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.

Comments

I still shoot film

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

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:I still shoot film

[grahamsz]

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 the used market that new gear simply isn't attractive.

I'd bet Canon stopped making film cameras about a decade ago and are now drawing a line in the sand about how much stock they need to service the warranty and replacements until 2025.

Re:I still shoot film

[93 Escort Wagon]

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:I still shoot film

[kackle]

A) Not delicate
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:I still shoot film

[tlhIngan]

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 the used market that new gear simply isn't attractive.

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:I still shoot film

[thegarbz]

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.

I also still shoot film

[DontBeAMoran]

Pull!

Meh. 35mm.

[PPH]

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.

Re:It's why I use ed

[hcs_$reboot]

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.

Tapes suck

[sjbe]

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.