as well.
Film in general isn't going away any time soon as digital cameras cannot replace medium and large format cameras, but this is clear evidence that the resolution and popularity of the digital medium have surpassed that of the 35mm format. 35mm took another step into the grave."
Re:35mm film users, take note (Score:5, Informative)
The digital cameras they are coming out with cost an arm and a leg, and they only have a one-year warranty. I call them disposable cameras.
Re:A sign of change (Score:4, Informative)
I should know. I managed to kill a Nikon D70 under warrant. (The shutter would start to jam after about half an hour of moderate shooting). I had to have it sent back 3 times. In the end the store I bought it from replaced it under warranty after I'd notified them in writing I would take it up with the local consumer body.
None of the camera manufacturers tend to put a figure on how many shots you can take before they'll refuse to replace the shutter under warranty. I'm told one leading manufacturer quotes 50,000. Most if not all cameras have a counter that tells you how many times the shutter has been triggered. (Nikon ones even imbed this information in NEF or EXIF).
Also good lenses for SLRs are a lot more expensive than point and shoots. Crappy lenses are a waste of time and produce blurry images that can be outdown by some point and shoots. Point and shoots also can have movie modes so good they almost double as a video camera. (I have an Olympus C-770 that'll do 45 minutes of continuous movie in mpeg 4).
If you want professional quality photos though, you'll still need the outlay of a good SLR and GOOD glass (lenses). You can't beat the ISO sensitivites and quality that the larger DSLR sensors give you with a point and shoot. You also can't beat the range of depths of field that an SLR will give you. Finally if you were to do anything professional, a DSLR would be expected and you'd be laughed at if you came out with a point and shoot.
Re:i say good day sir (Score:2, Informative)
100 line pairs per mm or bust (Score:1, Informative)
To do that with digital you need 9600 x 14,400 pixels, or 138 megapixels.
On top of that there's dynamic range. Most color negative film has about 10-16 stops give or take (a dynamic range of 3.0-4.8). This means 6 bytes per pixel minimum. I don't think MS-Paint is up to the task.
Today's top-line "pro" digital cameras such as Nikon's D200 are in the 10 megapixel range. Assuming this doubles every 18 months, they'll be "better than film resolution" by mid-2011.
As for equaling 6x9cm medium-format, look for late 2013, but perhaps at the same time as 35 if they can get a larger-surface area imaging surface with the same per-square-inch resolution.
Now running a digital camera without electricity, that will be a neat trick indeed.
Cheap Rebels (Score:3, Informative)
I was surprised to see a Canon Rebel with lens (non-digital, and I'm not a camera expert) going for about $200 when I was buying a $300 digital compact this past December.
I almost bought it for my son but then figured that it would be a backwards step, technology-wise, for him.
What he is missing is the near-instant shutter response, manual zoom and focus and maybe motor drive. What he gains is movie-taking ability, immediate review of shots taken, compact camera size and ease of image transfer. For me, I miss the shutter response time and manual zoom/focus features that are not available in even $1000 "prosumer" digitals.
Re:A sign of change (Score:5, Informative)
And I'll tell you something about photojournalism: four years ago, the digital cameras were good enough for that purpose. My 8 megapixel Canon Rebel XT sports too much of a CCD for its intended use (as a newspaper camera).
But yeah, if you were to make an 8"x10" CCD that has the same pixel density as my camera, you'd have a damn good photo, even blown up to wall size. However, I doubt that most would be able to afford that camera, as big CCDs are expensive to make and deal with.
Re:100 line pairs per mm or bust (Score:2, Informative)
when DIGITAL manufacturers count pixels they count RED GREEN BLUE receptors as individual PIXELS!!!
And CCD receptors 95% of the time (or more) use a 4 receptor pattern of RGBG (two greens) and repeat that pattern
so a 16 megapixel cemera is typically actually only about 1000x1000 real pixels not 4000x4000 pixels a 138 megapixel digiatal camera (needed to surpase 35mm) may never exist for decades.
Re:Why the lenses? (Score:3, Informative)
They aren't dropping all of their lenses only large format/ enlarger and many of manual focus 35mm ones. Some (of the more specialised ) MF ones will still be made and it will be businessas usual for the rest of the auto focus range.
Re:LIES ! 35 mm has more resolution - RGBG overcou (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Goody! (Score:2, Informative)
Film is dead (Score:3, Informative)
See, that is bull shite. FYI there are digital camera backs out there for large format cameras that are just as good as large formate film. I'm not talking about any of the dSLR's we are talking about say for example "The Hasselblad H2D Digital Camera uses an advanced 22 Megapixel sensor that is more than twice the size of typical 35mm sensors. It provides higher resolution, less noise, seamless integration, and uses the same high performance HC lenses as the rest of the H System. It's $26,000. Or there is the Better Light Super 8K-HS Digital Scanning Back For 4x5 cameras. It cost $18,000 and creates 550 MB files.
Re:100 line pairs per mm or bust (Score:4, Informative)
(a) do suffice to reproduce real color scenes damn well,
and
(b) are spatially distinct so they provide spatial resolution.
Parent is parroting Foveon propaganda.
Re:A sign of change (Score:5, Informative)
I'd have been happier with your answers --and assumed a pro was answering-- had you caught this one. 6x6 is, as you say, 6 cm x 6 cm. And he did get it wrong by stating it as 120 milimeters. However, 6x6 is also known in professional circles as the 120 format, just as there's a 220 format (6x6 long roll), and a 135 format (also more generally known as 35mm, or 24x36).
"A 4x5 image will, certainly, make your 35mm look like crap, but mostly because of tonal range, not resolution..."
Nope, it's the resolution. Most commercial 4x5 was done E-6, and "chrome" tends to have limited exposure latitudes and high contrast. While, say, a Canon 1Ds MII can rival 645 for some subjects, and a 24MP MF back can rival 6x6 or 6x7 for others, a good wall-sized print from 4x5 simply captures more detail. This is especially noticeable in complex, high-detail, "high-frequency" landscape scenes with lots of grass and trees.
Use a vivid film like Velvia, and the contrast bumps even higher.
"...is in FPS.. I can crank 4.5 frames a second through either of those machines, while an 8MP camera is still downloading..."
Sigh. So you've never used a 1D MII either? 8.5 fps max 40 JPEG or 20 RAW.
(Ex-commercial pro, 20 years experience, Canon Digital, Nikon, Hassie, Mamiya 6x7, Sinar 4x5, Sinar 8x10)
Re:35mm film users, take note (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Resolution (Score:3, Informative)
When dealing with an analog (chemical!) medium such as film, dpi isn't really a valid metric, as the film uses stochastically arranged groupings of silver halide particles rather than the fixed pixel grid used by an image sensor. The 3500-4000dpi value mentioned in Heller's article [danheller.com] is related more to oversampling in the scanning process than to the inherent resolution of 35mm film. Even medium format film will not resolve detail at such a high frequency, as can be easily verified by shooting a resolution chart in a controlled studio environment
Assuming idealized values of 3500dpi-4000dpi, 35mm film would yield a resolution of 18-24 megapixels, as specified below.A number of higher end DSLR's achieve this resolution, and this has been the case for a few years. However, as mentioned, scanning at a high dpi value is like oversampling an analog signal. Subject matter, lighting, exposure & aperture significantly affect subjective resolution. Although its comparing apples & oranges, I'd say the digital resolution equivalent of 35mm film can be anywhere from 6 megapixels to 12 megapixels depending on shooting conditions.
Re:A sign of change (Score:5, Informative)
A 25MP scan of 35mm film is NOT equivalent to a 25mp digital photo. The film grain overlaps pixels and makes things messy at 100% so that resolution is needed to clear this up. Also, pros dont shoot with "an 8 or 10 megapixel camera." The 1Ds mkII shoots at 16.7 (and even the mk1 shot at more than 10) and if you truely are a pro, you will have the top end to keep your clients happy (you also wouldnt be using an N90s, you would be using an F5/6 or an EOS-1V or more realistically a medium format view-camera). As to the Rolleiflex, give it up, there have been some advancements in the last 30 years (especially in glass) and there are reasons they arent used for real pro work (I have one, I've used it, it doesnt compare to a view-cam or even lots of photos taken with 35mm or digital...a lot of it is in the hands of who takes the picture).
For professionals (those taking the pictures and those who are recieving the pictures), digital really IS the best thing since sliced bread. The process gets the customers exactly what they want and streamlines the prepress work. It makes distribution easier and results more accurate and consistant (in a studio, you are capturing directly to computer and can instantly view the image at 100% on a color-calibrated monitor...no more poloroids and bike messengers). It's strange that nikon would stop so suddenly and you are correct that it is because of market forces but those market forces arent because some ill-informed joe shmoe decides he doesnt need film SLRs--it is because he really doesnt need film SLRs.
Besides, there is always Canon and they make better cameras anyways ;-)
Not such a tough choice (Score:3, Informative)
Whichever you use, bring extra batteries
35mm goes pretty darn big (Score:4, Informative)
Properly exposed, low-speed 35mm slide film holds resolution surprisingly well. The tough part is usually printing it, actually, because pretty much every printing process (analog or digital) enhances grain. But as it's possible to tell from a slide show (which de-emphasizes grain), there is a ton of resolving power in the good films.
Re:A sign of change (Score:4, Informative)
More then 36 photos before changing media
"Free" developing
White balance
ISO switching per photo
No scanning to get photos into photoshop
No waiting for developing (think news photogs)
Feedback via the histogram and LCD
Archiving to CD takes less space then negatives
Less expensive long term (at the cost of up front)
Smaller image circle so lens quality at edges less a factor (Digital only lenses excluded)
Film advantages:
"Sensor" gets replaced w/ each shot so duct isn't an issue
Wide angle lenses
Better resolution (Though Pop Photo showed the Canon 1Ds (?) beating iso 100 film)
Archiving - those negatives last "forever"
Better color capture
Less expensive startup costs
Re:Are you not just overexposing? (Score:3, Informative)
Film overloads gracefully. It's natural. We're used to the way highlights look on film. This graceful overload curve is called a shoulder. Even several stops above white film is still getting just a little bit whiter as you add more and more light to it. If you look at a histogram of a properly scanned film image you'll see it go back down to zero as it approaches 255 white. Color objects merely get less saturated as they gradually wash out to white.
Digital, including your point-and-shoot to DSLRs to $250,000 digital cinema cameras, are completely different. The highlights on digital head towards white (255) and simply clip as soon as they get there. Digital has no shoulder and there is no gradual overload. $250,000 digital cinema and video cameras sometimes have shoulder adjustments, but they don't do what film does. Every slightly overexposed digital shot shows a spike on the right (white or 255) side of the histogram. This spike counts all the pixels that pegged at 255.
Re:A sign of change (Score:3, Informative)
Congratulations, you too have discovered that Nikon Digital's repair and service department is appallingly bad.
Google for my tales of Nikon Digital and scanner problems...