Canon Has Sold Its Last Film Camera (techcrunch.com) 101
As spotted by PetaPixel, Canon this week announced with no fanfare that it's sold its last film camera. TechCrunch reports: The model in question is the EOS-1V, which, incidentally, the company actually stopped making a full eight years ago. Since it has simply been selling out the rest of its stock, which, it seems, has finally depleted. It's less of a bang than a prolonged whimper, but it's the end of an era, nonetheless, marking the first time Canon hasn't offered a film camera since the 30s, when its parent company started offering a device called the "Kwanon." Those who are feeling suddenly nostalgic, you can likely pick one up used fairly easily (though this news might bump up their premium a bit), and I'm sure the inevitable Kickstarter project to revive the technology can't be too far off, because that's how these things go now. Canon will continue to offer repair on the EOS-1V until October 31, 2025, "though that could end as early as 2020 for some, if parts and inventory run out sooner," adds TechCrunch.
I still shoot film (Score:3)
Although with a Nikon F3.
Why? Because you don't get to see the results instantly, so it forces you to slow down and think about what you are doing, and get it right in the camera.
I hosted a workshop in my studio for a film-only shoot.
I got several people who showed up with digital cameras, and were politely told it was a film-only shoot.
The puzzled looks were priceless.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah after about a decade break i'm getting back into mostly shooting film again too. While i miss the immediate gratification, I like the lack of immediate disappointment. I don't get discouraged because something doesn't look like i want, and by the time I process the roll/sheet I can look at the image differently and might find something else that works.
Still I can't imagine buying a new film camera at this point. I've got a Canonet Rangefinder for daily use, my 4x5 for arty stuff and there's so much on
Re: (Score:1)
Good guess, the summary said eight years ago.
Re:I still shoot film (Score:4, Informative)
That's a huge appeal of film cameras - they're so unwanted that a top end film camera from a couple of decades ago can be had super cheap as everyone migrated to digital. You can find an immense amount of pro level gear without spending a whole lot of money.
Maybe that's where the hipster thing starts - because all the old good stuff is so unwanted people are dumping it
One amazing thing about 35mm film specifically is how much dynamic range it has - you don't "shoot HDR" because the film IS HDR. Enough so you can often pull it a few stops either way without blowing out details. (If you only have ISO 100 film and need ISO 400 film? Shoot the ISO 100 film as if it was ISO400 film and you'll be fine as long as you remember you underexposed it 2 stops. But it can take it just fine). It's why you can make 35mm film cameras down to the "disposable" side of random aperture, random shutter and still have users end up with decent photos - 35mm film just did not care if you under or overexposed it - it was able to still capture a photo. You may have to adjust the exposure during development, but you can recover images even with thee shittiest of cameras.
Re: (Score:1)
I also still shoot film (Score:4, Funny)
Pull!
Re: (Score:1)
I held on for a while, but eventually decided the film wasn't worth it.
I learned photography first on a point and shoot 35mm, and then on a Nikon F5 with a 50mm lens -- OK, I "learned" it on a very old Kodak when I was a kid, but the more serious stuff was on the Nikon.
I'm grateful to have learned framing and composition with a fixed 50mm lens, but eventually my point and shoot digital, and my Nikon DSLR meant that I could vastly more shots of vacations instead of rationing out film
Re: (Score:2)
Hipsters will soon join you. They successfully resurrected vinyl albums and cassette tapes . . . film cameras will be next.
Re: (Score:3)
B) Easily recordable
C) Re-recordable
D) Portable
E) Inexpensive
F) Small storage size
G) Trade-able (without DCMA fears)
H) No computer required at any step
I) Was a universal format (bought and played anywhere)
J) Can leave in car
K) Good enough for most situations
Are MP3s better today? Probably. But "garbage"? Eh...
Re: (Score:2)
This was true back in the day compared to vinyl, but there was a reason cassettes didn't totally replace vinyl records and technology has unambiguously done better than tapes now.
A-F) Presumably in contrast to vinyl
G) Apart from streaming, even commercial audio files have no DRM, on ta technical level it's equally tradeable, on a legal level, those mix tapes were no better or worse.
H) Though true, there are a lot of 'computer' devices, more than there ever were dual-deck casette player/recorders which were
Tapes suck (Score:3)
A) Not delicate
Debatable if you've ever had a tape eaten by a tape deck but not a major issue.
B) Easily recordable
C) Re-recordable
For a very limited amount of content. It's just as easy and often easier to record on digital.
D) Portable
Individually yes. Once you get more than a few it becomes awkward VERY quickly. And substantially less portable than anything digital.
E) Inexpensive
Compared to what? I disagree with this strongly.
F) Small storage size
"Small"? I can literally have more music than I can listen to in a year on a device smaller than a single cassette tape. This is not a benefit of tape.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take issue with F. My mom was recently clearing out some stuff and came across some of my old tapes - they fill a good sized plastic storage tub, which was too heavy for her to get out of her trunk by herself. There are a couple I want to listen to, but most are going to be headed straight for the landfill.
The fact that I have so many, though, indicates that the rest of your point are pretty valid!
One thing I don't miss about cassettes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe your cassettes were. A good cassette recording (not copied from vinyl) could easily match vinyl. Too bad you never experienced that.
Both suck by modern standards, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Hipsters will soon join you. They successfully resurrected vinyl albums and cassette tapes . . . film cameras will be next
There are two kinds of people that like old things.
1. Hipsters that buy into it to be cool. Sometimes the attraction to the old may be genuine, sometimes, I suspect, it's fakety fake-fake.
2. Those who never quite abandoned the Old.
I fall in the 2nd camp. I have a Thorens turntable, made in 1977, I've had it for 30 years now, I bought it in '88. My how time flies. I used it up until.. what.. 2005? I'll revive it soon, I just need to be bothered to get or build a phono preamp. Long story, a hurricane
Re: (Score:2)
3. People who just find it plain fun : People often seem to forget that hobbies are not just about showing off, but for having fun. Film is a different experience and a different skill, and some people enjoy it more.
4. Edge cases in accessibility : Price out a monochrome 4x5 camera or a UV rig, or the speciality high resolution stuff. Digital prices are orders of magnitudes higher than film in some domains and if you wanna play with the capabilities, film is still
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The reason the hipsters can now buy new turntables and tube amps and such is because people like me never quite gave up on that.
You fail to see the flaw in your logic. Your unwillingness to give up "old stuff" does not sustain a market for new stuff, therefore the hipster's ability to buy new stuff isn't predicated on people like you.
Hipsters are a sad combination of NIH, general ignorance with ego, and an audience even more ignorant than they are. They don't care about anyone old enough to have never gi
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to see the flaw in your logic. Your unwillingness to give up "old stuff" does not sustain a market for new stuff, therefore the hipster's ability to buy new stuff isn't predicated on people like you.
So how do you explain the existance of Conrad-Johnson (tube audio), Audio Research Corporation (mostly tube), VPI (hi-end turntables), Pro-Ject (entry-level 'tables), the survival of Thorens (both entry and hi-end tabels) over nearly two centuries? I stand by what I said. It is your logic that is flawed, if you don't recognize that before hipsters made it cool to have old-style audio, many people did indeed spend a lot of dosh on new old audio. Those people weren't the hipster of today, those people were those who either never left the Old, left the Old and returned to it after a while, or those who decided to try it out for the first time.. and liked it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean turbojets.
Nope, skinny, noisy, smokey turbofans. Like JT3D and JT8. Low-bypass.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Because you don't get to see the results instantly, so it forces you to slow down and think about what you are doing, and get it right in the camera.
Frankly, that’s a good approach to take even with digital photography. Maybe it’s because I started with film... but I’ve always tried to get it right at the time I take the shot.
Somewhere around here I still have my old Pentax K1000 “auto nothing” film camera. I keep telling myself I should pull it out and shoot some film... haven’t actually done it yet, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Auto nothing?" The light meter switches on automatically when you remove the lens cap. The Spotmatics that came before the K1000 didn't even do that...you had to flip a switch.
:-) x 100
(Still have my K1000 that I got for Christmas when I was 13. I shot a roll through it maybe a year ago, and was disappointed that I didn't get my film back with the prints...they put 3-megapixel scans on a CD-R and included that. The zoom lens I used
Re: (Score:2)
"Auto nothing?" The light meter switches on automatically when you remove the lens cap.
Truly, we lived in the future.
You’re right, though - having that built-in light meter did make getting correct exposure a much faster process. Manual focus and aperture setting wasn’t that big a deal. Now where did I put my gray card?
Re: (Score:2)
And remember - when you pressed the shutter button, it took a picture.
It didn't futz about trying to focus, that was something you did before pressing the shutter. It didn't blink lights at you warning about exposure, or camera shake, it took the picture.
And if you didn't have time to make exposure and focus perfect, but *HAD* to get the shot, you pressed the shutter button, and it happened. You might have got a less-than-optimum result, but it was better than missing the moment because your auto-focus coul
Lack of assistive tech is overrated (Score:2)
And remember - when you pressed the shutter button, it took a picture.
So what? So does every camera if you want it to.
It didn't futz about trying to focus, that was something you did before pressing the shutter. It didn't blink lights at you warning about exposure, or camera shake, it took the picture.
??? Auto-focus systems are 100% optional on any decent camera and even with those it's generally a good practice to focus before pressing the button if you actually want a decent picture. And you can turn off the image stabilization and other helpful features too if you are bothered by them for some reason. But the exist because they are helpful. Very helpful in some cases. I defy you to pull and maintain focus on a moving target as fast as you can with
Re: Lack of assistive tech is overrated (Score:2)
Ok. Can you tell me how sports/action photographers managed to achieve sharp focus before auto-focus came along? What? They used skills and expertise? Say it isn't so! /sarcasm
Please tell me you've used a manual camera. No auto light metering, and no auto focus. I'd like to be reassured that you've used both types, both extremes from electronic full auto to full manual, and then I'll be able to give credence to your argument.
And by full manual, i mean an external light meter, and a hand-operated focus ring,
Manual is fine but auto exists for a reason (Score:2)
Can you tell me how sports/action photographers managed to achieve sharp focus before auto-focus came along? What? They used skills and expertise?
Calm down. I wasn't arguing that you cannot get great results manually. I'm pointing out that claiming that stuff line autofocus systems (which can be turned off) is somehow a negative is silly. To use your example now you not only can get sharp focus in a sporting event but you can keep it on a moving target at 10-20 frames per second with every frame in focus. Good luck doing that manually.
Please tell me you've used a manual camera. No auto light metering, and no auto focus. I'd like to be reassured that you've used both types, both extremes from electronic full auto to full manual, and then I'll be able to give credence to your argument.
What I've personally done has no relevance to the validity of my argument or lack thereof. That said depending o
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, an image that can be rushed because of digital is an image not worth taking. Film contributes nothing to "getting it right in camera" that shouldn't already exist. Anyone who claims to be a photographer yet says this isn't one, he's just an arrogant wannabe.
My expertise is underwater photography, and the suggestion that film contributes anything but heartbreak to that process would get you laughed out of the room. Land photography, being considerably less demanding, still has its share of ignora
Film is a pain (unless you love it) (Score:2)
Somewhere around here I still have my old Pentax K1000 “auto nothing” film camera. I keep telling myself I should pull it out and shoot some film... haven’t actually done it yet, though.
That's your deep realization that shooting film is an expensive pain in the arse unless you are really passionate about shooting film. We did it that way because we had to and because there weren't any better options at the time. Getting good at photography back in the day was an almost ludicrously expensive proposition so you had to be passionate about it. If you weren't the sort of person who though it was a great idea to put a dark room in your house, chances are you weren't that passionate about film
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes there's just a huge rush to put code on the screen people don't stop and think what they're doing, just writing line after line after line...
And while you're at it, get of my damn lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
I still have my Canon A-1 and numerous lenses. It was a real workhorse. I suppose I really did get my money's worth out of it. I used it to make slides for presentations before there was Powerpoint. I can't quite get myself t toss it. It doesn't take up all that much room, so it stays.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's why I use ed (Score:3)
Because you don't get to see the results instantly, so it forces you to slow down and think about what you are doing, and get it right in the camera.
It's why I use ed to make programs. Because you don't get to see the results instantly, so it forces you to slow down and think about what you are doing, and get it right in the file.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame so few people will appreciate the insight in this post.
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine why anyone would show up for that, considering that host is clearly not someone to learn from.
If you want to get an image right "in camera" digital is the way to go since you can confirm it on the spot. Furthermore, an image is only have done when the shutter is pressed and a digital "darkroom" is much more capable than a film one.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of interest, have you ever used something like 6x7 rollfilm or 4x5 sheet film?
Digital viewfinders (Score:2)
Cameras don't see the world quite the way that we do and even with the minute or so that you'd have to wait for those "instant" photos to develop, you'd already have forgotten what exactly you expected it to look like in terms of colors and focus.
That's why I'm convinced SLR cameras are headed the way of the dodo. An optical viewfinder really makes very little sense now that we have high quality digital viewfinders available. The SLR mirror is an anachronism from the film era that just adds cost, complication, noise and cost. To my mind it's much better to see exactly what the camera sensor sees rather than having to try to mentally transpose from an optical viewfinder. Plus I can put histograms and other useful tools right on the screen so I kn
Re: (Score:1)
Or, you know, he was trying to teach a specific thing which doesn't apply to digital.
Then I'm afraid you know little about photography.
The way many of us learned photography was a roll of film, a fixed focus 50mm objective lens (the camera sees what you do), and learning to take a good picture
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually why I switched to digital. When shooting film, I always had to keep a notebook where I wrote down all the camera and lens settings I had used for each shot on a roll of film. (Don't get me started on switching rolls mid-roll if I needed to switch from, say, 100 ISO for outdoor shots to 800 ISO for indoor at night.) Weeks later when I go
Re: (Score:2)
I do acknowledge that my "keeper" rate has gone down from about 1 in 10 shots with film to about 1 in 30 shots with digital.
If true that both are still amazingly high "keeper" rates. My keeper rate is considerably worse than that. Maybe 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 for images that I think are really worth a damn. I might go out to shoot some wildlife and come back with 3-5 decent shots out of several hundred. (Doing that on film would have been FAR too expensive) Depends of course on what you regard as a keeper. Not all the shots I take are bad but many are a little off to my eye for one reason or another.
Re: (Score:3)
The puzzled looks were priceless.
I'm sure they were. Photography generally isn't known for such elitist crap, so it would have been priceless given that their digital cameras can do everything exactly like film.
Now you could have accepted the digital crew but told them they needed image review turned off. But you wouldn't have thought of that because your reasons have nothing to do with photography.
You give us Nikon users a bad name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the gun has a knife on the end and is used as a sword. The difference between film and digital for photography? One guy needs to unload and reload film every 24 shots while the digital shooters go on coffee break. Unless your course spent a good part of it on developing film then there's no reason to exclude digital cameras other than elitism. There are petty few things different between shooting film and digital and nearly all of the principles of photography and how to use a camera apply to both.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they were. Photography generally isn't known for such elitist crap...
Ha! Ya, right. The first thing that usually happens between photographers is they look to see if you have Canon or Nikon and if that matches the brand they have chosen. Unless you're into medium or large format and then it gets into more obscure brands.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanking over brand is not the same as film vs digital elitism. Also the overwhelming majority of photographers I know compare brands jokingly knowing full well there's very little that separates them.
Film is cool but not for that reason (Score:2)
Because you don't get to see the results instantly, so it forces you to slow down and think about what you are doing, and get it right in the camera.
I've heard that argument in favor of shooting film before and I think it's a flawed argument. There is literally nothing preventing you from doing exactly the same thing with a digital camera except your own lack of self control. On the other hand with digital you can try things, see if they work, and iterate until you get the result you want so you have the best of both worlds in that sense. I think there are great reasons to shoot film (see below) but I don't think this particular argument holds water.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably haven't made the F6 for years either, though it's still in the catalogue for now.
Re: (Score:2)
The last I heard was that Nikon has the F6 on a very limited production almost made to order and I've read stories of how buyers have found thank you notes from the factory workers in the boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I finally made the decision to drag myself kicking and screaming into the DSLR world when I learned that Nikon had discontinued almost all of their film SLRs. The only ones left in the film SLR line were the absolute most basic student SLR and the absolute top-end pro SLR.
It was easy to settle on a Nikon. A short period of research showed that Nikon and Canon were shooting it out for First and Second, and everyone else was well back in the pack. More careful investigation showed me, essentially, that Can
Canon and Nikon... and Sony (Score:2)
It was easy to settle on a Nikon. A short period of research showed that Nikon and Canon were shooting it out for First and Second, and everyone else was well back in the pack.
That is no longer true. Sony has joined the conversation in a big way. Their A9, A7III and A7RIII and A6500 cameras are remarkable pieces of gear and they have a very good and rapidly improving lens lineup that any pro photographer can work with happily. (and the few holes in their lens lineup like super long telephotos have already been announced) Sony's G-Master glass is as good as anything Canon or Nikon sell that is similar and the big third party lens makers like Sigma and Tamron are releasing lens
Meh. 35mm. (Score:3)
People who are sticking to film (other than the hipsters) are probably using medium format [wikimedia.org] equipment. 35mm stuff in good shape is available at garage sales cheap. The larger format gear prices are holding up quite nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't be bothered myself, but they come up with some amazing images.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friend who is heavily into wet plate photography. The group he belongs to even make their own cameras sometimes using old lenses they find all over the place.
Why not grind their own lenses? A lot of amateur astronomers do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Question becomes "is it cheaper to build a new box" or "invest in the equipment to polish a lens" it's usually cheaper for the first.
Re: (Score:2)
People who are sticking to film (other than the hipsters) are probably using medium format [wikimedia.org] equipment. 35mm stuff in good shape is available at garage sales cheap. The larger format gear prices are holding up quite nicely.
Lots of Medium and large format going around but also lots of artist film photographers too in my experience. It does have a certain look and feel and they even tweak that by shooting with ten or twenty year old expired film to give weird effects. There is cachet in the art world that certainly includes getting into shows and even selling by being able to say you shoot film and everything is done in camera or developing. Film photography will probably always be around, much as oil painting will also always
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a little 35mm QL-17 as my daily carry camera for taking pictures of the family and interesting stuff that i see in my day to day life. The film may be grainy but the fast glass on it has a really nice quality to it. The scanned images may have fewer megapixels than my phone, but for shots of the kid goofing around that's really all i need.
Leica's also pulled the plug on the M7 (Score:2)
Leica discontinues the M7 [dpreview.com]
They still make the M-A and MP
an old Leica M or Minolta CL may be the one 35mm camera I could be bothered to get. I'm done with the kerr-chunkk of SLRs. Rangefinders, you don't hear 'em... *shhk*
Film died when Kodachrome died (Score:1)
Kodachrome alone would have been reason enough to stick with a film camera.
And I suppose Black and White film still has a niche.
But we will never see another still imaging technology as magnificent as Kodachrome again---that and three-strip technicolor for moving pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a coincidence - I was looking at some of my kodachromes just the other day. Taken in New Zealand in the 1980s, and there's no appreciable fade or colour shift. Amazing, and I miss it.
The last ones (Score:2)
It seems like, when the camera company knows that a line is near the end, they put a little extra effort into the last one.
I have a Nikon F6 and one of the last Hasselblad 500 C/M's and they are both very refined machines. The F6 is smooth as butter - a real pleasure to use.
For those of you in the Pacific NW, there is still Blue Moon Camera & Machine in Portland OR. They *only* sell film gear. They have lots of new and used gear in the shop and are very friendly. They process film in a wide variety of f
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like, when the camera company knows that a line is near the end, they put a little extra effort into the last one.
.
Reading your comment, it just occurred to me that they're probably dumping all their pent-up design concepts into the last model. Any development shop will come up with all kinds of different features, functions and improvements, which will be metered out between different product lines. Normally this provides for differentiation between low-end and high-end, and a reason to upgrade next year.
But if there's no next year, and no more low-end or high-end, heck, why not dump it all on the last model?
My point?
Digital used to be sort of weak compared to film (Score:2)
Scanning a 35mm negative and getting all of the info off of it, including grain, takes a 50MP scan. We have full frame sensors in that range now. Granted, snapping a photo that will do the capabilities of the film justice requires some very high-grade glass.
My old 10MP DSLR is limited by the kit lenses I use with it.
Entirely replacing any medium-format film platform with digital is a long way off, but I have seen cameras that use the same principle as a flatbed scanner, with a super-high-res one-pixel-tall
Re: (Score:2)
Scanning a 35mm negative and getting all of the info off of it, including grain, takes a 50MP scan.
That is highly dependent on the film. For most consumer film, digital surpassed film in quality MANY years ago, but there were some really fantastic films out there, often not very sensitive to boot, which leads me to the point: What capabilities are we talking about.
About the only thing film still has over digital is the smooth rolloff in the high end rather than hard clipping, but these days there's so much dynamic range available in digital sensors that underexposing isn't the noisy mess it used to be.
Tough to Develop (Score:2)
My dad still has an analog camera, and refuses to switch to a digital one. The local camera shop and convenience stores stopped developing film, now he has to go to Walmart and hope the one employee that knows how to develop film is on duty. He has taken to shooting photos on his flip-phone, so maybe there's hope for him yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Learning something new (Score:2)
My dad still has an analog camera, and refuses to switch to a digital one.
Some people get very comfortable with what they already know. Learning something new can be hard work, even if the payoff is big at the end. I wouldn't be critical though if he actually enjoys using film. Nothing wrong with that. Especially if he isn't comfortable with computers.
He has taken to shooting photos on his flip-phone, so maybe there's hope for him yet.
Unless he is working with some high end film gear I suspect he'll just gradually realize how much easier the camera phone is and start leaving the film camera in the closet so to speak. It's pretty easy to get prints off a phon
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you've got a chance for a good father's day project. You can buy everything from an imager, to the developer chemicals, to photo paper pretty cheaply these days. If you want to try a run, pick up one of those junior chemistry kits that they sell. Nearly all of them contain the chemicals for basic 3-bath process of colour film.
It's a totally different market now (Score:2)
From my corner of the world, Kodak used to the the brand for con
Re: (Score:2)
Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Polaroid, etc ... but where was Kodak? I looked on wikipedia and found out that apparently they exited the consumer photography realm completely several years back.
From my corner of the world, Kodak used to the the brand for consumer photography.
they were. Then digital came along and they mismanaged their patents, but more importantly hired morons to make their camera interfaces. Kodak digital cameras took fine pictures, but that was only once you managed to figure out how to use them.