- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,981
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
Talk Of New Film Cameras
-
A
- Thread starter George Mann
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Yes please!
The F6 is still listed on their webpage, https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/f6/
There were many rumors of F6 discontinuation in the last 15 years, sooner or later they will end up being true. Sadly.
Nikon could obviously release an F7, for instance re-using most of the F6 platform but with updated electronics. Given Nikon's financial situation, it seems highly unlikely, but we can dream
Gone are the days when they re-tooled an entire production line for a one-time run of a few 1000 pcs, rangefinders at that:
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-s3/index.htm
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-sp/index.htm
EDIT: I saw after posting the above that the S3 and SP were mentioned in many posts I hadn't seen yet when posting. Apologies for the repeat of information already given by other members.
I don't know but this member of Photrio said so.
I am afraid that is not likely to happen so long as the accountants are running the show, rather than the designers and engineers.
Not discontinued, but because of a component(s) being banned by the European Union it cannot be bought in UK or Europe. I am hanging onto mine for grim death.
The scenario is a bit like the panoramic Hasselblad and lead soldered connections.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,589
- Format
- Medium Format
There will never be a new, durable, high quality mechanical camera for 35mm or MF in my lifetime. Sometime in the future there may be a plastic camera that accepts roll film with electronic shutter and auto exposure only, based on some then existing digital camera. Could be SLR with plastic prism, which is probably easier to assemble than rf camera. However, with so many people using phone and iPad, even digital cameras are endangered. I just saw notice of Zeiss digital camera, plastic, 35mm fixed lens for ONLY $6,000.
Best advice. Treat your film cameras with respect and tender love, keep well maintained with regular service, because there will be no more additional ones added to current supply.
Even if built, the future camera, just as with contemporary guns, will be bulkier since metal will be replaced by plastic wherever possible.
Best advice. Treat your film cameras with respect and tender love, keep well maintained with regular service, because there will be no more additional ones added to current supply.
Even if built, the future camera, just as with contemporary guns, will be bulkier since metal will be replaced by plastic wherever possible.
In the future cameras even digital don't have shutters any more and you can't buy a shutter at reasonable price to build a film camera.
Just look at the 'Bay. In 15 sec., I saw 4 or 5 S3s listed.
Lot's of used cameras about in any make and model .
But the O.P is asking about new cameras being released by camera makers , seemingly ones of a lower budget .
With the price and availability of used 35mm gear on the market I fail to see where a camera makers market is .
With what were lower cost cameras not many years ago selling for £10-£30 now , high end enthusiast cameras selling for £50-£100 and professional type cameras selling from £100 to £300 , if they were to put a new budget camera on the market it would sell for more than a professional camera bought used .
I fail to see who would buy them .
The likes of the Canon EOS1V and Nikon F6 stayed on the market so long as they were the final models , with nothing replacing them , so they maintained a much higher value .
The only area in growth in the manufacture of cameras looks to be large format , with a few new firms appearing in recent years , Intrepid and Chroma spring to mind .
The only new 35mm and 120 gear out seems to be coming mainly from Lomography .
The supply of used cameras is drying up, those that are left are getting older and harder to maintain. Large Format bodies are simpler to manufacture, lens are getting more expensive. It's not that the big players cant make a decent updated 35mm or medium format camera, just not the market. Maybe a smaller company will make an entry level 35mm or TLR, if film continues to become popular with younger folks.
Very good advice
We can do far better today.
A hybrid camera where you can do previews, flash previews, indexing of the roll with exif data and accurate depth mapping, while still recording on film with all the superior range, resolution etc. of that medium, would be ideal.
You don’t need a camera that will take a nuke and last three generations.
Quality plastic is completely adequate and fine. It’s lighter and won’t dent and bend.
Even plastic lens elements for weak corrective asphericals would be one of the possibilities for making a cheaper normal lens, that wasn’t fully possible 30 years ago.
Imagine a lens with a corrective plastic element welded to the flint glass or oil spaced, and an LCD shutter in-between the elements
You’d only need coating on the front element.
All of the components would be easily to manufacture and easily available.
Last edited:
When I spoke of two projects I did not even think of this one, maybe neither Helge. It thus was the third one.
What components could have provoked a ban in the EU?
In case you refer to lead solder, such long time has been substituted by manufacturers.
That was what was explained why the 'Long Hassie' was discontinued.and to be honest I cannot think of anything else which would case the decision. As for why the F6 was actually banned in the EU I have no idea- I would love to know what is unique in the F6 which was not present in the F5 or in any of their digital cameras. Perhaps the Swedes were a little slow in stopping the use of lead solder, I do know there was some sort of explanation that there was no cost effective substitute for what they were using.
I would also like to know the true reason behind banning batteries which contain mercury but still allow the sale of fluorescent lighting tubes which contain a mercury compound coating on the insides. I still have a Mercury Thermometer which was guaranteed accurate to ,25 of a degree when it was first bought and in theory should still be accurate now, I cannot say the same thing about several digital devices which gave up the struggle after 2 years.
I would also like to know the true reason behind banning batteries which contain mercury but still allow the sale of fluorescent lighting tubes which contain a mercury compound coating on the insides. I still have a Mercury Thermometer which was guaranteed accurate to ,25 of a degree when it was first bought and in theory should still be accurate now, I cannot say the same thing about several digital devices which gave up the struggle after 2 years.
Deleted member 88956
People keep asking about new film camera, some even manage to claim used camera market "drying up", at the same time something that would have been really easy tp update AND drive film market - a new quality film scanner - seems to elude all these nonsense discussions. How is anyone going to jump into new film camera production without a clear quality path to digitize that film? What we have is half-ass solutions or expensive drum scanning (the latter is probably more drying up than anything else in film related gear), yet no matter how traditional film shooting may be, the integration with digital presentation is only going to tighten up.
Can't have new developments in one area without commitment to supporting acts. And I still think a need for new film camera is about 100 years away. All other new film camera talk is similar to some bizarre exotic car production, one-at-a-time for the snobs who can afford it.
Can't have new developments in one area without commitment to supporting acts. And I still think a need for new film camera is about 100 years away. All other new film camera talk is similar to some bizarre exotic car production, one-at-a-time for the snobs who can afford it.
Well said. The single biggest bottleneck is negative to print. C-type printing is exotically rare commercially, and DIY enthusiasts have lost many of their favourite papers. The large format landscape photographer Jem Southam has given up on film because he can't get the colours he used to. The colour negative stream was an industrial one, and flatbed and camera scanning are not a serious substitute.
True. I said so because Nikon Japan wrote so in an email sent to me as a reply to my inquiry on the status of the camera.
The answer was a definite "Discontinued".
It has also been removed from their official on-line store (last week it was still "available" however with no stock, today it says they've discontinued the handling of this product):
https://translate.googleusercontent...A410CA&usg=ALkJrhgNH4I2IjqBCR0D4gRQrV6oWB3mdA
Last edited:
Nail
Hit
On
Head
You could make a fantastic scanner and quite inexpensively too, from the components smartphones has made very cheap in the last decade.
It would sell like gangbusters to not only film enthusiasts but also to labs, and people looking to scan their dads negatives and slides.
With the right optics and construction it shouldn’t be hard to better a Flextight.
You assume that film based photography is actually a hybrid process.
Furthermore that those people who apply a hybrid process are those wanting a new manufactured film camera.
Europe's largest photofinisher still prints all single photographs as chromogenic print.
It is true though that there are hardly are any commercial labs left that print chromogenically with an enlarger (thus without the detour of a scan).
The process was developed as an optical one. Digital enhancements can be useful, for printing in book form as an example, but not a substitute for lens to lens imaging. Domestic copying offers the worst of all worlds, and is tedious to boot. Professionally we had contact prints from which to choose enlargements, while high street photofinishers offered a print from every negative. We might have hoped for digital processes to exhaust more information from a negative than previously available, not an adapted office photocopy machine.
In that vein:
Let me just recommend to my fellow Copenhageners Lotus Foto on Frederiksberg https://www.google.dk/search?q=lotus+foto&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=da-dk&client=safari#
They do RA4 and B&W print.
As an example a 8x10 RA4 is 25 kr. or a little under four dollars.
Which I think is very reasonable. And the quality is impeccable.
There is also Nannasgade Laboratoriet in Copenhagen which also does wet print. They are pricy, but fast. And again the quality is second to none.
Last edited:
I've been saying this for a couple decades. One problem with this analogy, however, is that it's possible, in oil painting, to make your own to a level that's impossible with what we usually think of as film photography. Make your own brushes (Alexander Graham Bell made his out of cat hair from the family cat), stretch and surface your own canvases or cut and surface your own panels, make your own paints the way Michelangelo and Leonardo did it -- all still possible, though few have the dedication to make their own paints.
The only form of photography that approaches that level of DIY is wet plate. Window glass, basic chemicals, lenses that don't need shutters because exposures will run seconds to minutes, a camera any cabinetmaker can build -- it had to be that way in 1860, and it may have to be that way again by 2060.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |