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

[Deleted member 88956]

Minolta MC and MD glass is selectively nice. Not all the glass is as good as an entire kit like Nikkor and Canon FD. I've resisted the Pentax glass and that's probably a big mistake, but I really can't find a Pentax body that I can get attached too. There was one that I tried hunting down for a few weeks and gave up, the Pentax SV Black. The Olympus OM caught my eye, but I just can't seem to get the body and lenses in decent shape.

I've leaned really heavy on the fully mechanical side and steer away from electronics all together. All the built in meters I have in my mechanical SLR's work really well. Hopefully they outlast me. If not, I have a handheld meter.

In other words you never had entire kit of Nikkor or FD, as they too had not so great glass, just like Minolta did. At he same time, there is no single high spec lens from either that Minolta could not match with its offering.

 

[roblopes]

In other words you never had entire kit of Nikkor or FD, as they too had not so great glass, just like Minolta did. At he same time, there is no single high spec lens from either that Minolta could not match with its offering.

I do an excessive amount of research before I purchase anything. For camera gear, it doesn't matter what system, I read forums, reviews and look at photos people post on public sites, such as Flickr. The old mechanical bodies and manual focus glass in the 70 is spectacular and no one can go wrong with any system they choose. I think money may play a factor in choosing one system over another.

The choice to go with Canon FD was based on image quality for non FD L glass and the affordability compared to EX or better Nikkor glass. I was able to get for what I consider to be inexpensive, considering I use all EF L glass on my digital:
28 f/2.8
35 f/2.8
50 f/1.4
100 f/2.8
135 f/2.5
200 f/4
300 f/4 (but still in the shop with a stuck sleeve... internals need cleaning)

I was going to do the same for the Nikon F2 and XE-7, but decided I wasn't going to go down that road because I was seeing I wasn't using all the gear I had purchased (AKA G.A.S).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

38mm Rolleicord Automatic is very, very rare; rarer than Kiev-90, Leica Luxus, Red Flag 20 or Hansa Canon.

I was not commenting about some odd vintage.

 

[blockend]

The choice to go with Canon FD was based on image quality for non FD L glass and the affordability compared to EX or better Nikkor glass.

I'd never been a Canon user until I acquired someone's complete outfit for very little cash, over a decade ago. The lenses were definitely less expensive than other brands on the used market, and to some extent still are. Initially this was because FD flange distances made them unsuitable for adapting to DSLRs (including Canon's own cameras), and also because Canon was a huge manufacturer who produced lenses by the million, so there's plenty of availability. Mirrorless digital cameras triggered a price rise in all old lenses, but FDs are still at the less expensive end of the market. In my experience very few film era lenses are capable of fully resolving the potential of modern sensors, so I restrict them to film camera use, except for video.

The issue for film photographers with one eye on long view, is professional Canon SLRs are much less common than Nikons. This is certainly true of the UK ,and I suspect more widely. F-1 variants tend to be beat up or expensive, more so than their Nikon equivalents. The FTb is ok, but I prefer the Nikkormat Copal square shutter to the Canon's fabric one. So what you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabout with Canon SLRs. All of them would be less risky purchases than a film camera from a start up company.

 

[AndyH]

Random thought of the day: Wouldn't it be ironic if the future film supply for our Hasselblads, Rolleis, and Mamiyas depended upon hipsters shooting Lomo and Diana cameras?

Andy

 

[StepheKoontz]

A camera only needs necessary knobs and dials to set the aperture and shutter speed. Everything else just needs to move as smooth and accurate as possible. No need for all these bells and whistles..

All pre 1980 film camera had only one major issue, the position of the shutter speed dial. If they had placed that on a vertical surface, that would have been perfect. (thumb wheel)

The Olympus OM got it right IMHO. I never understood why people liked the shutter speed on the top deck of a camera.

 

[BradS]

Random thought of the day: Wouldn't it be ironic if the future film supply for our Hasselblads, Rolleis, and Mamiyas depended upon hipsters shooting Lomo and Diana cameras?

Andy

It seems the twenty-somethings (not sure if this is what hipsters are) have moved on to better stuff...the Mamiya 7ii, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya RZ67 and all manner of obscenely expensive point&shoot 35mm cameras seem to be the preferred cameras for the young up-an-coming photographers. Some of these kids are quite accomplished in their early 20's.

 

[removed account4]

Random thought of the day: Wouldn't it be ironic if the future film supply for our Hasselblads, Rolleis, and Mamiyas depended upon hipsters shooting Lomo and Diana cameras?

Andy

it has nothing to do with that future, young excited people is exactly why film is available today.

 

[AndyH]

It seems the twenty-somethings (not sure if this is what hipsters are) have moved on to better stuff...the Mamiya 7ii, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya RZ67 and all manner of obscenely expensive point&shoot 35mm cameras seem to be the preferred cameras for the young up-an-coming photographers. Some of these kids are quite accomplished in their early 20's.

I'm in no way dissing the young photographers who choose film. I love some of their work and the seriousness with which they take it. And you are quite correct that the Lomography aesthetic seems somewhat on the decline. I do wonder about the future availability of film if there are no new cameras for it. That day will probably come long after I'm gone, but I wonder whether it's inevitable eventually.

Andy

 

[removedacct1]

I'm in no way dissing the young photographers who choose film.

Andy

Then perhaps you should refrain from using a term like "hipster", which is almost universally used as a derogatory. Just sayin'.

 

[Donald Qualls]

As long as people buy (enough) film, there will be film manufactured, even if it gets down to a narrow-roll coating operation (like the new Ferrania) making one emulsion. That film might turn out to be ISO 25 ortho, in the worst case (the process to make that emulsion is public and well documented) -- but that's more or less where we were in 1900, when most cameras were devices one craftsman could assemble in a small shop. An experienced amateur optician could (today, with the patents more than a century expired) make a Tessar for himself (or herself, or insert preferred pronoun here) in a few weeks of full time effort (or a few months of hobby spare time), and with ISO 25 and a slowish lens, you can get away with a guillotine or roller blind shutter. Sports photography will be via frame extraction from 120 frame/sec 8k or higher resolution drone video, by then, as will most photojournalism. Still photography will be a hobby pursuit of the leisure class or a highly dedicated art skill, much like a number of older art forms (oil painting, watercolor, sculpture, woodcarving, etc.) are now and, as with modern oil paints, the materials will be expensive enough one won't fall into the activity by accident -- but they won't be so expensive a determined practitioner can't get started and, with some skill and luck, make a living at it. Or have all the fun they can afford.

 

[mshchem]

By the time we run out of cameras you will be able to say "Hey Alexa, print me a M3"

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, maybe not an M3, because Disney will hold onto the rights for that forever after they finish buying up the rest of the world -- but "Hey, Alexa, order me a new Contax II from MetalOnDemand" or any other camera from before, say, 1950 might be in the realm -- and the camera arrive in 3-4 days, made from original materials and almost indistinguishable from an original (aside from the discreet "Made by MOD, Inc." on the bottom, top, and various other locations where it's inconvenient to remove it).

 

[AndyH]

Then perhaps you should refrain from using a term like "hipster", which is almost universally used as a derogatory. Just sayin'.

Perhaps you should question your own preconceptions. I question your characterization of this as a derogatory term. It's pretty generally accepted as a term for younger people of a certain demographic. And in my book it's not derogatory at all, just descriptive. They are saving us.

Andy

 

[jamesaz]

Perhaps you should question your own preconceptions. I question your characterization of this as a derogatory term. It's pretty generally accepted as a term for younger people of a certain demographic. And in my book it's not derogatory at all, just descriptive. They are saving us.

Andy

I used to dump on hipsters, too. Then my daughter (she’s 48) showed me a definition of hipsters in Urban Dictionary describing people who live downtown, listen to vinyl, shop in thrift stores and shoot film and since that pretty much describes me I have broadened my views. At least I hope so.

 

[blockend]

It seems the twenty-somethings (not sure if this is what hipsters are) have moved on to better stuff...the Mamiya 7ii, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya RZ67 and all manner of obscenely expensive point&shoot 35mm cameras seem to be the preferred cameras for the young up-an-coming photographers. Some of these kids are quite accomplished in their early 20's.

They certainly seem to have access to equipment most of us could only dream of at their age. Perhaps we only see the youngsters who own a couple of double stroke M3s, a Mamiya 7 and Contax point and shoots, whereas lower profile but equally talented young people are shooting cheaper gear.

 

[foc]

The Olympus OM got it right IMHO. I never understood why people liked the shutter speed on the top deck of a camera.

+1

 

[StepheKoontz]

Still photography will be a hobby pursuit of the leisure class or a highly dedicated art skill, much like a number of older art forms (oil painting, watercolor, sculpture, woodcarving, etc.) are now and, as with modern oil paints, the materials will be expensive enough one won't fall into the activity by accident -- but they won't be so expensive a determined practitioner can't get started and, with some skill and luck, make a living at it. Or have all the fun they can afford.

You make a great point here: before the camera was invented ALL portraits were done via painting. Just because a new way of doing this came about, it didn't erase the old way of doing it, it is just less common. I would suspect before camera portraits became popular, there were more people professionally painting portraits, as there was no other option.

 

[BradS]

I'm in no way dissing the young photographers who choose film. I love some of their work and the seriousness with which they take it. And you are quite correct that the Lomography aesthetic seems somewhat on the decline. I do wonder about the future availability of film if there are no new cameras for it. That day will probably come long after I'm gone, but I wonder whether it's inevitable eventually.

Andy

I didn't mean to imply that you were dissing hipsters. I certainly didn't read that into what you wrote.
I was just trying to say that lots of the younger generation seem to have outgrown (?) the less expensive gear and the kinda frivolous attitude that goes along with it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, I find it encouraging that at least some of the younger generation are showing a very serious interest in and commitment to photography.

 

[markbau]

Who knows, with the resurgence of film photography, there may well be a manufacturer working on a film camera right now! They will do it if the economics add up.

 

[BradS]

They certainly seem to have access to equipment most of us could only dream of at their age. Perhaps we only see the youngsters who own a couple of double stroke M3s, a Mamiya 7 and Contax point and shoots, whereas lower profile but equally talented young people are shooting cheaper gear.

Well, yes, of course....obviously. Those who are better at self promotion tend to fair better financially.

 

[blockend]

Well, yes, of course....obviously. Those who are better at self promotion tend to fair better financially.

I agree. Social media has made the difference between success and talent even more polarised. Content providers can accrue thousands of followers, without ever having to take a good photo.

 

[BradS]

I agree. Social media has made the difference between success and talent even more polarised. Content providers can accrue thousands of followers, without ever having to take a good photo.

Really, nothing new....we used to have books and glossy periodicals now we have YouTube. Same shit, different day.

 

[AndyH]

I didn't mean to imply that you were dissing hipsters. I certainly didn't read that into what you wrote.
I was just trying to say that lots of the younger generation seem to have outgrown (?) the less expensive gear and the kinda frivolous attitude that goes along with it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, I find it encouraging that at least some of the younger generation are showing a very serious interest in and commitment to photography.

I wasn't quoting your post - sorry for the confusion.

I am a big fan of Gen Z in general and hipster culture in particular, and the anti- "f64" aesthetic of the Lomo/Diana fans really has produced some good work. It's not my thing, but like any fine art movement, it has its merits. And I certainly agree that the young 'uns are certainly upgrading their kit - I just wish they wouldn't buy up all the good stuff on eBay!

Andy

 

[Helge]

In my experience very few film era lenses are capable of fully resolving the potential of modern sensors, so I restrict them to film camera use, except for video.

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 often 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.

135 film has much higher resolution than most scanners will let you see, some film types, higher then any equivalent size electronic sensor.
Lens testers back in the day would study film under a microscope, do big prints when testing, and use electronic sensors when testing lenses.
Their ability to judge resolution was probably as good as what we have today.
Any lens better than the competition, on the usual parameters, would win in the sales race, and vice versa.
Which is to say, the race was always on, and there is a real limit to what you can economically and practically squeeze out of a 35x24 projection.
There will always be monstrosities like the Otus lenses. But those will never be practical in any sense of the word.