Short report about the current Nikon F6 production in Sendai

Henning Serger said:

That is correct (at least for Amazon USA).



Instax instant film and cameras is definitely not "a niche within a niche". It is currently the best selling camera type. In 2014 Fujifilm sold 4,3 million units, for last year their target has been 5 million units (so far no information available whether they've hit that target). Instax film production is running in three shifts in 24h operation.
Anyway, the Instax cameras are currently the best selling camera models in general. There is no digital camera from any manufacturer with such a high sales volume.
And by the way, in 2015 digital camera sales have fallen significantly below the level of digital camera sales in 2003 (!). Lowest sales of the last 12 years.
In 2015 less digital cameras were sold than in 1998 and 1999 film cameras were sold.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification and extra info, interesting indeed. One assumes the last sentence is simply perhaps due to an increase in quality of cameras on smartphones and the larger number of people carrying them every day, not feeling the need for a 'dedicated' extra device with which to take pictures?

I have a large family and basically everybody uses the cell phone camera for facebook and such. The cell phone is really the main camera type all around. However my son shoots B/W film as I do and I have a daughter that has an Instax camera. Most of her friends have one to. No DSLR camera's in the family. I had a D200 and gave it to my son and he sold it and bought some film stuff. I shoot an F100 these days with Tri-X and will take photos of 2 of my kids today in a 10K run while watching the Grandkids. I will shoot a couple of them also and if I see something unusual then I will snap that to.

The people at my wife's job ask to see some more prints every week. They are amazed that B/W film looks nice. It's like they just discovered the moon that has been in the sky all along.

However I cannot help save the F6 and will not be buying one.

chromacomaphoto said:

Thanks for the clarification and extra info, interesting indeed. One assumes the last sentence is simply perhaps due to an increase in quality of cameras on smartphones and the larger number of people carrying them every day, not feeling the need for a 'dedicated' extra device with which to take pictures?

Click to expand...

Well, that is one reason which has impact mainly on the use of digital compact cameras.
There are several other reasons, too:
1. Market over-saturation: The market has been simply "flooded" with digital cameras for over a decade; now there is at least one digital camera in almost every household.

2. The change from film as main photographic medium to digital imaging as main photographic medium is completed: Those who wanted to give up film have all done that, those who want to use both film and digital have also made their decisions, and those who prefer film have also made their decisions and stay with film.
Therefore (almost) no growth potential anymore from film shooters converting to digital.

3. Digital shooters are realising now how expensive digital is if you follow the digital camera industries marketing, especially concerning system cameras (interchangeable lens camers ILC = DSLRs and mirrorless): Buying a new ILC camera in a 3-4 year cycle is extremely expensive (and often more expensive than shooting film). Most photographers with average income simply cannot afford such a buying behaviour. And they also see no need anymore for that, because the 'improvements' of the new models are often quite tiny. And simply not enough to justify buying a new camera.
So the customers just use their digital (ILC) cameras for longer periods. The average using time is increasing from year to year.
In some years we will probably see that digital camera users are using their cameras for similar periods before 'upgrading' as film shooters did in the 80ies, 90ies and beginning 00ies.

And then it will become interesting again:
The main reason why camera manufacturers embraced digital technology so fast was that they thought "we are now not only camera manufacturers, but also "film" manufacturers at the same time": If the photographer wants better quality, he has to buy a complete new camera. Fine for the camera maker, bad for the customer.
They were right for some years, this business model worked very well until 2010 with compact cameras (since then the sales collapsed), and until 2012 with ILC cameras (since then significant decrease in sales).
This business model is working worse from year to year.
And when we reach the point I've mentioned above (similar using / buying cycles for digital and film cameras), it makes no big difference anymore for the manufacturer whether he sells a digital or a film camera.

Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if we see new film cameras in some years (there was quite solid information about that already at last Photokina).
The more interesting question for me is not so much whether we will see new film cameras, but
- when (in 2, 3, 5, 7 years?)
- from which manufacturers ( I've have some guesses )
- how will these cameras be designed? Perhaps the most interesting question .

Best regards,
Henning

Henning, have you (or are you aware of anyone who has) shot with a 55mm Otus on an F6? If so, would you please summarize the results and/or provide a link to any report on them? Thanks in advance.

Hello Sal,

Sal Santamaura said:

Henning, have you (or are you aware of anyone who has) shot with a 55mm Otus on an F6? If so, would you please summarize the results and/or provide a link to any report on them? Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

well no, not so far. Personally I am very interested in detailed tests of the Otus lenses in my little test lab with the F6 and film. But I've been involved in so much other projects that there simply wasn't the time for that. And I need someone who can give me (his) Otus lens for the test (but I maybe can get one in the autumn, contacts are started).
So, in the mid run, I can probably give you some results.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

...I need someone who can give me (his) Otus lens for the test (but I maybe can get one in the autumn, contacts are started)...

Click to expand...

It's probably no help in Europe, but here in the US we have this resource:


Unfortunately, that firm rents only digital camera bodies, so it's not easy to obtain an F6 for testing with the lens.

There are lots of rent services here in Germany, too.
But most are concentrating on Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses (and medium format). Sometimes Sigma and Zeiss lenses are offered, too. But from Zeiss so far I've not seen one of the Otus lenses in the lists.
But as said above, I already have some ideas and contacts to get one. But that most probably cannot be realized in the short time, more in the mid term.

Best regards,
Henning

Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if we see new film cameras in some years (there was quite solid information about that already at last Photokina).
The more interesting question for me is not so much whether we will see new film cameras, but
- when (in 2, 3, 5, 7 years?)

Click to expand...

I suppose if the FM10 has robust sales then possibly there is room for something new. The Bessa went down just recently and it was pretty cool.. Actually I wished I had a Bessa or even a FM10 for hiking. Well probably a FM10 for hiking since lenses for it can be had without selling your kidneys.

Henning: Yes, it seems as if camera manufacturers have had it very good for the last fifteen years but now the numbers of customers looking to buy new digital cameras (not phones) all the the time gets gradually less, I guess they will have to rethink. I had never considered some of this, thanks for sharing your thinking. Very interesting.

nolanr66: Actually the FM 10 would be a great choice for hiking because they are extremely light, as in almost laughably so. They might have robust sales but I'm not entirely sure how robust those bodies are themselves though. Had one a few years ago, to be fair, it never let me down I suppose. That said although I can see why they are a perfect starter/student camera they are very plasticky and Lego like. I always seem to recall people saying that they weren't really very 'Nikon' at all and were made by Cosina (Voigtlander). I also seem to recall that the FM 10 chassis might be used for the R body Voigtlander rangefinders as well? I may have this all wrong though.

I read that the late, great Galen Rowell used one for his amazing shots when climbing and hiking due to the weight advantages. This is one great thing about film cameras isn't it? The body doesn't matter so much in terms of what image you get.

chromacomaphoto said:

nolanr66: Actually the FM 10 would be a great choice for hiking because they are extremely light, as in almost laughably so. They might have robust sales but I'm not entirely sure how robust those bodies are themselves though. Had one a few years ago, to be fair, it never let me down I suppose. That said although I can see why they are a perfect starter/student camera they are very plasticky and Lego like. I always seem to recall people saying that they weren't really very 'Nikon' at all and were made by Cosina (Voigtlander). I also seem to recall that the FM 10 chassis might be used for the R body Voigtlander rangefinders as well? I may have this all wrong though.

I read that the late, great Galen Rowell used one for his amazing shots when climbing and hiking due to the weight advantages. This is one great thing about film cameras isn't it? The body doesn't matter so much in terms of what image you get.

Click to expand...

I know it's a cheap camera body but if it works and it has a low cost then it would be fine for hiking. Probably the reason I thought of that particular camera for hiking is because of Galen Rowel. I am not going to climb El Capitan or anything but I do want to hike Half Dome this year for the fun of it and a light FM10 would be fine. Other camera's would be fine also.

nolanr66 said:

I know it's a cheap camera body but if it works and it has a low cost then it would be fine for hiking. Probably the reason I thought of that particular camera for hiking is because of Galen Rowel. I am not going to climb El Capitan or anything but I do want to hike Half Dome this year for the fun of it and a light FM10 would be fine. Other camera's would be fine also.

Click to expand...

I think you are on the right lines, also if you dropped an fm10 whilst out hiking on a trail somewhere, it's no great shakes either. A great functional camera body choice for that intended use.

chromacomaphoto said:

I think you are on the right lines, also if you dropped an fm10 whilst out hiking on a trail somewhere, it's no great shakes either. A great functional camera body choice for that intended use.

Click to expand...

The big problem is the FM10 is over $500.00 new and the used prices at KEH will be based on that in some way. However for normal day hikes I am fine with my F100 and a prime lens. I shoot with a 50mm lens 90% of the time anyway and will take that combo hiking tomorrow. After tomorrow I will see if the F100 gets uncomfortable and if not then I will just take it. With a prime lens it is of reasonable weight and for pictures my best opportunity is with that camera since it's my every day camera.


I spent some time learning the rules for hiking Half Dome and the permit process on-line last night and the chances of getting a permit are 30% according to the site. However next month applications for permits start and I will try to get one. I will find out in April if I can do the hike and if so then I will start my plan for the hike starting with a suitable day pack that will carry 4 liters of water, food, sunscreen and such. I will start my conditioning process tomorrow and I have Pinnacles National Park for that as it's close to the house. I will hike the High Peaks Trail tomorrow which is a moderate 7mile hike and see how I feel about my hiking ability.. Generally speaking I have great fitness but I am 68y/o. I cycled 4500miles last year and went on many day hikes with my wife. She does not want to hike Half Dome so I will do it solo if I get a permit. My kids are all busy with life and cannot go hike on a weekday which is the best chance of getting a permit.

Good luck. 4500 Miles!!!???? Hopefully I'll be able to do that in my late 60s.

MartinCrabtree said:

Good luck. 4500 Miles!!!???? Hopefully I'll be able to do that in my late 60s.

Click to expand...

My cycling goal for 2016 is 5000 miles. I am going to ride the Tierra Bella, Gilroy Ca 100K in April and hope to ride the Solvang Century either 100K or 100mi depending on how much climbing it will have. However there are a lot of guys my age out on the bike. Not in my small town but places like Santa Cruz or San Jose there are guys my age out riding that are much stronger then I am. Mostly guys that skipped alcohol and tobacco as I did.

In the 70's I did a lot of week long tours and I carried a Ricoh rangefinder. It was a cheap camera but the little lens was sharp. I used that camera until it quit working. I bought an Olympus OM-1 after that and I loved the camera but it was to heavy to take cycling so I just rode without a camera after the Ricoh. Of course I have a cell phone camera now but this is APUG so I will pretend I do not use it.

chromacomaphoto said:

Thanks for the clarification and extra info, interesting indeed. One assumes the last sentence is simply perhaps due to an increase in quality of cameras on smartphones and the larger number of people carrying them every day, not feeling the need for a 'dedicated' extra device with which to take pictures?

Click to expand...

I would think that's the biggest factor. Camera phones really have become quite good. Most people never make prints any more but the camera in my iPhone 6 will blow away my old Coolpix 990, and even that 3 mp camera I bought in 2003 can produce files that make excellent 8x10 / 8.5x11 prints that, from across a room, look about as good as those most people used to get from film point and shoots.

Another factor is probably that over even the last several years dedicated cameras have been more than as good as most people need or even want, so anyone who wants a dedicated camera already has one that is as good as they want and maybe more so. Of course they won't last like a 50 year old Rolleiflex, but they do last long enough that the ones bought in, say, 2012 or so are still working fine.

EDIT: I see Henning said much the same thing and elaborated more.

As for the FM10, while I'm sure it's fine, there are many light and capable 35mm bodies available used for far less than a new FM10.

As for the FM10, while I'm sure it's fine, there are many light and capable 35mm bodies available used for far less than a new FM10.

Click to expand...

A new FM10 is priced very high and not something I would consider. I did go to BHPhoto and KEH and looked at the used camera's available and there is not much out there. My F100 weighs 785gms without lens. The FM10 weighs 400gms and the FM2 is about 700gms. If you count grams there is some there to think about for sure. However I will just hike with my F100 as I have been doing. I am going to hike tomorrow at Pinnacles National Park and will take my camera. The High Peaks trail is a moderate hike.

Roger Cole said:

I would think that's the biggest factor. Camera phones really have become quite good. Most people never make prints any more but the camera in my iPhone 6 will blow away my old Coolpix 990, and even that 3 mp camera I bought in 2003 can produce files that make excellent 8x10 / 8.5x11 prints that, from across a room, look about as good as those most people used to get from film point and shoots.

Another factor is probably that over even the last several years dedicated cameras have been more than as good as most people need or even want, so anyone who wants a dedicated camera already has one that is as good as they want and maybe more so. Of course they won't last like a 50 year old Rolleiflex, but they do last long enough that the ones bought in, say, 2012 or so are still working fine.

EDIT: I see Henning said much the same thing and elaborated more.

As for the FM10, while I'm sure it's fine, there are many light and capable 35mm bodies available used for far less than a new FM10.

Click to expand...

Just before Apple released the 6S etc last summer they did bill boards with the 8m 'pixies' cameras on their then current cameras, they were well impressive bill boards...

Roger Cole said:

I would think that's the biggest factor. Camera phones really have become quite good. Most people never make prints any more but the camera in my iPhone 6 will blow away my old Coolpix 990, and even that 3 mp camera I bought in 2003 can produce files that make excellent 8x10 / 8.5x11 prints that, from across a room, look about as good as those most people used to get from film point and shoots.

Another factor is probably that over even the last several years dedicated cameras have been more than as good as most people need or even want, so anyone who wants a dedicated camera already has one that is as good as they want and maybe more so. Of course they won't last like a 50 year old Rolleiflex, but they do last long enough that the ones bought in, say, 2012 or so are still working fine.

EDIT: I see Henning said much the same thing and elaborated more.

As for the FM10, while I'm sure it's fine, there are many light and capable 35mm bodies available used for far less than a new FM10.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, I agree with you. Digital cameras have long been more than good enough for just about everybody who uses them outside of geeky photographer circles and professionals really. Long live my film cameras!

Xmas said:

Just before Apple released the 6S etc last summer they did bill boards with the 8m 'pixies' cameras on their then current cameras, they were well impressive bill boards...

Click to expand...

I didn't know that, interesting!

My Pentax MX is a great camera and used ones (in chrome - the more rare black ones cost a lot more) in good shape are pretty reasonable. I just checked - 495 grams. Olympus OM-1, 510 grams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Roger Cole said:

My Pentax MX is a great camera and used ones (in chrome - the more rare black ones cost a lot more) in good shape are pretty reasonable. I just checked - 495 grams. Olympus OM-1, 510 grams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Click to expand...

I owned an Olympus OM-1 back in the day and it was a great camera. We parted ways camping one year which sent me into years of camera purchases trying find one that I liked. However the OM-1 takes the old mercury battery and I like a real nice meter in a camera. One of the reasons why I like the F100 as it has a 75/25 center weighted meter. The MX takes a modern battery which should make it reasonable with a 60/40 meter. However both of the camera's will not take diopter correction's either because they are not set up for it or the eyepiece that fits those camera's are long gone. Also an old camera will require a CLA to make sure it's not gummed up and that the shutter speeds are spot on. And then you need to buy glass.

I guess my original comment about the FM10 was that I would not need to have it fixed or CLA'd, a diopter eyepiece is available for it at BHPhoto and I also have one in my junk box. I also have a lens to put on it. So anyway I am going to stay in the Nikon family for whatever I may purchase in the future.

I think what I am going to do is just carry my F100 and forget about shopping. When I want a photo of something the F100 is right there for me. It's ready to work. Kind of the newer ugly style but it saves comments when I am out and about as the average person thinks it's just another digital camera. Toss a K1000 on your shoulder and suddenly old guys want to talk about the good ol days of camera's and film. I definitely like to do that but not usually when I am trying to photograph something especially if it's running like at a 10K fun run that some of my kids are doing.

Thanks for you input. Probably we have moved off topic and should get back to the F6.

Oh I get staying with something you have lenses for etc. Just saying that if one wants a light weight but capable camera there are other options. I don't care about diopter correction eyepieces since my eyes are so nearsighted I have to wear my glasses all the time anyway. I don't have any issues with any of my viewfinders with glasses (other than perhaps smearing my glasses and needing to clean them but I have lens cleaner with me anyway. I mean I don't have any issues seeing the viewfinder.)

I have considered getting into some kind of autofocus 35mm system since all mine are manual focus. That might be Nikon but it's not likely to be an F6 - just too expensive for my tastes even used, considering how little I use 35mm now that I have medium and large format cameras.

However the OM-1 takes the old mercury battery and I like a real nice meter in a camera.

Click to expand...

Dear Nolan
The OM-1 has a real nice meter and there are a few solutions that don't need a surgery for the meter to work with ready available batteries.
My preferred one is to use a ZA675 Zinc-air hearing aid battery with an O ring to centre it.

If you want a light Nikon, there are a few options that don't brake the bank: for AF I would say F75 or F80. For MF a nice EM, FG or FG20 are light enough.
Have a nice run.

Roger Cole said:

Oh I get staying with something you have lenses for etc. Just saying that if one wants a light weight but capable camera there are other options. I don't care about diopter correction eyepieces since my eyes are so nearsighted I have to wear my glasses all the time anyway. I don't have any issues with any of my viewfinders with glasses (other than perhaps smearing my glasses and needing to clean them but I have lens cleaner with me anyway. I mean I don't have any issues seeing the viewfinder.)

I have considered getting into some kind of autofocus 35mm system since all mine are manual focus. That might be Nikon but it's not likely to be an F6 - just too expensive for my tastes even used, considering how little I use 35mm now that I have medium and large format cameras.

Click to expand...

Well I went on my hike this morning. Turned out to be 4mi and 1300 feet of climbing. It was beautiful out there and once at the High Peaks area you could see for miles as it rained yesterday and the air was clear. There was even a bit of snow laying around which is the first time I have seen that. I just used my Domke F6 camera bag for a pack today. I carried the camera, a bottle of water and half a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that I ate once I got to the top. The F6 is a comfortable bag but withing limits of the time you will be carrying it. If I get a permit for Half Dome I will be using a regular backpackers pack as the weight is carried on your hips which makes the difference for an all day adventure.

For me the F100 works well as my photography is centered around the family. Pictures of everyone, the grandkids and the places we go. I took 18 photos of Pinnacles today using Delta 400. I have not enlarged anything beyond 8x10 in maybe 5 years now. I did make a couple 8x10's a few weeks ago and they are over the piano. I mounted them in those frames that requires no matting, kind of a document type thing. I like it and they have them at Michaels.. I guess the only camera that would make me break from Nikon is a Leica M6 which is to expensive for me but I wished I owned one anyway. The F6 is probably very nice but even used they are kind of expensive and I do not see that they would be any better for me then a F100. However 10 years from now the F6 might be my best option. Camera's are all getting old and Electronics have a life span and in 10 years a F6 may be the thing. Or just break down and buy a Leica and be done with it. Forever repairable and perfectly suited for general B/W photography.