Slashdot Mirror
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."
Quite obvious. Digital SLR's are great for everybody. Versus 35mm film SLRs, the digital varients offer comperable performance, quality, backwards compatiblity with VERY EXPENSIVE lenses, and save the purchaser a fortune in film development costs. 35mm isn't dead, it just isn't as profitable as it once was.
If you were really serious about photography, you wouldn't be using 35mm in the first place. It's meant for beginners who don't need serious resolution and fine detail which is only available in larger formats. For those beginners, digital surpasses 35mm in every way (resolution, color rendition (infinitely malleable), convenience, and you can bring hundreds of pictures for printing to the photo stand on a single card).
So are we going to mourn the loss of this dead technology forever? Give me a break.
It's a tough choice: bring along extra batteries, or bring along extra rolls of film.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
There are quite a lot of people who learned the stickshift form of photography, on their 35mm SLR. Many professionals still use regular film too, if only for the purist or romantic value. Either way, there'll be a market for cameras and equipment for this crowd and the crowds they teach. This same market created the digital SLR, one selling point of which was letting people use their old lenses and have full control over things like depth of field. Proctor and Gamble sells off brands all the time, they move on, but others pick it up and do well and often better. I see this similarly.
We lament the loss of the camera that captures our memories to film, for these memories define our past, our sense of self and sense of friends and memories, and of better times. And as such feel like we are losing our past, these emotions captured into simple mylar strips. But surely it's more memories being recorded, distributed, shared with friends and family in remote locale, that should make us not rue the evolution of film to digital, but rather see that it's not the technique in which we store our faces, it's the breadth to which we may share them...
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Apparently I should let my employer (a very well known and published photographer) know that 35mm isn't any good (we have switched to digital but he shot for decades with it) I suppose I should also let a number of my Professors in photo school know that also. I also suppose I should inform press photographers who before digital shot mostly with 35mm equipment. I also suppose I should inform Kodak and Fuji and tell them to stop making their lines of professional 35mm reversal and negative films, which are available in a much wider selection than they have consumer films available. I also suppose I should tell police photographers who've shot with 35mm for decades (and many still do).
Sure, for paid jobs it isn't ideal most of the times, but sometimes, when portability or processing costs must be kept low 35mm is much more attractive than medium or large format. Sure, digital is far better, and 35 is dead now, but in the days of film 35mm was just as professional as anything else if the situation demanded it.
Photos.
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...
:)
Personally I would take spare batteries, a backup storage device and a solar battery charger
I also doubt most people would be in those situations and as such the market for manual cameras will continue to dwindle but not die out. Somewhat similar to outdated transportation, there will always be a place for horses, camels and husky teams. It just won't be for the masses and large companies out to make profit.
Yes, 35mm is dying. But no digital camera can outperform my 4x5 large-format camera for the money. I get over 125 megapixels with a 2400dpi scan of a 4x5" peice of film. And this is with a cheap 2400dpi scanner. A 4000dpi drum scan blows everything away.
Do the math. 6-10 megapixel cameras can't make very large prints at 300dpi output. And some say that 300dpi isn't even good enough.
Moore's law doesn't apply to Bayer CMOS sensors either. And small sensors found in cheap digicams are diffraction-limited. You can't cheaply make a 4x5" sensor!
This leads me to believe that there will not be a decent, low-cost replacement for large format film in a LOONNG time.
While digital cameras may (and mostly are) replacing film in the consumer market, they still have a long ways to go before replacing film in all markets. Like it or not, digital still is a ways from matching the resolution of film, and there are still things that only film works well for.
Even beyond the "nostalgia" market, the other side is that film holds up better as a medium than digital. This isn't news. Remember that vinyl records are still around, and in many ways are still preferred as a medium by audiophiles and for long-term storage. I can still play an album from the 1950's, but will a disk with my photos on it still be readable in a decade? As I recall, we just had a nice long post about how long a CD-R or CD-R/W lasts.
Film isn't dead, it'll still have it's place.
Oh god - typical slashdot drama!!
:).
It is a sad thing that Nikon UK has chosen to do what they have decided to do but that doesn't mean Nikon has started that world-wide. If the British need newer lenses, they can buy from the US online sites. Taken another step to the grave my ass: a bad analogy but the FDD isn't totally dead yet and people have been predicting it's death for the last decade. Film photography is an enjoyable experience that requires a decent amount of discipline and knowledge. The photographs from a film shot have much higher resolution than a digicam shot. Sure a digicam is more convenient but photography isn't meant to be a convenience thing at all times. Sure a point and shoot is awesome at your baby's birthday party but not everything is a birthday party. Photography for me is light falling on film
I became a better photographer with a DSLR, since I can try out all the manual modes, and other fun stuff that SLRs offer, but without the expense of burning several rolls of film learning exactly what aperture and exposure do!
Don't pick up the pho*(@)$*@&@!@ NO CARRIER
While film isn't dead yet, 35 mm film most certainly is. While nothing can touch the resolution of medium format, or large format, in the 35 mm area, some new cameras really push the edge of 35 mm film resolution.
Specifically I'm talking about the Canon 5D - which I own. It is such a cool camera, and the pictures BLOW my mind. The camera is a full sized sensor - no more lens multiplication factor - and is 12 mega pixels. The native size is 4368x2912. By up-sampling it in the RAW conversion you can extract even more resolution and detail.
The big deal about this camera is that most DSLR cameras have a focal length multiplication factor. This means that beautiful "normal" lens becomes a short portrait lens. Good news if you shoot portraits, but bad news if you do scenes or landscape.
The best thing about the 5D is it has the resolution and sensor size of a Canon 1Ds Mk-II (what a name!), but the camera is much smaller and lighter. The price is also more reasonable for the 5D, while not "cheap", its accessible, and the price will only come down.
As a business decision, going digital can't be beat. The cameras cost a bit more, but you cna make that up in processing a few hundred rolls of film. Enlargements up to 8x10 are nearly indistiguishable. To a working pro, it is an easy move, assuming you get naything close to reasonable pixel count.
For a manufacturer, it is mor complicated, but much the same. The basic camera costs the same to make, but film camera sales are dropping. Digital is on the rise. Get out while the getting is good and save yourself running a production line at a loss.
The problem, as any good computer person should know, is Moore's Law as applied to camera sensors. Every 2 years or so they get a lot better. For a pro, it is a business move. Just buy a better camera every 2-3 years. For an amateur, its like buying a Pentium Pro and watching the P4s roll out. Yours works, but you lust after the best. 3MP - 6MP - 12MP+ But upgrading is $1000 ! Not an easy move to make, but doing it will dramatcally effect your picture quality (assuming you care about quality).
In the film camera world, it was easy to bypass most camera improvements. As long as the basic box was light tight, kept the film flat and the lens in focus, you were OK. Upgrades were at the lens or the film. Both of which were modular upgrades. It is common to see photographers with lenses stretching across decades. And of course film is as good as research can make it today. Not so with digital cameras. You are locked into the tech of the day you bought the camera. Some ROMs are upgradeable, but you won't be changing pixel count or fixing sensitivity issues that way. It is like buying a lifetime supply of film when you buy the camera. Cheaper, but you better love it.
Overall, the digital wave is a financial hit on the amateur and prosumer. A better medium exists, but it is economically unfeasable for a market that small. Going digital will lock these folks into something that is *almost* good enough, but will never be quite right. They have to ride the planned obsolescense train until Moor's Law takes them back to where they already are, at real film resolution, color, and contrast.
And This doesn't even address the problems of proprietary formats, memory, processing, etc.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
It seems to me that the lenses should be portable to DSLRs. Why are they dropping the lenses?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I think that digital cameras make better photographers.
Recently, I wanted to try out taking some different shots of a particularly beautiful sky at night. Not being a camera buff, I tried out a few settings on my Kodak DX490 on the spot and got the right results.
Another time I was at a Thai boxing show and I wanted to take some pictures of a friend while he was fighting. Because it was a digital camera, I could adjust the settings until I found something that worked in the situation.
In both situations, with a film camera, I wouldn't have got the desired results because I don't know enough about photography and I would never have been able to have those pictures. Isn't photography about pictures?
How many times have people left their family snaps in the camera, only to never process the film? How many time has someone thought, no I won't waste that frame of film because it costs $0.30 - I'll save it for something special? With digital cameras you can share the photos without losing the original, you can pass copies to your friends and family without incurring personal cost, or losing the negatives. You can photograph and record the mundane, which might turn out to be the most interesting shot to show your grandkids in 50 years time.
Have you noticed how some people throw away photographs anyway? Why print them out first?
Nikon is a lens manufacturer. They make bodies so that you'll have something to attach their lenses to. If no one wants to buy film bodies then there's no reason for Nikon to offer them.
Ermm, actually film does have a "pixel" per say, but they are actually grains of various chemicals that when struck by light undergo a photochemical change,these grains just happen to be distributed statistically rather than ordered as in a digital sensor (where the "grain" is always in the same posistion) this is why high ISO film is "grainy" because the particle size is larger (so as to better absorb said light so not as much is needed to activate said grains). this is also why black and white film is(was? not 100% sure of current color photography chemistry)looks better than color (only need 1 kind of grain that absorbs all light, rather than 3 different chemicals to absorb the 3 primary colors). This is the same as for digital cameras, and why the mars rover with a 1 MP camera can take such great images (they use different filters and then combine the resulting images to get color) while your 1MP color digital sucks.
drunk chemists
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.
No it's not, it's actually closer to 16MP (and that's for ISO 50...which limits you pretty much to still subjects), but even assuming your 24MP figure, your argument doesn't hold up. Image quality is not simply a function of resolution...but a combination of resolution and noise.
For film, this "noise" is grain(still a big problem for film...this is largely a result of the quality of film that you use, but it's still high)...for digital the "noise" is called sensor noise(not so much a problem...and it's based on a fixed variable...the sensor). Here is a good comparison of film vs. digital and why digital SLR has surpassed 35mm...
If you want to save yourself the reading, the meat of the story is this...even an 8MP Point & Shoot digital has better image quality than a 35mm camera with ISO 50 Fuji Velvia film....
Take your digital scanning back out into the field, and the high powered PC/MAC workstation required to use said back. And a whole lot of noise(generator) or weight(batteries.)
Or you can take a box of sheet film.
Scanning back:
ISO: 50 (may have changed, it's been a while)
Capture time for 4x5 frame: 30 seconds (again, see ISO)
Portion of those 30 seconds objects in the frame have been blown about by the wind or moved under their own power: 100% (except for people who take macro photos of rocks in the field.)
Film:
ISO: 50 to 1600 (6400 with two stop push)
Capture time for 4x5 frame: 1/1000th on the fast side, infinite on the long/slow side. [faster with a super-expensive shutter, again, we're talking field, not studio use. No, even in the studio, the scanning back has a fixed scanning time, where the effective shutter speed of a film sheet is that of the flash duration of your lighting kit.][Try a 30 minute exposure with your scanning back and see your power supply be drained in short order, if you can even get the thing to slow down the scan rate.]
Time subjects move: 100%, but at 1/1000th of a second they didn't go far so who gives a damn.
So, try to shoot a living breathing subject, or anything outside the studio with a scanning back. You'll be crying out for someone to bring you film!
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
How many of the morons currently buying digicams will manage to keep their valuable once-in-a-lifetime snaps intact for more than a couple of years?
[Reformat, reformat...]
No sig today...
Sensors can grow as much as you like, BUT... there's still plenty of stuff where film wins over digital, regardless of film area or sensor size:
Film isn't dead. Film isn't going to die. Furthermore, 35mm film isn't dead. 35mm film isn't going to die. It's just lost its dominant position in the mass-market. However, dedicated amateurs still use it.
IMNAAHO.
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer
Nikon has been short-sighted over most of its history. I have both film and digital SLRs from Canon - there are things film does way better (faster cycling, permanent record, lower long term cost). As usual, the technology isn't ready - not the cameras but the printing, the long term storage media, all of that falls short in cost and performance to film. I've heard for ten years (ten years!) that the CD is dead, yet I am still able to buy the music I want on CD. Recently again, the DVD is dead, long live the next cool thing. Slash-dotters are always crowing about how great this next thing is and how it awesomely makes the last thing dead... Bullsh**.
You miss that part of what happens with compact digital cameras is that the quality that has become acceptable is way lower than your basic Instamatic was capable of. M
You've become so enamored with the process, the technology, you completely miss the end result and the fact that the old stuff was BETTER in many many ways than this cool crap. It's like watching a whole generation of ID10ts who can't think in any coherent way but chase through for the next shiny thing (ooooh, it's shiny.........)
Ever seen how fast lab-processed snaps fade and colour shift in albums?
I'll take a good pigment-based, inkjet print on archival paper any day. Sure it's a bit more trouble....but then I can do it in the comfort of my own home office, without having to drive to a lab and without any delay. should I so choose.
As for keeping their "valuable once-in-a-lifetime" snaps intact for more than a few years, given the abysmal lack of photographic sensibility that most "morons" (to use our term) have, maybe this is a feature and not a bug?
On the plus side, the digital explosion has prompted the unwashed masses to take many more photos, and in many case, one can hope that more practice will lead to better photos, at least for some.
Chaeron Corporation