Film?

huddy said:
…
Things I find satisfying about the analog process?
  • Gently loading film into a camera and carefully taking up the roll.
  • The smooth advance of a Nikon F3.
  • The great viewfinders of basically any 30-40+ year old camera.
  • Real focusing helicoids.
    …
Click to expand...
Agreed. The tactile aspects are part of being involved in the process.

Also agree regarding the viewfinders. I love the shutter and aperture scale display in the Canon EF (“Black Beauty”). Equally appealing are those from the Nikon EL and FE series and also the FM3a. These are mechanical displays.
 
One beauty of film is that a film camera can be very basic and with minimal controls. The instruction manual could be printed on an index card. I have an early Olympus Pen VF half frame like that. This is the first model with full manual control, no meter. The most complex part is the viewfinder, a .5x projected bright frame with close up marks. A delightful and sufficiently capable camera for a variety of light conditions.
Very refreshing to only consider aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Maybe that is why on my only digital ILC camera, an EM10, that I like that questionable little 15mm f8 triplet, like Ron Popeil was fond of saying, ‘just set it and forget it’.
 
KM-25 said:
Generally speaking, that is not what this listing / column has been about.

Technically speaking, there is a steadily growing grass roots type of camera repair awareness in social media channels that I feel is promising. But there is also a ton of great lower mid end gear out there that is just fine to make satisfying images with which speaks to the above. I just got done photographing a great short film festival and one of the more talented film makers was clicking away with a well used black Pentax MX.

So while it is interesting how some of the better stuff has gone up a modest to impressive amount, I feel there are other forces that could work against film than lack of cameras.

My number one concern for film is actually the outcomes of climate change.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it KM-25, but there are 7 pages of replies and I was speaking to some of those replies. Threads tend to not stay on topic perfectly.
 
gelatin silver print (heliar 50mm f2 collapsible black) leica mp

Erik.

48090811141_23a65ddb58_b.jpg
 
jsrockit said:
Threads tend to not stay on topic perfectly.
Click to expand...

I feel a little guilty about that. I'm such a digital bungler that I'm not at all used to the new structure of the Rangefinder Forum. The digital structures on the internet are becoming increasingly incomprehensible to me, as are devices such as tablets and digital cameras. I really don't understand it at all and can barely follow the thread, let alone where to find the "correct" thread.

Erik.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Today new film cameras, although there are not many, seem to fall into two catagories. (1) Very affordable cameras like the Holgas that, in essence, carry on the tradition of the “box camera,” the family snapshot camera. (2) The very expensive cameras like the large format cameras that seem to range from $2,500 for a Toyo view to $13,500 for a Linhof Master Techniika. Sort of makes a Leica MP body at $5,700 seem reasonable.

As used film cameras in that medium price range rise in price, which they seem to be doing, and become less available, what is going to become of film photography? What’s going to happen to that broad range of film photographers somewhere in between the Holgas and the $13,500 technical cameras? I’m not really in a position to answer that question. News photographers switched to digital early in the game. But there are folks on this forum who are film shooters who are more than qualified to tell us what will happen to their world. And I would very much like to hear from them.
Click to expand...

I had to go back to the OP's initial post to see what the heck this thread is supposed to be all about.

All the best,
Mike
 
Bill Pierce said:
Today new film cameras, although there are not many, seem to fall into two catagories. (1) Very affordable cameras like the Holgas that, in essence, carry on the tradition of the “box camera,” the family snapshot camera. (2) The very expensive cameras like the large format cameras that seem to range from $2,500 for a Toyo view to $13,500 for a Linhof Master Techniika. Sort of makes a Leica MP body at $5,700 seem reasonable.

As used film cameras in that medium price range rise in price, which they seem to be doing, and become less available, what is going to become of film photography? What’s going to happen to that broad range of film photographers somewhere in between the Holgas and the $13,500 technical cameras? I’m not really in a position to answer that question. News photographers switched to digital early in the game. But there are folks on this forum who are film shooters who are more than qualified to tell us what will happen to their world. And I would very much like to hear from them.
Click to expand...

The expensive parts of a film camera are mostly these:

1. Focusing aids like in Rangefinders or SLRs.

2. Shutter mechanism. Even Pixii a $3000 camera didn't include one for cost reasons.. And while you can at least partly get away with a digital sensor, with film you need one. Of course you can put the shutter in the lens but then you end up with the same problem. Who is going to develop such an expensive lens for a tiny market?

I can't see any new company releasing a camera with these implemented. The upfront development cost is going to be huge unless you already have the expertise. Most likely Leica is just going to keep making the MP at that high price which I agree with you seems reasonable for a new film camera. Another possibility is getting a new MF camera from companies that are still in the game such as Hasselblad but definitely not a smaller price than MP.

P.S. I had to quote because as Mike suggests we need to get this thread back to topic.
 
olakiril said:
The expensive parts of a film camera are mostly these:

1. Focusing aids like in Rangefinders or SLRs.

2. Shutter mechanism. Even Pixii a $3000 camera didn't include one for cost reasons.. And while you can at least partly get away with a digital sensor, with film you need one. Of course you can put the shutter in the lens but then you end up with the same problem. Who is going to develop such an expensive lens for a tiny market?

I can't see any new company releasing a camera with these implemented. The upfront development cost is going to be huge unless you already have the expertise. Most likely Leica is just going to keep making the MP at that high price which I agree with you seems reasonable for a new film camera. Another possibility is getting a new MF camera from companies that are still in the game such as Hasselblad but definitely not a smaller price than MP.

P.S. I had to quote because as Mike suggests we need to get this thread back to topic.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, but to me your considerations also mean that one of the companies making full-frame digital SLRs (N, C, P) could come out with a film SLR that uses the same body, meter, and shutter and, important economic consideration for the manufacturer, lenses. It wouldn't be cheap, considering low volumes and required redesign of the camera internals, but I don't think it's out of the question.
 
retinax said:
I think you're right, but to me your considerations also mean that one of the companies making full-frame digital SLRs (N, C, P) could come out with a film SLR that uses the same body, meter, and shutter and, important economic consideration for the manufacturer, lenses. It wouldn't be cheap, considering low volumes and required redesign of the camera internals, but I don't think it's out of the question.
Click to expand...

The reason for not including them was that the film resurgence is tied a bit to the mechanical nature of the camera and the shooting process as many have indicated here as well. These SLR companies have long abandoned that kind of concept. But yes you are right, they do have the capacity to do so and who knows, they might.

I was re-reading the history of photography and there have been quite few times where new technologies/methods prevailed. The older technologies usually lasted for few decades but only among a very small number of peculiar individuals ;) . Tintype is one nice example. Even now, famous for their film work YT photographers are slowly integrating digital cameras in their work. That makes me think that the film resurgence that we see the last few years is not going to last that much. Of course there are still going to be some that use film as long it is available, but my guess is at some point, most likely when there are no big-shot directors using it anymore, companies will just stop mass-producing it. At that point we can forget for any new smallish format film camera being released ever again.
 
retinax said:
I think you're right, but to me your considerations also mean that one of the companies making full-frame digital SLRs (N, C, P) could come out with a film SLR that uses the same body, meter, and shutter and, important economic consideration for the manufacturer, lenses. It wouldn't be cheap, considering low volumes and required redesign of the camera internals, but I don't think it's out of the question.
Click to expand...

I remember well how cheap new SLRs became defunct at B&H not so long time ago. And I have no illusions why.

Next to nobody needs it by now. Cheap or not.
 
I've bought a tablet, its beautiful to see the pictures on this device. But I have to reset the tonal values of all my pictures. This is with digital technology possible. My old Samsung monitor makes the images really soft. The Samsung tablet makes them beautifully clear.

gelatin silver print (nikkor h auto 50mm f2) nikkormat ftn

Erik.

48426656226_522fac6321_b.jpg
 
Erik, your images also look really nice on Apple Retina displays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top