How long 35mm with no new cameras?

[ilovekodachrome]

I'm a strong supporter of Kodachrome 64. If you check B&H, I predict you will find that all 35mm cameras are in the process of being discontinued, at least all the ones that aren't junk. How long can 35mm stay viable with only used cameras available?

 

[kevs]

12 years, one month and three days, twenty-one and a quarter hours and thirteen point seven six one seconds from the moment you open this thread.

That's just a rough estimate, of course!

 

[railwayman3]

Quite a long time....depends on how long guys like us look after and preserve the quality manual cameras...leica, nikon, canon, pentax and some others.
And whether the analogue revival continues for art work.
Certainly few people seemed to use LF and ULF cameras a few years ago, so maybe there will also be a revival in MF and 35mm as people want to emulate the bigger formats in a way they see as easier to handle.
Lets be optimistic.

 

[Photo Engineer]

12 years, one month and three days, twenty-one and a quarter hours and thirteen point seven six one seconds from the moment you open this thread.

That's just a rough estimate, of course!

Doggone it! You forgot to add in the leap second from 2008!

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Once the slack goes from the market and the over supply of reliable second hand 35mm cameras drops things may change.

Supply and demand rules the market place and we have a glut of supply.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm a strong supporter of Kodachrome 64. If you check B&H, I predict you will find that all 35mm cameras are in the process of being discontinued, at least all the ones that aren't junk. How long can 35mm stay viable with only used cameras available?

OMG!! OMG!! If you are right then I will not be allowed to process my 35mm film at home! What am I going to do?

Please advise. Interested readers want to know!

Steve

 

[AgX]

As long as sales of films are profitable for the manufacturers. They do not care in what kind of cameras their films are used.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Once the slack goes from the market and the over supply of reliable second hand 35mm cameras drops things may change.

Supply and demand rules the market place and we have a glut of supply.

Ian

Exactly.
And if we're still using film, they'll keep making cameras for us to use it with. They still make new large format cameras, and those have been out of mainstream fashion for some time.

 

[Kvistgaard]

Exactly.
And if we're still using film, they'll keep making cameras for us to use it with.

- yup, but at which cost?

 

[archphoto]

Actualy quite a long time, as long as we keep buying film for it.
On the other hand, if you see a mint camera that you wanted anyway, buy it now, before the mechanical well dries out, esp. 35mm.
Parts will stay available for the MF and LF camera's for a long time; 35 ???

And may be we have to become good friends with our repairman in the future..........

 

[nickrapak]

The thing with film (as opposed to digital) is that newer is not necessarily better. There are many people on this forum that would much rather have a 50+ year-old Leica than a 5 year old Canon SLR. I myself would never give up my OM-2N for any AF SLR. In addition, us film shooters are engorged by the glut of film-based accessories being put on the market by people who are switching to digital. "In fact, I think that might be a reason that the photo companies love digital... You buy one film body and 4-5 lenses, you are set for the next 10-15 years. With Digital, you have to buy a new body every 2 years at the most to keep up with current technology. Besides, most "film people" have chosen their preferred system, and will stick with it until "the end"

 

[2F/2F]

I'm a strong supporter of Kodachrome 64. If you check B&H, I predict you will find that all 35mm cameras are in the process of being discontinued, at least all the ones that aren't junk. How long can 35mm stay viable with only used cameras available?

The motion picture industry's use of 35mm or lack thereof will determine this, not camera availability...for Kodak and Fuji, at least. In a recent post, PE stated he had heard that 60 to 90 percent of film sales is motion film. Since I am now stating this to you, it is hearsay, of course, but anyone who is familiar with the practices of the MP industry will tell you that the volumes shot on motion film wipe out the volumes shot on still film. It takes a few seconds of motion film at 24 fps to equal the amount of film shot on one roll of 35mm still film, and a much smaller percentage of what is filmed will ever be included in the final product, so they shoot more waste as well. Add to that the fact that 35mm film is still the professional industry standard for MP, and at no point was it ever the professional standard for still pix, unless you are talking about news shooting in the past 40-50 years. Personally, I am surprised PE heard a number as low as 60 percent! I figured at least 75, and probably more.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It takes a few seconds of motion film at 24 fps to equal the amount of film shot on one roll of 35mm still film, and a much smaller percentage of what is filmed will ever be included in the final product, so they shoot more waste as well.

At 24fps, it would be theoretically exactly 1.5s (1.5 x 24 = 36). But there are also 24exp rolls, which would be spent in exactly 1s.

Now I wonder about the resources of the English language: does 1.5 count as "a few" (i.e. more than 1) or not (it's less than 2, hence less than grammatical plural).

Just doing that to bug you, and Happy New Year!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'll confirm that is what I heard from various sources. I would guess that no one wants to give out the real figure and that the "real" figures varies seasonally or is based on Hollywood usage. There is also considerable use by Bollywood.

PE

 

[2F/2F]

At 24fps, it would be theoretically exactly 1.5s (1.5 x 24 = 36). But there are also 24exp rolls, which would be spent in exactly 1s.

Now I wonder about the resources of the English language: does 1.5 count as "a few" (i.e. more than 1) or not (it's less than 2, hence less than grammatical plural).

Just doing that to bug you, and Happy New Year!

Hi, Michael,

Happy new year to you as well!

That is correct for horizontal-running MP cameras that use the same size frame as a 35mm still camera. Standard vertical-running ones use a smaller frame in which the area between one strip of sprocket holes and the other is the width of the frame, not the height.

If it makes you feel better, I had the "what is a few?" question of myself before posting! I didn't bother to calculate the exact length of film, so estimated by saying "a few". Gotta love general language!!

 

[wogster]

I'm a strong supporter of Kodachrome 64. If you check B&H, I predict you will find that all 35mm cameras are in the process of being discontinued, at least all the ones that aren't junk. How long can 35mm stay viable with only used cameras available?

For about $100, I can by a slightly used and in good condition, Konica A, with a standard lens. This is a camera that hasn't been produced since 1968. So, if you can still buy a 40 year old camera, then there is no reason that 40 years from now, you will not be able to still buy a used 35mm camera, heck I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't then still buy that Konica A, those cameras were built like tanks in miniature.

Now, if there are new film markets, there is no reason there will not be new cameras to take advantage of that market.

 

[removed account4]

With Digital, you have to buy a new body every 2 years at the most to keep up with current technology.

where do people come up with this?
i read this all the time but have a hard time believing it is true.
i got a numeric back in 2001 or so ... and did not upgrade it
until last year ...

 

[2F/2F]

where do people come up with this?
i read this all the time but have a hard time believing it is true.
i got a numeric back in 2001 or so ... and did not upgrade it
until last year ...

People are consumer zombie idiots, remember!?

 

[Q.G.]

Indeed.

Still, to keep up with current technology, you will have to buy new every two years, at the very least.

The "consumer zombie idiots" bit is in the widespread believe that you have to keep up with current technology.

 

[frdrx]

From what I've read and observed it is now so cheap digitally to replicate or exceed 35mm film

Well, this isn't really true, is it? When did you last see a properly projected 35mm slide? Or a really, really good analogue print? It is true, however, that for the common consumer, film has become obsolete. But so have acoustic pianos or fountain pens.

 

[2F/2F]

I am not out to "replicate" anything. I know how to use film to get what I want. Digital is good for situations that are both low light and low contrast, or where I never need to make a decent print, but only to share the pix digitally with others. Otherwise, film gives me much better results. It is not about camera specifications. It is about linear response being a limiting, less flexible, and less controllable method of capture. (For what it is worth, this is the same reason I dislike films with a long straight-line...although at least they are more easily controlled, and with better quality) Regardless of resolution, digital will never, ever, ever, replace film for me UNTIL I can personally program the sensor to respond to light in the exact non-linear way I want it to respond, shot by shot, the same way I decide how to expose, develop, and print a shot...and until I can print silver gelatin and RA prints from digital files MYSELF, AT HOME, for less than I will spend doing the same with film. No matter how good an inkjet is, it is still just ink laying on top of a piece of paper, and still unfeasibly expensive in a non-commercial environment. I would rather make litho prints on newsprint than inkjets. I do not want resolution and I do not want cleanliness. I want the ability to get what I want, and I already have that.

 

[nworth]

I think 35 mm film will be around for a good many years, just because of the large number of cameras that use it. Look how long 620, 116, and 616 lasted. Motion picture film (at least color motion picture film) is quite different from still camera film, and it may not have that much influence on the life span of the still camera products.

 

[wogster]

This is an interesting angle. But for the possibility of the format being saved by motion picture film (about which I know not enough even to speculate) I would have agreed with the original poster that there is little time left for 35mm film. (Although based on nothing but speculation, the 12 years jokingly posted by the first response sounds about right.) From what I've read and observed it is now so cheap digitally to replicate or exceed 35mm film that there will soon be only a very small market for 35mm (still) film. Most high-end users (excepting many on this site, I suppose) will convert to DSLRs; almost all have already, I'd guess. And eventually, those ubiquitous disposable 35mm cameras will disappear too; it is surprising they haven't already, inasmuch as each one costs about $10 and for $80 you can have a decent compact digital camera that you can keep forever--I guess people still show up at tourist traps without a camera in hand and desperate to take even a lousy picture. Eventually, I would imagine that 35mm would be impossible to get, just as I suppose it is now impossible to get 110 cartridge film. (Isn't it?)

I'll use myself, just as an example. Most of my photography is point-and-shoot, on Halloween and birthday parties, etc. I shoot 4x5 as a hobbyist, but mostly it's getting the kid in the costume or before she blows out the candles. And after more than seven years of green skin and shutter lag with a never-ending line of cheap compact digital cameras, it occurred to me that good 35mm film in my ten-year-old Nikon point-and-shoot gives me better results. But I'm already a dinosaur, and too cheap to spend $400 on a compact camera that would equal the decade-old Nikon film camera (even though the $400 digital camera would save me money in the long run because I wouldn't have to develop the film). But when I can match the quality of the point-and-shoot film camera with a $100 point-and-shoot digital, I'll put the film camera away again, for good. If others are like me, and when the pros and advanced amateurs have no use for 35mm film anymore, that will be the end of it, I think (movies aside).

There are a couple of issues here, first is related to MP film, Hollywood is still mostly film, it simply costs too much to replace all the film equipment with digital equipment of the same quality. Think about a projector at your local theatre, it was installed new in 1995 when the 2 screen theatre was completely redone to became a 6 screen theatre, To replace this perfectly good projector with a digital one costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and you don't really gain anything over the platter system you installed in 1995.

So motion picture positive film is going to be produced for a long time yet. Still camera film emulsions are well established, so you knock off a batch a year, using the same machinery as your MP film, make a little extra money that way.

Second, there are people who tossed their film equipment for digital, and then there are dual format shooters and returnees. I am a dual format returnee, I switched to digital about 3 years ago, then finding it wasn't working well for B&W, have started to switch back to shooting film for B&W.

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

wow!

I don't think that all new film cameras are dead now... here's a fast count of films camera still available new:

Voigtlander Bessas r3a r2a r2m r3m r4m r4a.... plus many many different lenses...
Zeiss Ikon, Zeiss Ikon SW... plus many exceptionnal lenses....
Leica M7 Leica MP... plus many amazing lenses...
Leica R9

Rolleiflex 80mm 2.8; 50mm 4.0; 135m 4.0
Rolleiflex Hy6 (sinar and leaf equivalent is hybrid)
Hasselblad V series still available even if sales are certainly pretty low...
Mamiya RZ RB and 7 series

All the fotoman stuff linhof technorama horseman plus noblex in panoramic.

EVEN MINOX STILL PRODUCE FILM CAMERAS 3 models plus special editions

All the large format stuff... and add the lomography crappy basic slr to that.

To me, it seems that only the players that are big in the digital industry are dropping film cameras... And that the vast majority of what remains kick *ss. I am completely satisfied about the offering.

And, there is something special about film camera: R&D is limited and you don't have to sell the whole batch in a 2 year bracket, you offer a good product and sell it on many years...

Actually, if one don't take the amateur point and shoot market, I would say that there is more different film camera systems available than in the digital world. and most of it is better built.

Maybe I am wrong, but I am very optimistic!

Kris

 

[PHOTOTONE]

There are current NEW 35mm rangefinder cameras made by Leica, then there are new Zeiss and Voigtlander rangefinder cameras, several models, and many lenses. This covers the whole price spectrum of 35mm rangefinder cameras. Leica and Nikon both still offer a high end 35mm SLR. Voigtlander (Cosina) has an entry level 35mm SLR, and so does Nikon (made by Cosina)..the FM10. 35mm new film cameras are not quite dead yet. There are probably more Large Format sheet-film cameras made now than in the last 50 years. The large-format artisan built camera is a growth market. Medium format is not quite dead. Hasselblad and Mamyia have something still. Seagull TLR's, Roelli/Sinar medium format has a film back. There are panoramic cameras and camera backs for LF cameras using medium format film. No...I don't think the equipment end of the equation is dead.