Resurgence?

[Excalibur2]

Last month I was in England for a week. My wife and son had digital p&s cameras. I had a Konica FT-1 with six lenses. I shot nine rolls of slide film and about five rolls of print film. The whole time I was there the only other person I saw with a film camera was someone with a disposable camera at Windsor Castle. What about Stonehenge, the London Eye, Big Ben, the Gherkin building, a boat ride on the Thames, Picadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square, the Tower Of London, the Royal Gardens at Kew, the Tower Bridge, St. Paul's church, Winchester Cathedral, Buckingham Palace? No film cameras in sight.

Could be mixing with tourists...eh

But I don't see many people with film cameras anymore.

 

[IloveTLRs]

For the last few years, here in Japan I've seen more and more digital cameras, mobile phone cameras, and more digital point and shoots. However, in the last two weeks, I've seen a few film SLR's about, and all, so far, are Nikons.

I just got back from a local camera shop this afternoon (I live in Japan.) Barnack Leicas are sadly no longer selling- a few camera shops have told me that. Indeed I saw a III and IIIa today for around $250- a few years ago they would have been at least $800 if not more. I saw two M3s for less than $800 (not the best condition, but working) and a beautiful M2 for around $1000. Even a year or so ago, a nice M3 was $1500 ...

A friend and I saw a Canon EOS-1(?) used for $300. Contax G series cameras are dirt cheap, as are the lenses. I got an sparking-clean Plannar 45/2 for $100

Nikon RF gear is still stupidly expensive: very clean S3s and SPs for $2000 or more. Canon RF gear can't be given away :confused:

In a few conversations with camera dealers I was told that prices have really come down recently. Now is the time to buy, I guess

 

[Sirius Glass]

I just got back from a local camera shop this afternoon (I live in Japan.) Barnack Leicas are sadly no longer selling- a few camera shops have told me that. Indeed I saw a III and IIIa today for around $250- a few years ago they would have been at least $800 if not more. I saw two M3s for less than $800 (not the best condition, but working) and a beautiful M2 for around $1000. Even a year or so ago, a nice M3 was $1500 ...

A friend and I saw a Canon EOS-1(?) used for $300. Contax G series cameras are dirt cheap, as are the lenses. I got an sparking-clean Plannar 45/2 for $100

Nikon RF gear is still stupidly expensive: very clean S3s and SPs for $2000 or more. Canon RF gear can't be given away :confused:

In a few conversations with camera dealers I was told that prices have really come down recently. Now is the time to buy, I guess

It sounds like the Japanese have finally stopped buying camera equipment to decorate their bookshelves. This can only help us.

Steve

 

[Ralph Javins]

Things went from reliable, reusable, and serviceable to plastic, disposable, and planned obsolescence as the norm. It's been like that almost ever since.

About the only thing that remains serviceable these days are cars, bicycles, and anything inherently mechanized. With the age of the modern semiconductor, many many things changed - and not all for the better.


Original reference:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycdrinkup/3695955603/

Good morning, Clayne;

It is nice to see that someone still thinks that cars are repairable. I can agree with you to a degree or limit.

In my experience in recent years, the automobile mechanics seem to be favoring "modular replacement" rather than "repair." If the field brushes in your alternator wear down, they replace the entire alternator; they do not repair the problem.

I admit that being an automobile "mechanic" is really not truly accurate with the modern cars. Now it seems that you must find an electronics technician with mechanical aptitude to keep the modern electronic whiz-bang carriages operational.

This concept of modular replacement is not limited to cars. In the traffic signal maintenance community, the trend seems to have become to favor modular replacement also, up to the point where entire repairable controllers using plug-in printed circuit boards are being thrown out, due in part to the recent technician's lack of understanding of why the controller works. I would have thought that they would at least try plugging in a spare printed circuit board, but the concept of "maintenance" seems to have achieved an unfathomable nadir.

 

[clayne]

Ralph,

What it feels like to me is a war on the "craftsman." Big business knows it costs money to employ people who have to use a brain to resolve issues. Rather than employ craftspeople and REAL technicians/engineers, they'd much rather pay cut-rate prices for robots to go out and swap things out. The heap of trash following it costs less to deal with than repairing things the "old" way.

Sad world.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Clayne, I would agree with you there. I believe we could all point out these instances in our line of work. Since I deal with health - did you see the latest in the news about Americans and Anti-depressants? We're up to 27million folks buying 194 million prescriptions for this crap to the tune of $9 billion every year! That's 1 out of every 10 people you see driving by...on anti-depressant drugs. Why fix up their (apparently lacking) life when they can just pop a pill? This quick-fix mentality drives me crazy.
It's only when the pills "quit working" that they realize they need to look at CAUSE and EFFECT and that's when I see them.

It seems so similar in every aspect of our modern society. I remember a few years back, I had a lovely Maxxum 7. It had an incident and needed a rear control wheel servicing. Would have cost more to fix it than buy a new camera! I believe it was at that point that I remembered the simplicity and wonderful feel of the old manual Minolta bodies. I now shoot with an XD-11 & Rokkor glass again, and I'm loving it.
Jed

 

[Ap507b]

I was down Portsmouth Historic Naval Dockyard last weekend and saw two other people using film cameras. Everyone else was digital with around a 70/30 split between compacts & DSLR's. I didn't get any strange looks walking around with my Nikon F3 & bag of primes. If anyone had came up to me extolling the superiority of digital, my answer would have been something along the lines of "It gets worse, not only am I using film, I am shooting Kodachrome 64 which is going to have to be sent to the other side of the World to get developed" and see what the answer to that would have been

Am planning to go into London soon with my Nikon F and Eyelevel finder and invite some strange looks whilst I am taking readings with my lightmeter

It's my hobby & I can do it the way I want. I do have a digital compact and it serves a purpose, but for fun, film & an old manual focus camera is my choice.

 

[winjeel]

I'm not sure if I already said this (9 pages of thread is a lot). I did do some night photography, long exposures of 20mins plus, all because digital cameras cannot do it, at least the Sony / Minolta's cannot, and I assume the same with Nikons; they get a pink haze in one corner of the image form, and I have no idea why. It happens at iso3200 and even at iso100. So, I went shooting fireflies, and found a guy with his Nikon film (not sure which model) doing the same thing. Apparently he said that digital couldn't do what he wanted, either. Since my Japanese isn't that good, that's all I understood.

The other day I saw a 5mp scanner for 14,000 yen (about USD$150). The mega pixel count isn't high, but for showing on places like Photo.Net it's plenty. But, if you did get your negetives scanned for professional online delivery (say, via PhotoShelter), what would be the maximum file sizes you might expect?

 

[naaldvoerder]

Interesting thread.

Yes, I can see the lack of new hardware becoming a problem (I second the thought above. I really wish someone like Sony would make a Film SLR, that is manual focus but took Minolta AF lenses), but as long as companies such as Ilford still make materials, there will always be an interest at the high amateur level.

There must be plenty of Dynax (Maxxum) 9 's to be had on the used market. I cannot see how Sony could improve on that camera. They are build like a tank and must have loads of service left in them....

 

[clayne]

They are build like a tank and must have loads of service left in them....

Otherwise known as a modern manufacturer's worse nightmare.

 

[winjeel]

Otherwise known as a modern manufacturer's worse nightmare.

Grrrr... I've got a lot to say on this, and so little time to say it before my patience runs out. I bought a (oops, I'm going to write it out loud), err... I bought a... a... [gulp] Konica Minolta Alpha Sweet digital camera three years ago. It was a wonderful little thing... until it died two weeks ago, survived by both the Seagull (film of 16 years loyal service) and the Minolta 303 (9 years of loyal service). My only gripe with digital is that they need to be upgraded or replaced every few years; whilst my main gripe with film is the cost of, well, film. With regards to volume and speed, digital is great; with regards to (especially for me) black and white, film reins supreme. With regards to reliability, I wish I could have spent my money on an Alpha 7 (film) instead of replacing the dead digital beast in my kit bag. Grrr Sorry, I've been complaining, whining, and moaning about this very issue for the last two weeks.

 

[BetterSense]

I think the "resurgence" discussed here is known in other circles as a "dead cat bounce".

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think the "resurgence" discussed here is know in other circles as a "dead cat bounce".

 

[Ken N]

I think the "resurgence" discussed here is known in other circles as a "dead cat bounce".

Does that imply, then, that we've reached bottom?

 

[clayne]

Why am I not surprised to see you enjoying that comment? I've brought it up before, but I really don't get you or your motivations. You seem to enjoy this while the rest of us just want to shoot analog and not have any issues doing it.

 

[zk-cessnaguy]

I'm not sure if I already said this (9 pages of thread is a lot). I did do some night photography, long exposures of 20mins plus, all because digital cameras cannot do it, at least the Sony / Minolta's cannot, and I assume the same with Nikons; they get a pink haze in one corner of the image form, and I have no idea why.

That's the sensor heating up.

 

[Java]

Only just found this thread and must confess to not reading my way through all off it.

But in responce to Winjeels starting post this may interest some of you.

Nicked from another forum

http://tokyocamerastyle.com/

 

[djohnfot]

You might, however, see new analog film cameras offered after dedicated digital film cameras are no longer available.

I can't see that happening except, perhaps, on the high end. The budget and middle markets have gone digital to stay and the only viable film product on those levels seems to be the disposable. Even on the high end, where quality film bodies are still being made, digital's share is in the high 90s. I see the gradual trickle down of full frame sensors into budget DSLRs and the movement of the 4:3 and APS "C" sized sensors into the more pocketable cameras. P & S sized sensors will be relegated, I hope, to the minis and toy camera market.

While I use digital I won't be giving up my T90 or Nikon film cameras until I can no longer buy film.

Encroachment by smart phones, a transition to frame capture from video and a decline in disposable income around the world could really catalyze that process, too.

Yes, the consumer is often willing to accept lower quality in favor of convenience. This means the marketers have done their jobs and stoked the fires of rampant consumerism to new heights.

On one of the other photography boards there is a recent posting wherein the OP is touting the quality of the camera in his new iPhone. He posted several example pictures. While I will admit they are better than your average cellular camera pictures they are worse than one would get from even the cheapest P&S digital. Yet the thread is full of ohs and ahs over the pictures with nary a negative comment or even an observation, save mine, of the low relative quality of the pictures. It's difficult to express an observation on most boards these days without starting a flame war. People ask for opinions then get all bent when some don't agree with theirs. They don't really want opinion, they want a confirmation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why am I not surprised to see you enjoying that comment? I've brought it up before, but I really don't get you or your motivations. You seem to enjoy this while the rest of us just want to shoot analog and not have any issues doing it.

If there is a resurgence, great. I do not think that it is all that big. I would love to see a much bigger resurgence.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's the sensor heating up.

Thus increasing the noise level.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

On one of the other photography boards there is a recent posting wherein the OP is touting the quality of the camera in his new iPhone. He posted several example pictures. While I will admit they are better than your average cellular camera pictures they are worse than one would get from even the cheapest P&S digital. Yet the thread is full of ohs and ahs over the pictures with nary a negative comment or even an observation, save mine, of the low relative quality of the pictures. It's difficult to express an observation on most boards these days without starting a flame war. People ask for opinions then get all bent when some don't agree with theirs. They don't really want opinion, they want a confirmation.

Yep. I just read them and move on. Why point out what they do not want to see. It is like selling something that tp people who do not want it.

Steve

 

[wayne naughton]

http://www.red.com/cameras/ I thought that maybe there would always be a place for film until i read this.When this technology seeps down to the mass market i just can't see any purpose in maintaing a film based system in my workplace.... since christmas i've been working with a full frame 24mpl dslr and i have been printing with an epson 4880. sorry guys,for me 35mm is finished. I still use mf but mainly for personal projects, To be quite honest, i really don't need to have a film camera around at all. Oh, rangefinders are the exception .....wouldn't part with mine for anything....grin

 

[Sirius Glass]

http://www.red.com/cameras/ I thought that maybe there would always be a place for film until i read this.When this technology seeps down to the mass market i just can't see any purpose in maintaing a film based system in my workplace.... since christmas i've been working with a full frame 24mpl dslr and i have been printing with an epson 4880. sorry guys,for me 35mm is finished. I still use mf but mainly for personal projects, To be quite honest, i really don't need to have a film camera around at all. Oh, rangefinders are the exception .....wouldn't part with mine for anything....grin

That website did nothing for me. The product did not add anything new to the film versus digitial debate.

Steve

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I don't believe it is a 'debate' of film versus digital.
The rational point is that digital is an alternative, at this time with film also available. Like so many other photographers I use both film and digital (in arts practice and production, the foundations of exposure relating to film, composition, symmetry and visual literacy hold much, much more weight than the number of megapixels on your sensor). Film and digital have respective advantages and disadvantages, efficiency and knowledge bases. Unfortunately, digital photographers are often found wanting in terms of foundation knowledge in photography, with the result that we are being flooded with mediocre, pedestrian and Pshopped imaging.

Those other photography forums (photonet, among) with gloating beards and bulging wallets... the posters could do with some gravity in their education before they rant on about digital only; as a poster above says getting involved with them in that debate is a sure way to start a flame war. I do get a laugh from many of the types posting 24Mb images on the web for viewing...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't believe it is a 'debate' of film versus digital.

The product was promoted as a complete replacement for 35mm film. Therefore it appeared to be a prompt to start a debate which is not appropriate to APUG. I just called it as I saw it.

Steve