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."
35mm film users, take note (Score:4, Interesting)
FM10 eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
I went back to film (Score:5, Interesting)
Pix here [flickr.com], here [pinkheadedbug.com] and here [johnbrownlow.com] if anyone's interested.
Why I Like film (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:1, Interesting)
LIES ! 35 mm has more resolution - RGBG overcounts (Score:1, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:i say good day sir (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Resolution (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:FM10 eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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* (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Expect Nikon to introduce a line of printers.
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A sign of change (Score:3, Interesting)
Nooo, Not Nikon (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A sign of change (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)