35mm - One Step Closer to the End

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."

35mm film users, take note

[winkydink]

Though it still blows me away. I mean you can get a fantastic 35mm film camera for less than 1/2 that of a digital. I don't know, maybe Nikon has a cheap D30 in the works or something, but barring that, the barrier to entry into the realm of SLR's is about to get a good deal more expensive.

FM10 eh?

[helioquake]

I guess one of these days I will have to go get one of these.

All manual cameras are really wonderful. Once you are out there, hiking a desert or marveling the cold of Antarctica, you ain't gonna be charging your batteries for a digital camera for sure...

i say good day sir

[caffeinemessiah]

I beg to differ. While camera manufacturers may stop selling their film SLRs, a lot of pros/semi-pros will stick to film. Here are some reasons, in brief:

1) Film STILL offers better resolution, although this won't last for long. I believe its close to 22 megapixels, although this is not for sure.
2) Some photographers just love the grain of B&W developed on Tri-X or T-Max film, which doesn't use the C-41 process used for Walmart shit.

There are more, but it's been a long day...

Anyway, I've been using my Canon EOS 10s film camera for years and will continue doing so, mainly because it inculcates a whole new ethic -- you can just snap away and hit the delete button when you find something ugly. Film forces you to think in artistic terms BEFORE you click, and there's a definite cost associated with clicking the shutter release. I believe it makes better photographers.

Why do people still use vinyl? Don't kid yourself -- 35mm film is not the floppy disk. It's not going to die anytime soon.

Resolution

[Shimmer]

The resolution ... of the digital medium have surpassed that of the 35mm format

This just isn't true. I've switched to digital as well, but the resolution of 35mm film is roughly 24 megapixels. This is still 3x the resolution of the best consumer digicams.

Moreover, Moore's Law does not apply to the sensors used in digital cameras because they are essentially A/D converters. It will be very difficult to increase their resolution much further without introducing unacceptably high levels of noise.

dSLR

[dada21]

I recently picked up a D50 to replace my previous Nikon SLR (and give all 10 of my junk digital cameras to anyone I know with a kid). I'm blown away -- the quality is THAT good. The camera is just as fast as my film camera, the resolution is spectacular, and I can use all my old lenses and accessories.

Under US$1000 for everything I need, and I never have to worry about the junk I was getting out of previous generations of digital cameras.

I feel bad about film -- I really love the analog world. Yet the more I look at it, the more I see the future is in processing digital pictures real time to look and feel like film (or even have its own quality). The most recent batch of prints I made from the dSLR look so much better than my last batch of regular SLR 35mm prints -- everyone noticed. I even had it in JPG mode instead of RAW!

R.I.P. 35mm, I loved ya even with the "D" grade I got in 7th grade Photography class.

Re:A sign of change

[ottothecow]

I'm not sure quite why you shouldnt trust zillions of reviews. If there were that many it woudl mean each person on earth has said more than several times that digital is comparable/better. Or maybe you should trust the professional photographers who have switched. The ones who no-longer have darkrooms in their studios and always sway their clients towards digital (and thats not because its less work for them, when you shoot digital, YOU do all of the post processing in photoshop rather than the pro lab you send it to). The time has come, cameras are outdoing film grain (especially at high speed). You may need a scanner of higher resolution than a camera to get a good scan but that is because the grain does not match up to pixels so you have to go higher resolution. It sounds pretty hard-core for Nikon to drop film this early but it will eventually get to the point where the only people who use 35mm are people who dont need the added features next years body would provide (they can still use new lenses, at least for a while) as they are changing the settings themselves and dont need a computer to do it for them.

I went back to film

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

I recently sold my (mind buggeringly expensive) Canon 1Ds and went back to all-manual film cameras. Not 35mm, though. In larger formats film still has huge advantages over digital in terms of quality and enlargability. The lack of battery dependence is also incredibly liberating. It is horribly expensive though. With the exception of my Panasonic LX1 digi, I now don't own a camera which isn't completely manual... a Linhof 4x5, a pair of Fuji 6x9 rangefinders, a Rollei SL66, a Noblex 6x12 and a Leica M4-P. The Leica is the only one that doesn't get used on a weekly basis... but the last time we had a huge power outage I was enormously grateful for it.

Pix here [flickr.com], here [pinkheadedbug.com] and here [johnbrownlow.com] if anyone's interested.

Why I Like film

[cyberjessy]

I like shooting in film, a lot more than using digital cameras. Because _TO ME_, theres a lot more to photography that clicking good pictures. The thrill and the hope that you carry back home, when you click on film simply isn't there with digital.

There are other reasons too:
1. Vibrance and Depth (I have always found good color slides to offer better vibrance/depth)
2. Resolution (Yes, digital is almost there these days at the higher end. But there is a difference.)
n. Romantic!

On the downside for films, the biggest problem is that quality film [fujifilm.com] are very expensive, compared to digital. But, the fact that the Fuji sells a lot of film to high-end professionals is testament that there is something about film.

I hope Canon has no plans to stop film SLRs. I am a exclusive Canon user. But, the scariest thing to come out of this could be that slides and film might get more expensive as demand decreases.

I'm surprised

[AFCArchvile]

Nikon's the company that held onto its lens mount for all these years, and Canon seemed to be the more prominent one in the digital field (or at least more prominently marketing in the northeast US, with all the Digital Rebel commercials, and all the press/sports photogs with a Canon EOS 1D and some kind of big L-Glass lens). I would've expected Canon to throw in the towel on film camera production, but Nikon? The company that was (perhaps up to this point) still manufacturing the FM3A manual camera as new?

Yes, digital is faster, and the wave of the future, etc., etc., but there are some areas where film cameras still have an edge. In particular, range of sensitivity: you can load ISO 50 slide film, or ISO 1600 negative film (but of course it's a bit grainier as you go up in ISO). Battery life is much better, especially if it's a manual-drive camera; IMO there's nothing more annoying than your camera dying after its eighth picture of the day. And each frame uses a brand new area of film, instead of the same CCD sensor over and over again. Once a pixel goes out, it's either time to live with that dead pixel, or an expensive shipment to get it serviced.

This is a bit of a disappointment, since one of the big two players is deciding to bow out. There's still Canon, Pentax, Leica (at their price, you're better off getting a medium format kit), among others. Olympus backed out of film a while ago. There's still plenty of film being manufactured (though there seems to be rumors of Kodak stopping production soon; I use Fuji, so I don't mind that much), and there's still decent 35mm film scanners that cost less than a digital SLR body alone. And of course there's the search for a decent and inexpensive E-6 film lab in the US (E-6 is the slide film process; the drugstores and chain camera stores almost always handle only C-41, which is negative film).

My favorite has to be shooting with Velvia slide film. My friends all say "Slides? Didn't those go out in the 70's?" Then I show them the 4000 dpi scan that I took of the slide, and the 20 x 30 print made from the slide. Yes, digital could do it too, but the body alone would've been above $1300; I'd rather spend that on a lens.

It's not only 35mm - Large Format is fading fast

[PoconoPCDoctor]

Here is a story from a large format photographer who used to use Hasselblads [robgalbraith.com] - he went digital as well. You would have thought that large format would never go, since it offered the huge negative for great detail and elargements with no grain. Digital seems to be ruling...

LIES ! 35 mm has more resolution - RGBG overcounts

[Anonymous Coward]

LIES ! 35 mm has more resolution - RGBG overcounts resolution by a factor of 4

the grid of four CCD receptors use two greens a red and a blue (similar to distribution abnormality in human eye and repeat that 4 pel pattern

a 4 megapixel cemera is 95% of the time actually a 1 megapixel cemeral with about 1000x1000 resolution.

Why? because the manufacturers lie and count the RGBG as four light receptor elements.

That would be like counting individual grains of chemicals in film!

a 35 mm film negative shot in bright light is 8000 pixels of measuarable resolution if photographing thin verticle alternating lines.

no digital camera. not even the 100,000 dollar Thompson Viper digital camera comes close to a 20 dollar 35 mm camera in bright sunlight

but the sad part is that crap like this appears on slashdot spreading more lies.

if you want to claim digital is better you have to cite RESOLUTION test lab meassurements,

35 mm will not be surpased by digital for bright light conditions for probably 5 more years, or longer.

The massive "Depth of Field" of digital cam corders make people resent the ability to put clutterred backgrounds in soft focus... cinematographers loathe the lack of choices in digital realm. Art takes a back seet. now everything ends up looking like a TV sitcom in perfect focus all the time.

Except Moore's law does not apply here

[melted]

Except Moore's law does not apply here in its original form. You still have to maintain pixel surface area to capture light. Barring something revolutionarry, I don't think we'll see much of an improvement over what's currently available on the high end.

Re:i say good day sir

[proxima]

Do pro cameras force lossy compression as well?

No. Digital SLRs (pro cameras and higher end consumer cameras) can take pictures in "RAW" format. The exact structure of the file format varies (though some are trying to establish standards), but the file basically contains the data that the sensor receives. Post-processing is left for the computer, which allows a great deal of freedom.

The biggest problems with taking all your photos in this way are that they're large (very large, relative to JPEG), and you either must use proprietary camera software or plugins for software like Photoshop (I'm not too current on this, perhaps Photoshop supports more formats natively than before). The greater size means not only fewer images on your card but a longer time waiting for your camera to write them to disk, and more processing power for your computer to work with them.

My wife owns a Canon 20d, which takes absolutely awesome photos (it is also used by some photographers for various purposes). She shoots in high-quality JPEG because RAW just isn't enough of a benefit for her photos. Most software (I believe) is good about not layering on the JPEG compression with each save (just once per session). Still, I often wonder why these cameras don't include a non-RAW lossless format like LZW-compressed TIFF as an intermediate option (my first digital camera, a 1.3 MP Olympus point and shoot, could take TIFF). I suppose TIFF has most of the disadvantages of RAW with few of the advantages, but a choice would still be nice.

For more info about RAW image formats, see this Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org].

Re:Digital Cameras Make Better Photographers

[velocipenguin]

You are saying that, for inexperienced photographers, a digital camera can help produce better photographs. The parent poster's argument is that, by encouraging people to think carefully before they shoot, film cameras produce better photographers. Successfully taking one good photo with a manual film camera requires much greater care and attention to detail than trying the same shot forty times in rapid succession with a digital point-and-shoot. If you're shooting film and don't get it right the first time, you're screwed; thus, those who take the time to learn how to get good photographs using film gain skills that make them better photographers. You may be happy with the results you get from repeating the same shot over and over, but I'd much rather have the experience necessary to get it right the first time.

Re:Resolution

[codeshack]

Resolution ain't all it's about with regular cameras. I develop TMax black and white all the time for artistic work at college -- show me how I can wave my hands over a JPG as it's being developed, or use a transparency under a glass pane, or draw directly on the damn negative with a grease pencil -- all things I do all the time. Digital photography's limits are the same as Photoshop's. They're certainly broad (I love Photoshop), but there's a whole range of technique that will not be imitated.

Re:FM10 eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

My Canon DSLR battery and CF card are good for about 500-1000 frames, and are about the size and weight of two rolls of film. I don't even need to "pack" anything for a shoot that might require 1500-2000 frames, because my camera holds two batteries and a spare flash card fits in the small watch pocket on my jeans.

If I wanted to shoot that much with a manual camera, I would have to carry a backpack full of film, which I would have to keep at a stable temperature until I get it all developed at a cost of a few hundred dollars. And I won't even get into the shots I'll miss while reloading!

dom

Color resolution

[snowwrestler]

A 4x5 image will, certainly, make your 35mm look like crap, but mostly because of tonal range, not resolution..."

Nope, it's the resolution.

In a way you're both right--it's color resolution. Not only are large format films capable of resolving a a greater number of line pairs per mm than 35mm (assuming the same final print size), they are also capable of resolving a greater number of individual colors per mm. This leads directly to an appearance of clearer, cleaner tones.

Try this with Digital

[tchiwam]

Northern lights are at about -3 to -6EV. Let's say we have a good lense F1.4 24mm

Consider that northern lights are mainly at 557.7nm and 690.0nm, so using color film for the picture is maybe not as needed, might as well use filters and reconstruct it later digitally.

To keep a very sharp image of the Nortern lights when they are moving a lot, you have to do it at about 1sec, 1/2s being better, I never needed faster than 1/8s.

For -3EV that's about 3200ASA
For -6EV that's about 12500ASA

For slow moving thing the digital cameras are nowaday good enough and need about 15-30 seconds @ 400ASA.

Too high ASA didgital settings give a lot of thermal noise, already at 400 it is noisy.

35mm film is cheaper for most users. But *sigh*

[yeOldeSkeptic]

I think for 98% of the people who buy a digital camera, 35mm film is actually cheaper.

The first camera that I ever bought is an Olympus C-750UZ. Yes, it's a digital camera and yes after the initial expense, each shot is actually free. But after three years of using the C-750UZ and perhaps 50,000 shots I have started to yearn for more.

What do I miss? How about (a) quick autofocus (b) interchangeable lenses (c) real manual focussing instead of the joke that Olympus has on the C-750 (d) high speed continuous shooting (e) better ISO 400 and above (f) a depth of field preview button?

After some reasearch, it turns out that the digital camera that would satisfy those requirements for me would be a Canon EOS20D. A digital wonder that costs USD1800.00 in our country. And that's only for the body. For the lens I would have to shell out more.

Now I'm going to try film. I just bought a very good second hand Canon T90 that has everything that I want (except autofocus) for only USD30, price including a 70-210mm f/4 zoom lens. I was also able to buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 FD lens for peanuts. Peanuts because the USD20 price I paid for it included a Canon T50 camera.

Buying a film camera has brought the economics of digital cameras vividly to my attention. Nikon is ceasing production of 35mm cameras because digital cameras are more profitable than film cameras. They are not necessarily cheaper or better than 35mm film SLRs. Let's see why.

• A digital camera is obsolete after only one year. Joe Schmoe will need to buy another one next year.

• The lens on the cheap point and shoot digital cameras that Joe Schmo can afford to buy is cheap to manufacture. Joe Schmoe does not know that it isn't megapixels that count but the quality of the lens. The Canon EOS D30 has only 3 megapixels but coupled with an L-quality lens it will blow away Joe Schmoe's 8 megapixel point and shoot.

• Joe Schmoe can shoot thousands of shots for free but once he decides to print a few of them he will need to spend money on computers, software, inkjet printers and photo paper. Of course Joe Schmo can send his jpeg files to a digital printshop but if he is going to do that anyway why buy the digital camera? Professionals buy a digital camera because they have control over image quality with their array of digital editing software like Photoshop.

  Expect Nikon to introduce a line of printers.

• Joe Schmo is made to believe that after only 80 rolls of film he will have paid for a new Nikon D70. However, Joe Schmo is not made aware that that price is only for the body and does not include the lens and the various accessories and supporting equipment that the Nikon D70 needs to strut its stuff.

  Joe Schmo is also not aware that those 80 rolls of film calculation already include the processing fees and 4R sized prints for all 2880 shots. Joe Schmo somehow is also made unaware that he probably shoots only 10-15 rolls of film a year.

  With a digital camera Joe Schmoe is convinced to shoot 800 images of his cat rolling on the carpet and 1000 shots of his morning bacon being fried. It makes Joe Schmoe satisfied knowing that he has saved so much money because can you imagine how much those shots would have cost on 35mm film?

In short, Joe Schmo is probably better off buying a cheap 35mm point and shoot and shooting lots of 35mm film than with his new digital wonder.

It's a pity that 35mm will soon be obsolete.

FIlm is dead?

[littlebitsofpaper]

Lot of good stuff here but as a fine art and commercial photographer using both I'll let you know its all about the final product. I shoot all formats up to 4x5 and for me it comes down to what's convenient and what is going to work. The digital lets me work faster in the field and usually lets me get proofs to the client faster; it's also great in the studio to set up a shot I'll want to commit to 4x5. Some work simply lends itself to digital - weddings, sports, product stuff some portrait work. For the majority of the fine art work it's simply a choice - what do I feel like shooting today. I've made fine digital prints of 30 x 40 off a 4 megapixel G2 and a 6 megapixel 10D. I often go to 16x20 with 35mm - yeah it gets grainy but sometimes I like it like that. With digital I've shot a lot less 35mm film - but I also do all my own processing either way - film or digital. I love 4x5 prints - I love the tonal range and resolution. By the same I also have shown plenty of digital shots in galleries and seriously most of my buyers can't tell the difference between most film and digital the way I work it. That's the real point here - just a tool - I would be a far worse digital photographer if I didn't have an extensive background in the darkroom. It's the whole "what camera are you shooting" issue - great tools in the hands of an idiot still produce poor work ...

Re:A sign of change

[syousef]

Yes. I'm torn by that. I like Nikon design and I own 2 Nikon lenses but if my SLR died out of warranty I'd be loath to buy another Nikon thanks to their authorised repairers here.

Nooo, Not Nikon

[ajuk]

Fow any one who was wondering, in the Compact market Film beats digital hands down, that is because the sensor in most digital compacts is 22x smaller than a peice of 35mm film. (Digital sensor 7x5mm, film 36x24, draw 2 rectangles next to each other and you get the idea) That put film a step ahead especially at higher ISO's. I have a digital compact and use it, but I wouln't take ot to a wedding or recomend any to do that. In SLR's there isn't such a big gap, the sensors are only half the size, but I am serprised Nikon are doing this, film will go the way of Vinyl in 20 years and not the way of the VHS tape or 8track ETC.

Re:A sign of change

[Gorobei]

Well, they mostly make a record of things like tapestries. So, they lay out the item (often several hundred square feet,) then build what looks like a manually operatered 2-d x-y plotter over it. The camera and light system move in one axis across a bridge-like thing, and the bridge move a step in the other axis after each row-scan. All this takes place in a windowless room with the doors closed (to keep the light calibrated.)

Yep, next they piece the thousands of images together with custom panorama software. One problem is that gravity/temperate/humidity cause the object to change shape from minute to minute, so it's really a stitch and morph job (done by the Chudnovsky brothers with their homebrew supercomputer.)