Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?

[dutchsteammachine]

Canonet and similar rangefinders are still cheap and very popular. I got a Canonet 28 and 17QL (Selling both because sharpness just isnt as good as Nikon F100 and AF-S glass.

I am 24 years old and over the past 5 years have moved from a simple Exacta RTl1000 to Canon FD, Nikon AF to Mamiya 645 and RB67 Pro.

I enjoy both my Canon A-1 and Nikon F4/F100.

Different camera's for different moods

Canon FD glass is very inexpensive, as is Mamiya 645 and RB67 glass. And in my experience the Mamiya glass beats the Canon FD glass any day.
Nikon AF-D/S glass is the best performing out of my kit however, but most expensive. Especially the zooms, shiiiieeettttt.....
I plan to get 28, 35, 50 and 80mm AF-D or AF-S primes for my Nikon camera's.

Canon FD zooms are very cheap, even the higher-end ones. And fairly good imo, not much worse than the Canon FD primes...

 

[dutchsteammachine]

Well, you'd be wrong.
I hate film lens adapting, for a variety of reasons, but the lenses are very much on par, or better in some instances than modern lenses.
The priorities are often different. Ultimate mid sharpness are of the chosen over corner sharp. Contrast and colour is often prioritized over slight apparitions and tangential coma.
But most importantly approximating telecentric projection is not as much of an issue with film lenses.
At most you are going to suffer a bit of vignetting and anisotropic smearing.
With a sensor things are much worse, if the light doesn't hit the sensor at close to a right angle.

If I was going to get an analog system for maximum sharpness, it would be one these:
Hasselblad medium format. (Dont have)
Leica R8/9 with Leica R glass. (Dont have)
Nikon AF-D/F glass. (Two primes)
My Mamiya 645 and Nikon glass have given me the best results.

Out of my 50+ lenses from different systems, my Mamiya 645 300mm f5.6 ULD has the highest optical performance. Ever.

What I have been disappointed by are the Nikkor AF-D and Tamron AF-S zooms. Just not as sharp as cheap AF-D primes or Mamiya glass.

 

[blockend]

Well, you'd be wrong.

The expectations of a digital camera are different from film. People buy digital cameras for benefits like absolute resolution, corner sharpness and lack of vignetting. There are modern manual lenses that behave rather like old lenses, 7Artisan's 25mm for example. Great central sharpness, lousy edges, very nice colours and they're only 50 quid new, but that isn't what most people want from digital camera output - hence my original comment

 

[Helge]

The expectations of a digital camera are different from film. People buy digital cameras for benefits like absolute resolution, corner sharpness and lack of vignetting. There are modern manual lenses that behave rather like old lenses, 7Artisan's 25mm for example. Great central sharpness, lousy edges, very nice colours and they're only 50 quid new, but that isn't what most people want from digital camera output - hence my original comment

Don’t compare 7Artisans lenses to masterpieces like the FDn 50mm 1.4, AIs 28mm or Minolta MD I 24mm.
They are not terrible, but they are ultimately toys.

 

[blockend]

Don’t compare 7Artisans lenses to masterpieces like the FDn 50mm 1.4, AIs 28mm or Minolta MD I 24mm.
They are not terrible, but they are ultimately toys.

I own 2 of the 3 lenses you mention (3 including the 7Artisans) and use them for video. For stills they don't bear comparison with modern digital lenses. Which is where I came in.

 

[Helge]

I own 2 of the 3 lenses you mention (3 including the 7Artisans) and use them for video. For stills they don't bear comparison with modern digital lenses. Which is where I came in.

Well that's just your word against mine.
Last I checked, 28mm AIs was still manufactured and sold. The rest are very much comparable to modern lenses.
f8 I know, but:
https://flynngraphics.ca/fd-50mm-f1-8/
The vignetting here discussed, might very well be due to non telecentric projection:
https://www.theweekendlens.com/canon-nfd-50-f14.html

 

[blockend]

Well that's just your word against mine.

Well if you're calling me a liar there seems little point in engaging. For what it's worth I have the Nikkor 28mm 3.5 AIS, a short lived late iteration of a long-lived and well regarded lens. It's in as new condition. The Canon FD 50mm 1.4, which came with a Canon A-1 acquired years ago, also very clean, and the 7Artisans in Fuji mount. The Minolta is the only lens you listed I don't have. I have used them at various times on M43, APS-C and full frame cameras, except for the FD which as you know is incompatible with the EF mount. Also many other FD, AI, C/Y and M39 mount lenses.

I have performed test shots of each lens at apertures from wide open to f16. Renderings vary from reasonable to excellent, but none are comparably sharp across the frame to manufacturer's digital lenses with big enlargements. Beginning a reply with "well you'd be wrong" then inferring someone is lying is not conducive to good faith. I'm glad you are pleased with your manual lenses and they meet your standards.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

What's "affordable"? Japan Camera Hunter suggested that people should expect to pay somewhere in the $1000 range for decent newly-developed compact camera today (and yet people grumble about the $480 price of Lomography's LC-A 120!)

BTW, there is a Kodak-branded reusable camera out there simply known as "Kodak M35".

There is a big difference between the grumbling and the sales. Look at Negative Supply. Their products are often touted as too expensive, but they beat their last kickstarter by like 300%. They sell everything they make and mostly have trouble meeting demand. Same is true of Leica. They sell a 50/1.4 for Five. Thousand. Dollars. No matter how much I say that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, they sell every one they make and people mostly are on waiting lists to get them when they're out of stock.

 

[blockend]

There is a big difference between the grumbling and the sales. Look at Negative Supply. Their products are often touted as too expensive, but they beat their last kickstarter by like 300%. They sell everything they make and mostly have trouble meeting demand. Same is true of Leica. They sell a 50/1.4 for Five. Thousand. Dollars. No matter how much I say that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, they sell every one they make and people mostly are on waiting lists to get them when they're out of stock.

Different rules apply in M-mount. Someone could rip a lens off a Hanimex, put a Leica bayonet on, brag about chromatic aberrations and they'd sell every one could could make at £2k a pop. The price is part of the attraction.

 

[blockend]

They sell a 50/1.4 for Five. Thousand. Dollars.

The Leica 50mm 1.4 in L mount is nearly eight-and-a-half thousand pounds. The going rate for a bright-ish standard lens in 2020. Madness.

 

[Helge]

Well if you're calling me a liar there seems little point in engaging. For what it's worth I have the Nikkor 28mm 3.5 AIS, a short lived late iteration of a long-lived and well regarded lens. It's in as new condition. The Canon FD 50mm 1.4, which came with a Canon A-1 acquired years ago, also very clean, and the 7Artisans in Fuji mount. The Minolta is the only lens you listed I don't have. I have used them at various times on M43, APS-C and full frame cameras, except for the FD which as you know is incompatible with the EF mount. Also many other FD, AI, C/Y and M39 mount lenses.

I have performed test shots of each lens at apertures from wide open to f16. Renderings vary from reasonable to excellent, but none are comparably sharp across the frame to manufacturer's digital lenses with big enlargements. Beginning a reply with "well you'd be wrong" then inferring someone is lying is not conducive to good faith. I'm glad you are pleased with your manual lenses and they meet your standards.

"Lying" is a strong and wrong word to use here. There is a multitude of ways in which you could have made a mistake in a test (assuming you can even fairly test a film lens on a bayer sensor).
That would not be lying, just being mistaken,
By your logic you are also calling me a liar.
Weirdly it's quite hard to come by direct comparisons between vintage and new lenses.

 

[blockend]

There is a multitude of ways in which you could have made a mistake in a test

Indeed there are, and at some distant point in the last 45 years of photography I might have made them.

 

[Helge]

Indeed there are, and at some distant point in the last 45 years of photography I might have made them.

So you're an infallible lens tester, with 45 years of experience now?
There is peer review in science for a reason.
Even the best can and will make lots of mistakes, have subconscious biases, not know every variable etc.

 

[blockend]

assuming you can even fairly test a film lens on a bayer sensor

What sensor did you propose testing them on? CCD? X-Trans? Foveon? If you recall your point was regarding film era lenses on digital cameras.

 

[Kino]

Just the lack of consensus for what an ideal, new-film camera would/should be is enough to make any manufacturer with an ounce of brains run very fast in the other direction.

 

[Pioneer]

How did we go from discussing the lack of affordable cameras being the end of film photography to lens tests on digital cameras???

 

[blockend]

So you're an infallible lens tester, with 45 years of experience now?

Ok, I'll play along. I arranged a variety of every day objects on a table to a depth of 3ft. I then tested each lens at each aperture on a sturdy tripod at minimum focus distance, with the self timer, first at minimum focal distance, then at 7ft from the centre point. Which is tedious beyond belief, but I needed to make comparisons before I replaced focal lengths I already owned with more expensive modern optics.

I could have kicked the tripod, there could have been mirror shake - except two of the three cameras don't have mirrors, my focusing could have been off but I used 100% enlargement and focus peaking. Then I'd have had to have done one or more of the above for each shot. If I could be bothered I could dig out the notebook in which I laboriously recorded my findings for each lens. Off the top of my head a Yashica 50mm f2 performed far better than it had any right to, and is one of my favourite lenses on film and digital video. The FDn 50mm 1.4 was ok but didn't meet the hype and exhibited focus shift at f2.8 and f4. A Sigma 28mm 1.8 did quite well, an AIS 135mm Nikkor was among the better teles. Some zooms were better than others. Some lenses were very pleasing, some "glowed", some like a Lanthanum coated Industar were sharp while older versions were not. And so on and so on.

There are no depths to the debunking you could apply to what I'm saying, but at some point I've probably mentioned all those lenses and many more on this forum, where my observations can be found.

 

[BradS]

How did we go from discussing the lack of affordable cameras being the end of film photography to lens tests on digital cameras???

a hungry troll found someone to feed him.

do NOT feed the troll!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Just the lack of consensus for what an ideal, new-film camera would/should be is enough to make any manufacturer with an ounce of brains run very fast in the other direction.

All that means is that there are plural opportunities in the market, if the money is there as well. Clearly, in the Leica end of the market, the money is there -- but is it there in the Argus C3 end as well?

 

[blockend]

How did we go from discussing the lack of affordable cameras being the end of film photography to lens tests on digital cameras???

New film cameras > camera prices > lens prices > reason for lens price rises > adaptation to digital cameras > advisability of adaptation > bun fight.

 

[reddesert]

There is a law of nature that any prolonged thread on a photo forum will inevitably devolve into an argument about lens resolution.

"f/5.6 and be there" is a viable alternative.

 

[Helge]

What sensor did you propose testing them on? CCD? X-Trans? Foveon? If you recall your point was regarding film era lenses on digital cameras.

No, my point was about them being good lenses for photography as such, and it being a mistake to judge then on an electronic sensor.
Your ennitial comment implied that film was somehow more tolerant of these lenses, because it is supposedly an inferior sensor, to which I replied that:
A: film is in fact the higher resolution sensor.
B: The lenses designed for film are not as tele centric and doesn't need to be. And that would account for some of the corner problems with electronic sensors.
C. The vintage lenses are in fact very good overall. Even on a digital camera. Especially the more tele centric ones.
It's just that testing of the differences haven't been very systematic and rigorous.

 

[Helge]

There is a law of nature that any prolonged thread on a photo forum will inevitably devolve into an argument about lens resolution.

"f/5.6 and be there" is a viable alternative.

Don't you mean page 5.6 and be there? ;-)

 

[Helge]

As I wrote in the comments on Davids original video. I think a completely new camera would be wise to go with medium format.
What the film type lacks in number of places that are able to develop it, it more than makes up for in making the whole camera far simpler to construct and get very respectable results from.
And that's from lens to film advance.
A folder equivalent to the Nettar or Ikonta, or a wideangle shallow box camera, could be made quite easily and cheaply but well out of plastic and rubber.

One obvious thing to implement would be coupling to a smartphone for film-sim preview, range finder (beamsplitter and software to decode the distance) and light meter.
The smartphone could be docked on the back with a one hand operated clamp.

You could even have an Instax wide back to make it even more alluring to a wider demographic.

For an 135 SLR Canon or Nikon could very well step up and make something.
The technology they have in their SLRs are not that different from film.
It would virtually be a question of replacing the sensor with a film back.

 

[4season]

There is a big difference between the grumbling and the sales. Look at Negative Supply. Their products are often touted as too expensive, but they beat their last kickstarter by like 300%. They sell everything they make and mostly have trouble meeting demand. Same is true of Leica. They sell a 50/1.4 for Five. Thousand. Dollars. No matter how much I say that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, they sell every one they make and people mostly are on waiting lists to get them when they're out of stock.

What's the harm in what Negative Supply and Leica are doing? These are non-essential products catering to a very niche audience, and neither firms are seeking to monopolize the market. In fact, you have quite a few alternatives available to you at a wide range of prices. If you want to see a real racket, just look at the USA market for nutritional supplements.