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

[Helge]

To make a viable reasonably prized camera today you’d probably need to be every bit as inventive a George Eastman was when he first popularized photography.

The problem is as ever the shutter and the lens as the parts that need precision while still being cheap enough.

You’d need to rethink how to do these parts outside of established fixed price manufacturing chains.

Mixed plastic and glass optics, might be a possibility.

The leaf shutter (forget focal plane for a number of reasons) might be solved with, counterintuitively as it might sound, an actuator per leaf.
The old spring-mechanisms with star-cams and springs involve a high degree of precision and metallurgy to be light tight, and has tremendous acceleration on albeit small connected peices of metal, hundreds of thousands of times over the lifetime of the shutter.
Every leaf having a small simple mini actuator makes everything far simpler and more flexible in many ways, and also more serviceable.

Medium format/120 for something like this makes sense in a whole lot of ways:
It’s puts a lot less stress on having superb top notch optics.
Transport can be made simpler.
Easier to scan and the overall resolution is just plain higher.
There are not as many 120 cameras out there that are in good condition. Especially not small portable ones.

Forget cameras for a moment though.
What is really, really desperately needed out there, is a superb affordable scanner!
It should be completely possible to make something that completely trumps a Flextight in almost every way, from recently dramatically cost reduced components from the smartphone industry.
You should be able to make something in the 200 to $400 range easily, with a big manufacturer and clever engineering.

 

[BradS]

I really wasn't referring to Leica cameras though they do seem to retain their value quite nicely. I am certainly not complaining

There are others that are also holding their values. Nikon, Pentax LX and MX. A lot of medium format cameras are holding value pretty well. In fact I think medium and large format are a better value proposition than 35mm right now.

I think you are letting your concern over the value of your Spotties color your perception of what is happening. I too own a couple of Spotties and enjoy them for what they are. And you are right with them, I doubt they will ever gain in price again. Part of the reason are that there were a lot of them built and they were built like tanks. A lot like the Nikon F these days.

...and all it would take to send the price of spotmatics skyrocketing is for a few of the many young and beautiful YouTube influencers to do a review and say what a great machine it is and how much they love they way it looks and feels, etc... ok that’s me dreaming

 

[johnha]

...and all it would take to send the price of spotmatics skyrocketing is for a few of the many young and beautiful YouTube influencers to do a review and say what a great machine it is and how much they love they way it looks and feels, etc... ok that’s me dreaming

Spotmatics are creeping up in price, with clean, working examples not far behind K1000 prices, it's the 'untested' ones that struggle on price.

Most AF SLRs go for junk prices with a very few exceptions.

 

[4season]

Forget cameras for a moment though.
What is really, really desperately needed out there, is a superb affordable scanner!
It should be completely possible to make something that completely trumps a Flextight in almost every way, from recently dramatically cost reduced components from the smartphone industry.
You should be able to make something in the 200 to $400 range easily, with a big manufacturer and clever engineering.

Digital camera + macro lens? Could even be a Pentax Q or Nikon 1 outfit as high ISO performance isn't needed here, and smaller sensor may be a bit more forgiving in terms of DoF.

 

[blockend]

Looking at the price Mamiya 7 cameras sell for, might suggest an updated version would find a ready market. However the manufacturing base has moved on. Leica are able to square the circle because their 35mm bodies carry boutique aspirations, price tags and a backstory. On objective criteria alone, they are overpriced and anachronistic. As objectivity plays a minor part in a 35mm Leica's appeal, merit is attributed elsewhere.

Someone suggested a Kiev IV / Contax II. The closest equivalent is Nikon's S rangefinder. When it was relaunched in 2000 it cost $2200, or around $3000 in todays money, and it was said Nikon lost money on every camera sold. The 2005 limited edition SP cost $8000, or $10800 in 2020 cash. To make money on a well engineered, metal bodied rangefinder, a manufacturer would have to sell the camera for 4k. A good, modern Nikon S with lens can be picked up for around $1500. Hard to see the incentive to make a new one.

 

[blockend]

One option is a reimagined Nikkormat. When the FT2 was immanent, an acquaintance bought a discounted FT. It was more than £200, about £220 if memory serves. That's £1300 in 2020. Today a Nikkormat can be bought for between £50 to £200 for an exceptionally clean example. Most are £100, give or take. I paid £35 for a mint camera, ten years ago. There may be a point when a new Nikkormat, FTb, SRT or Spotmatic become economically viable, because the condition of existing models are sufficiently poor, and good ones have disappeared behind vitrines.

The question then is whether the update slavishly imitates the original, and tech is frozen in 1975 (1965 for Nikkormat essentials), or if modern materials including electronic innovations, make an appearance.

 

[Prest_400]

Forget cameras for a moment though.
What is really, really desperately needed out there, is a superb affordable scanner!
It should be completely possible to make something that completely trumps a Flextight in almost every way, from recently dramatically cost reduced components from the smartphone industry.
You should be able to make something in the 200 to $400 range easily, with a big manufacturer and clever engineering.

In some ways the scanner gap is supplemented by "camera scanning" and post processing tools such as Negative Lab Pro. I have to try it myself, but with a high end body and good technique I've seen gorgeous examples. IIRC a small lab who is active in here uses this method for some of its scanning.

Looking at the price Mamiya 7 cameras sell for, might suggest an updated version would find a ready market. However the manufacturing base has moved on. Leica are able to square the circle because their 35mm bodies carry boutique aspirations, price tags and a backstory. On objective criteria alone, they are overpriced and anachronistic. As objectivity plays a minor part in a 35mm Leica's appeal, merit is attributed elsewhere.

Mamiya 7 is a model that could be reintroduced if they still had the tooling around. I agree on the note that 120 is where a good new camera would do good. Cosina made the Bessa III/GF670 so they should be able to produce more batches or something in that line. Now perhaps all that is needed is someone approaching them for a new run.

 

[Helge]

DSLR scanning is great, and what any serious film photographer should be using by now if they can.

It’s not in any way feasible for the majority of regular/causal users though.
It’s takes sourcing gear, and knowledge of how to put it together.
It takes experience and training to use it.
It takes a lot of space if you leave it out and a lot of setting up if you don’t.
And if you don’t own a DSLR it’s not exactly cheap.
Only a small percentage of film shooters will ever be able to do it.

What we desperately need is bottled DSLR scanning.

If any of the Japanese giants should throw their weight behind it, they would clean the plate.
Until that happens it’s a golden opportunity for medium to small entrepreneurs.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Even a 12MP DSLR or mirrorless can beat a mid-range scanner on 35mm or smaller negatives, as long as the optics can fill the sensor with the image frame. Since I have one of those evil objects in the house anyway (with a decent macro lens and a set of extension tubes), I should probably obtain or improvise a copy stand and a smooth, white light source, since I do shoot 828, 35mm, and three (slightly) different 16mm formats, and replacing my scanner with one that can still scan 4x5 would cost close to $1000.

But with the right optics, it ought to be possible to make a device that will let any current smart phone do the same job (perhaps not quite as well, due to no manual adjustments)...

 

[Huss]

DSLR scanning is great, and what any serious film photographer should be using by now if they can.

It’s not in any way feasible for the majority of regular/causal users though.
It’s takes sourcing gear, and knowledge of how to put it together.
It takes experience and training to use it.
It takes a lot of space if you leave it out and a lot of setting up if you don’t.
And if you don’t own a DSLR it’s not exactly cheap.
Only a small percentage of film shooters will ever be able to do it.

What we desperately need is bottled DSLR scanning.

If any of the Japanese giants should throw their weight behind it, they would clean the plate.
Until that happens it’s a golden opportunity for medium to small entrepreneurs.

Nikon already makes the ES-2 film copier. All is needed is the camera, a macro lens (60mm 2.8D or G, or 40mm DX), the ES-2 and a light source which can be the daytime sky (or a $20 LCD lightpad from Amazon).
Camera with lens +adapter. Pretty simple.

Just did this with it:

 

[ciniframe]

“Since I have one of those evil objects...”
Main reason I bought my ‘evil object’ was as support to my film photography. Makes a good meter and copy setup for most of the range of negs I deal with. The used price of certain mirrorless with 16 maggot-pixels is less than some new meters.

 

[blockend]

The benefit of flat bed scanners, is you load them with film strips and leave them to do their thing. They are sub-optimal, technically, but less time consuming and more space saving than a rostrum camera. A scan suffices for most applications except printing, or at least printing as large as the original technology permitted.

For digital camera copying to be efficient, it requires new hardware as well as software. Automated negative or slide advance, an adjustable light source, and a digital medium whose own artefacts are indistinguishable from the characteristics of film.

 

[Helge]

Nikon already makes the ES-2 film copier. All is needed is the camera, a macro lens (60mm 2.8D or G, or 40mm DX), the ES-2 and a light source which can be the daytime sky (or a $20 LCD lightpad from Amazon).
Camera with lens +adapter. Pretty simple.

Just did this with it:

That’s ok for use online on screens at low magnifications. But even with a 50MP sensor, you are going to potentially run into problems with grain aliasing and simply not enough resolution.

The real magic with DSLR scanning happens at higher macro settings with stitching.

And the ES-2 won’t help you with medium format.

 

[Donald Qualls]

“Since I have one of those evil objects...”
Main reason I bought my ‘evil object’ was as support to my film photography. Makes a good meter and copy setup for most of the range of negs I deal with. The used price of certain mirrorless with 16 maggot-pixels is less than some new meters.

The DSLRs in my house either predate my arrival (a pair of 6MP) or were purchased to photograph aquarium specimens (the 12 MP). My scanner, at 1200 ppi, can only get around 2 MP from a 35mm full flrame, and less from smaller ones (as little as about 400 kP from a 10x14 Minolta 16). With macro lens and rings, I should be able to fill the frame with the smallest negatives I shoot, and get 12 MP all the way down.

Which, however, has little to do with the survival of film photography in a world where even digital camera companies are dropping like flies.

 

[Les Sarile]

A thought-provoking op ed.

Anyone agree?

Not thought provoking at all.

The youtuber is himself not a repairman and all he is doing - for possibly the minute or two that I could stand to watch, is relaying the info his "repair people" may or may not have told him. So he apparently is acquiring defective cameras and since he relies on others to get them to work - and apparently they are unable to repair them, therefore the sky is falling.

He is lamenting that he cannot find top of the line models for dirt cheap so he is resorting to buying the cheapest ones that aren't working.

 

[Horatio]

Well, it made me think about dwindling supplies of functional used cameras. The supply will eventually dry up. It's inevitable.

 

[Les Sarile]

Well, it made me think about dwindling supplies of functional used cameras. The supply will eventually dry up. It's inevitable.

No doubt there are hoarders out there but I won't be the first to cast aspersions!
However, I am of the belief that if there is a demand there is usually someone who will fill it.

 

[MattKing]

The lack of affordable new cameras is much more a death knell for the traditional type of photo retailer than it is for film photography.
The traditional model of retailer earned its money by feeding those cameras - with film, photo-finishing, accessories, but the cameras were the entry point.

 

[ts1000]

I would pose that the Open Source Film Photography Collective I was describing above, is not the same thing as a private for-profit venture, crowdfunded or not.

The blue print designs resources, and donated technologies that open source collectives could bring to bear -- are different (and I believe would be larger in both depth and breadth). Fundamentally, because incentives are different.

Open source collectives fail too, so this is not bullet proof either.
But an analogy to crowd funded failure or success -- is not that clear to me.

Right, and I imagine that the crowdfunded "Reflex" project is too, so why has it not made the transition to reality?...

 

[4season]

I would pose that the Open Source Film Photography Collective I was describing above, is not the same thing as a private for-profit venture, crowdfunded or not.

The blue print designs resources, and donated technologies that open source collectives could bring to bear -- are different (and I believe would be larger in both depth and breadth). Fundamentally, because incentives are different.

Open source collectives fail too, so this is not bullet proof either.
But an analogy to crowd funded failure or success -- is not that clear to me.

Should you decide to embark upon such a project, I wish you success - no sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek here!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The lack of affordable new cameras is much more a death knell for the traditional type of photo retailer than it is for film photography.
The traditional model of retailer earned its money by feeding those cameras - with film, photo-finishing, accessories, but the cameras were the entry point.

When a manufacture sells one camera, the income ends there.
When a camera store sells one camera, the camera store income continues selling film, processing, and photo albums.
When a used camera is sold, the camera store income continues selling film, processing, and photo albums.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Odd. There are plenty of 100 year old cars still out there for purchase if that is your thing. Why would cameras go extinct if cars can be made to last?

Still plenty of 100 year old cameras, too. My own preference is for slightly newer ones -- from the late 1930s to the 1970s -- but the biggest problem with 1890-1920 cameras is so many of them take film formats you can't buy now. Sizes like 122, 124, 129. Most of the cameras built since 1930 took film you can still buy or improvise pretty readily from currently available formats -- like 620 respooled from 120, 126 loaded with 35mm, or 110 with 16mm movie stock.

But if you're willing to work a little harder, you can still buy cameras from the 1880s and still use them to make photographs. I don't think we'll be out of working cameras this century.

 

[Horatio]

Odd. There are plenty of 100 year old cars still out there for purchase if that is your thing. Why would cameras go extinct if cars can be made to last?

Depends on how one defines plenty. I doubt I could afford a 100-year-old car, although I do own a 100 y.o. camera, a Kodak Brownie.

 

[4season]

What's lacking are people willing to work for free or very cheaply in order to refurbish cameras for those who feel that they shouldn't need to pay more than $50 for a working FED. Lots of moneymaking potential for someone to make up for it in volume! (not).

 

[tomkatf]

No, sorry, no death knell. Millions of affordable, fixable cameras in circulation. Buying and having repaired or being CLA'd would be cheaper than trying to reinvent the wheel with an allegedly affordable new camera. Construction and materials would probably be robuster in the older cameras as well...