Slashdot Mirror
Canon Has Sold Its Last Film Camera (techcrunch.com)
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.
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.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Pull!
#DeleteFacebook
As long as Nikon still supports film, I'm good.
People who are sticking to film (other than the hipsters) are probably using medium format equipment. 35mm stuff in good shape is available at garage sales cheap. The larger format gear prices are holding up quite nicely.
Have gnu, will travel.
Leica discontinues the M7
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*
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
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.
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 formats (down to Minox!) and offer a variety of print sizes from their many processors. They seem to have found a niche: they now do a lot of work for other camera stores who don't want to do the processing themselves, but want to serve their local clientele.
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.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
It's a shame so few people will appreciate the insight in this post.
Exactly.
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 sensor bar. They're not very fast, naturally.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
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.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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.
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.
Choice of medium always affects the final product. I think of it similar to choosing between watercolor or oil paints. Both are fine choices with their own interesting outcomes and artistic choices. Film has its own look which is hard to perfectly replicate with digital (and vice versa) and that's a good thing. Also film is super cool technology in its own right. The chemistry and optics and mechanics involved with film shooting is nothing short of amazing. There also is a cool nostalgia factor about it as well as a lot of fascinating history. And if you want to shoot in larger formats currently film is actually the cheaper way to get into those sizes compared with most decent digital medium format or larger cameras. And you can learn a lot about optics, chemistry and materials by working with film. Working with old film cameras can be a hoot for the same reason tinkering with any clever old technology is fun.
I think it is interesting how much film still influences our gear to this day. DSLRs are really something of an anachronism from the film era. The mirror had a lot of benefit in film but in a digital world it really just adds complication, cost, noise, and bulk. I get why they are still around but it it seems obvious that their days are numbered. Still, it's super cool engineering worthy of immense respect and I'm glad they'll be around for some time to come.
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.
G) Trade-able (without DCMA fears)
I can do the exact same thing with digital media. I can trade you a CD just as easily as a tape if we are talking physical medium. And a lot of digital content isn't affected by DMCA at all.
H) No computer required at any step
I fail to see how this is a meaningful positive feature unless one dislikes computers. It's just a means to an end and not particularly relevant.
I) Was a universal format (bought and played anywhere)
Only because there weren't better options available at the time. And it's pretty easy to argue that digital is a far more universal format. Plus I can bring my own devices and plug it in almost anywhere which could not be said about tape decks.
J) Can leave in car
You left it in the car because you had to. You get looked at funny hauling a collection of tapes everywhere you go.
K) Good enough for most situations
It was "good enough" because we didn't have better options.
Are MP3s better today? Probably. But "garbage"? Eh...
Yes garbage. Conveniently you forgot the failures of tapes:
1) Small storage capacity
2) Bulky for a collection of any meaningful size
3) Wears out with repeat play and prone to breaking
4) Limited utility for anything other than sound recordings
5) Linear playback with no skipping or random access
6) Tape hiss
7) Enabled a monopoly on distribution of content
8) Bulky recording and playback gear
9) Required managing and organizing physical objects
10) Expensive and time consuming to back up and impossible to back up perfectly
11) Only can be "traded" with people you see face to face or via snail mail.
12) Very difficult to edit content without a lot of very expensive and complicated gear.
13) More difficult to preserve than digital
14) Expensive on a unit of content basis (digital is FAR cheaper)
Basically tapes sucked.
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 cameras to begin with. I know I couldn't afford to do it when I was younger. It just cost too much and the feedback loop for learning was far too slow.
Zuck sucks.
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 lenses with native Sony mounts. Canon and Nikon make great gear and have amazing lens lineups but they're having trouble (so far) with the transition to mirrorless. SLR cameras are something of an anachronism from the film era but neither Canon nor Nikon have yet released a pro grade or even enthusiast grade mirrorless camera.
I have been very satisfied with my D80.
A nice camera albeit a little dated at this point. I would have been satisfied with that too I think.
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 phone these days even at the local drug store if that's important to him.
Your bot sucks.
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 a modern autofocus system. My camera will literally track a subject across the sensor keeping focus on their eyes the entire time.
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.
And now we have technology to help you take the shot right now AND get the focus and other settings right. The autofocus on my Sony A9 is astonishingly fast - far faster and more accurate in many cases than I could possibly hope to manage manually. It can take 20 frames per second and maintain near perfect focus on a person's eyes in literally every single frame. If that's not fast enough for you then I don't know what to say. You can get a REALLY good camera body with some astonishingly good autofocus for the price of a decent PC these days.
You might have got a less-than-optimum result, but it was better than missing the moment because your auto-focus couldn't make up its mind.
If your autofocus system hunts that badly you are using the wrong kit most likely. If you have some cheap point and shoot then yeah it might not be the best.
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 know I have the exposure and other settings right while still in camera and without even chimping. You also don't have the blackout when the mirror moves out of the way so you can see the shot continuously.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I recall back in the 80s when nearly every car had a cassette deck in it, we seemed to find wasted tape scattered all over the place. I never figured out what led to the high mortality rate of the tapes themselves but you would see hundreds of feet of tape blowing the wind, tangling up around road signs, hanging from trees, etc all over the place. Love it or hate it, but cassettes were the only technology that could lead to that mess.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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 on how old you are chances are good I was using pure manual gear before you were. I was using full manual cameras back in the 1970s and 80s. Autofocus wasn't really a thing back then and light meters weren't on a lot of cameras. Spent a lot of time with a manual Pentax (sold as Honeywell Pentax) back in the day. And of course every point and shoot camera back in the day had essentially no auto anything.
And by full manual, i mean an external light meter, and a hand-operated focus ring, or perhaps a bellows on a monorail.
Yeah I know what manual means.
I recently received a print catalog from B&H Photo at home (not entirely sure why they sent it to me). I was thumbing through it one night and was looking through the different cameras and accessories and started looking at the manufacturers. 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. We paid a premium to get Kodak film (which we used only for specific purposes) rather than the cheaper AGFA or even store brands. Now they're all but extinct.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comment removed based on user account deletion