Beside the Nikon F6, what are the other 35mm camera still on production?

[RobC]

http://www.phenixoptics.com.cn/product_210.html

 

[AgX]

The problem with such sites is that often it is not clear what they mean. Maybe someone just put products on there that had been in production and then are kind of forgotten.

The most weird case at the moment is the ongoing website and advertizing of DHW, a company that sime time ago was dissolved...

 

[RattyMouse]

The new cameras cannot compete against the used cameras.

Bessa R2,R3,R4 rangefinders for about $800. Used Leica film cameras are close to the same price.

Fuji/Bessa 667 folding cameras were $2299. No more. Couldn't compete with used medium format cameras.

Leica...well, Leica is different.

And maybe, just maybe, the tough market that has been affecting the digital camera sales is also causing problems for new film cameras?

The Fuji GF670 was a one off, 10,000 batch of cameras made. It was never meant to be a long term product. It took several years to sell out the run and now it's mostly gone. It goes in and out of stock at B & H depending if they can get their hands on them.

That nearly 10,000 were sold shows that it did compete quite well.

 

[RattyMouse]

In many Third World and developing countries, film is still the dominant medium for photography. It would be interesting to find out what cameras they are using. Surely they can't all be buying second-hand cameras! I suspect China is manufacturing film cameras specifically for sale in those regions.

I dont think this is true at all. In rural China (very poor) or India, I see cell phones taking pictures. For people who are too poor to have even a cell phone, they simply dont produce images. It takes extreme poverty to not be able to afford a cell phone (phones start at less than $20 in China). Even your typical peasant who scrounges the streets for recycled garbage for a living has a mobile phone!

 

[Pioneer]

The Fuji GF670 was a one off, 10,000 batch of cameras made. It was never meant to be a long term product. It took several years to sell out the run and now it's mostly gone. It goes in and out of stock at B & H depending if they can get their hands on them.

That nearly 10,000 were sold shows that it did compete quite well.

As far as I have heard, that is true for the Fuji GF670. Fuji only paid for a certain amount for a Bessa 667 that was branded as a Fuji GF670. But the Bessa was different. My point was that I am sure had that camera continued to sell, then Cosina would have continued producing it.

 

[Xmas]

Hi Dan

True.

Cosina have a very low start up cost for a batch run, eg if a supplier had dropped out they would have needed a new supplier, otherwise their commercial person would have ordered a set of each part.

The Ja staff can switch parts kit without an interregnum.

Noel

 

[Photo-gear]

sales@sakar.com (New Jersey)
sakar acquired the vivitar copyright.

they will answer to you regarding brand new vivitar V3800

 

[Rook]

I dont think this is true at all. In rural China (very poor) or India, I see cell phones taking pictures. For people who are too poor to have even a cell phone, they simply dont produce images. It takes extreme poverty to not be able to afford a cell phone (phones start at less than $20 in China). Even your typical peasant who scrounges the streets for recycled garbage for a living has a mobile phone!

Neither China nor India are Third World countries. I was talking about countries where the typical household does not have access to a computer, and cell phone service is very limited.

 

[AgX]

A area with still no cell-phone system unlikely will have film processing facilities. Unlikely a interesting market for film camera sales.

 

[Xmas]

Neither China nor India are Third World countries. I was talking about countries where the typical household does not have access to a computer, and cell phone service is very limited.

And where do they get a film camera or film from and how do they afford it.

One of the start up U.K. Film Enthusiasts sourced a camera from a trash can (canonet /2.5) and another can only afford two Agfa vista cassettes a month.

 

[kivis]

I am not sad. My Nikon F is working perfectly and has no electronics, all mechanical. Now who is my great grand son going to find to give it it's next CLA?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I believe if you wish to continue with manual cameras over the next decade or two you'll need to become proficient with DIY maintenance/repair. It's not that hard in many cases but sourcing and making parts will be the hard part.

 

[georg16nik]

I believe if you wish to continue with manual cameras over the next decade or two you'll need to become proficient with DIY maintenance/repair. It's not that hard in many cases but sourcing and making parts will be the hard part.

The 35mm cameras with mechanical shutters don't need that much maintenance, even when heavily used.
SLR's might need new seals depending on the environment they are used.. and RF's might or might not need RF patch calibration but beyond that I say we are in good company - our tools are solid as a rock by design and there is not much wear and tear; given the right lubrication and tolerance adjustments.

 

[Ric Trexell]

You are not considering the cost of film or repairs.

This thread has turned into another one of those - 'because there are many film cameras out there, there will always be film cameras' discussions. What few people talk about is the cost of film and repairs. I sold my Mamiya RB67 Pro S because of several reasons, but mainly I saw what film was costing. When I started out with it just two or three years before selling it, color film cost just under $5.00. Every time I went to get more film, the price went up 50 cents. At the end I was paying $8.00 a roll and color film was getting hard to find. When you add $10 for developing the film, it didn't take long to realize that I would be spending the price of a digital in just film. Cameras that are sitting on the shelf with their lubes turning to varnish will cost $75+ to get cleaned. Who is going to pay that for a camera that will only be worth $25? The other day I was in to my local thrift shop and they had a Pentax K1000 with a telephoto lense for $5.00. I passed it up. I did pick it up and try it out and it seemed to work. I suspect there will be a market for LF cameras because they do have some advantages that smaller formats don't. And those that use LF want a better picture than either digital or even medium format will give. We also don't know what new things will come about in the digital world that will blow away film. However, for now cost is the main factor and digital is beating that all to heck.

 

[Paul Howell]

This thread has turned into another one of those - 'because there are many film cameras out there, there will always be film cameras' discussions. What few people talk about is the cost of film and repairs. I sold my Mamiya RB67 Pro S because of several reasons, but mainly I saw what film was costing. When I started out with it just two or three years before selling it, color film cost just under $5.00. Every time I went to get more film, the price went up 50 cents. At the end I was paying $8.00 a roll and color film was getting hard to find. When you add $10 for developing the film, it didn't take long to realize that I would be spending the price of a digital in just film. Cameras that are sitting on the shelf with their lubes turning to varnish will cost $75+ to get cleaned. Who is going to pay that for a camera that will only be worth $25? The other day I was in to my local thrift shop and they had a Pentax K1000 with a telephoto lense for $5.00. I passed it up. I did pick it up and try it out and it seemed to work. I suspect there will be a market for LF cameras because they do have some advantages that smaller formats don't. And those that use LF want a better picture than either digital or even medium format will give. We also don't know what new things will come about in the digital world that will blow away film. However, for now cost is the main factor and digital is beating that all to heck.

Depend on how you calculate the costs. In my case I have good film gear, from 4X5 to 35mm, I have D 3 with good lens, if I were to move from analog to digital. I still own 50 years worth of negatives, I need a high quality 35mm scanner around $400, a large format scanner around $600, a large format printer say up to 24 inches, $1700, then a top of the line Digital Camera with newer lens another $6000 to $10,000 this does not even come close to adding in a Pentax D645 or a back for my 4X5. I spend a couple of hundred on film, a couple of hundred on paper, a few more hundred on color processing. Less than what a large format printer would cost me. I do have digital gear, Pentax and Sigma, but neither are as sharp as my Minolta 35mm, and not in ball park of a 6X9 or 4X5 negative. My last repair on my Kowa SL 66 was $200, that was 3 years ago.

 

[ValoPeikko]

This thread has turned into another one of those - 'because there are many film cameras out there, there will always be film cameras' discussions. What few people talk about is the cost of film and repairs. I sold my Mamiya RB67 Pro S because of several reasons, but mainly I saw what film was costing. When I started out with it just two or three years before selling it, color film cost just under $5.00. Every time I went to get more film, the price went up 50 cents. At the end I was paying $8.00 a roll and color film was getting hard to find. When you add $10 for developing the film, it didn't take long to realize that I would be spending the price of a digital in just film. Cameras that are sitting on the shelf with their lubes turning to varnish will cost $75+ to get cleaned. Who is going to pay that for a camera that will only be worth $25? The other day I was in to my local thrift shop and they had a Pentax K1000 with a telephoto lense for $5.00. I passed it up. I did pick it up and try it out and it seemed to work. I suspect there will be a market for LF cameras because they do have some advantages that smaller formats don't. And those that use LF want a better picture than either digital or even medium format will give. We also don't know what new things will come about in the digital world that will blow away film. However, for now cost is the main factor and digital is beating that all to heck.

I understand where your coming from and have had those same thoughts my self. For me professional work on film is simply non-profitable. But film is far from being dead, nor will it be in immediate future. For me it's all about craftsmanship and chemical creativity. Besides I'm more at home in the darkroom then in front of the computer, even if I have taught Photoshop for quite some years and used one in professional setting for a long time. It's not about being nostalgic, at least not all of it. It's the feeling of getting hands dirty, seeing the magic happen. But for commercial usage, digital takes it for me. It's simply faster, more economic and quality is top notch. Not saying it's inherently better or worse from film, but those differences boil down to euros in the end in commercial setting. Some can get film working for them even today in fashion / portrait / wedding work and I respect them for it. But for me, I'm pragmatic and film ain't for me in those cases.

I see the new generation of darkroom alchemists coming to the scene. People who are intrigued by the alternative methods and perhaps venture to the traditional black and white world in the end (or at some point in the process). There's tons of used cameras around that hopefully find a good home and usage in the future. But still I'm worried. Not for the future of film since I bet there will be small scale film production into the far far future (and even current larger scale production for long time to come). But for the future of those kids who see the world analogically in the digital age, who might not find a repairman for their used gear, nor can purchase reasonable new gear. we're not there yet. But in future, who knows. Let's hope some young people learn the ropes and start repairing shops.. and perhaps, some day, there'll be new film cameras launched.

For me personally there's no difference if there's new cameras or not available in film. I'm quite happy with what I got. And for film, well as long as there's black and white available in nice emulsions, I'm happy. And even if the day comes that I can't afford it. There's always chemicals available and I can coat either thin paper or some other material for my own usage. Besides my LF camera eats plates happily

 

[Sirius Glass]

Additional hidden costs to going digital is that I would have to replace a perfectly good computer with a faster one with much more memory, buy a RAID system to back up the files, spend money for Fauxto$hop software and most importantly lose the archival advantages of film and the quality of a negative versus a file.

 

[Paul Howell]

I forgot to add the cost of ink, for a true black and white need the ink set and software, another $800 and then refilling the ink. And then there are the memory cards, true a card can hold many shots , but I archive the cards and replace with new CD cards, that is $25 to $30 a pop depending on the size of the card.

 

[Truzi]

Additional hidden costs to going digital is that I would have to replace a perfectly good computer with a faster one with much more memory, buy a RAID system to back up the files, spend money for Fauxto$hop software and most importantly lose the archival advantages of film and the quality of a negative versus a file.

Plus you'll have to to that every 3-5 years, a never-ending cycle.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It has been much cheaper for me to set up a darkroom from scratch with all the equipment [4"x5" Chromega Dichroic II 5D-XL, Arkay 32" drum dryer, 16"x 20" print washer, 20"x24" easel, color analyzer, Jobo CP2 Processor and Expert Drums that continue on the scanning-stinkjet tread mill. Viva a la analogue!

 

[Ric Trexell]

I'm talking about the non - pro photographer.

My statement about the cost of digital vs. film is based on the average Joe that takes pics of the kids and does the Grand Canyon thing. For the person that includes developing and all that in his hobby or profession, then there will be nothing much to gain by going digital as far as loving your work. This Christmas I will be taking my Minolta X-700 and some of my lenses to take pictures of the family. If it gets dropped by the 2 years in the family when I set it down, it is not much of a loss and will probably work anyway. I don't want to chance that with my Nikon D5100 digital. My use of film is going to be limited now that I'm retired and not even working part time. I am concerned about preserving digital pictures. One time I wanted to ad some pictures to a CD and renamed the CD thinking I was making another Folder. That resulted in the pictures that I had on the CD being non readable. I still had them on the hard drive, but I learned that just labeling a CD wrong can wipe out a whole stash of pictures. I have never lost 100 slides by mislabeling one of my slide boxes. Ric.

 

[Paul Howell]

My statement about the cost of digital vs. film is based on the average Joe that takes pics of the kids and does the Grand Canyon thing. For the person that includes developing and all that in his hobby or profession, then there will be nothing much to gain by going digital as far as loving your work. This Christmas I will be taking my Minolta X-700 and some of my lenses to take pictures of the family. If it gets dropped by the 2 years in the family when I set it down, it is not much of a loss and will probably work anyway. I don't want to chance that with my Nikon D5100 digital. My use of film is going to be limited now that I'm retired and not even working part time. I am concerned about preserving digital pictures. One time I wanted to ad some pictures to a CD and renamed the CD thinking I was making another Folder. That resulted in the pictures that I had on the CD being non readable. I still had them on the hard drive, but I learned that just labeling a CD wrong can wipe out a whole stash of pictures. I have never lost 100 slides by mislabeling one of my slide boxes. Ric.

Depends on what flavor of professional photographer you are taking about. There are many fine arts pros who routinely sell their work who only work with LF film, I know of a wedding photographer in Phoenix who makes a lot of money and she only shoots 35mm B&W, on the other hand commercial/industrial, sports, event, and press and photojournalism, it is digital. When I was working for the wires in the 70 and 80s I would have died and gone to heaven with a D4.

Aside from the cost of converting to a high end digital system I just enjoy working with film more than I do working with digital.

 

[CHX]

As for film in the real third world (i.e. places like the DRC, Malawi etc., rather than random places that are not Europe, Aus/NZ or USA/Canada) I doubt it has any real niche. Most people never had film cameras. Those who skirt but just avoid severe poverty will go straight to (or already have) $25 Chinese smartphones - even those without PCs. Printing images is not important to most people, least of all to those who never had them to begin with.

As for the cost of film vs digital in amateur or semi-pro photography, I found getting started in film is cheaper by far. Film bodies are cheaper than digital at all levels, but especially medium format, where digital isn't even slightly competitive. Enlargers are cheaper than printers and far more reliable and durable. Lenses, especially manual focus, are ridiculously cheap in comparison to digital only AF models. If you don't do large volumes, the cost of a digital set up is hard to justify - especially given the limited life span of things like PCs and printers. And as someone who plays with photogrphy for a *hobby*, digital gear just isn't that exciting... Film is quite frankly, more fun.

At large volumes though, digital can pay. Whilst the cost of inkjet printing vs photographic paper is comparable, there is no film cost in digital and that does become an issue at a certain point. For me, content with Vista 200 and Lucky or Agfa APX is not a big deal, but if you just have to use Ektar, TriX or Neopan, I'm guessing at a certain volume the megapixies begin look more attractive than the magic silver fairy. Also, you need to weigh up how much of a digital setup you might wind up buying anyway. I only shoot film these days, but I still need a film scanner and external hard drive to digitise photos for sharing with friends, family and for my blog/flickr - as well as for some printing.

 

[fstop]

Digital is another medium.I've had watercolor artists makes snide comments about my oil paint work.
As a power seller on ebay, I can tell you using film to shoot images for product listings is a waste of time and money. In other words if you are shooting for the web there is no need for upgraded printers, scanners etc. You make your image, edit if necessary and publish to the web in minutes not days or weeks.

I use film, in every format, too. It all depends on what I'm shooting. Binary code doesn't degrade, the storage medium may degrade but the code itself never changes. An analog image will change over time.

011011110110101100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110001101100001011011100010000001100111011011110010000001100010011000010110001101101011001000000111010001101111001000000110000101110010011001110111010101101001011011100110011100100000011011100110111101110111

 

[skorpiius]

I suspect by the time there is a shortage of fine film cameras to buy, someone will have gone into the business of reconditioning and selling old cameras with a warranty + whatever far more advanced 3d printing options are available then to recreate discontinued parts.