What is the current state and future of film availability especially 35mm?

Sorry, Henning ... but I just don't have the patience to read through a 200-plus page manual trying to find out all the features and apps I need to turn off before I can make a basic picture. I find all that stuff a distraction. And most "award-winning" photos look ballyhoo superficial to me, like gotcha Advertising fare. Photography is inherently technological; but plenty of great work was done long before all of this current obsession with electronics. If it helps certain people or career niches like rapid sports and wildlife photography, fine. But there's also an inevitable counter-current away from it and back to the basics.

There is also a degree of reliability in simpler mechanical equipment as opposed to consumer electronics style cameras. I've had numerous mountaineer friends who ended up pretty disappointed with the "latest and greatest", not to mention my own experiences.
But good mechanical cameras are actually harder to make. I certainly wouldn't to risk hauling a Phase One out into the elements. Some people do; but it's their investment at stake, not mine.

Henning Serger said:

I can understand the general love for the Mamiya 6 and 7. Especially as the lenses for it are really excellent.
But as Mamiya does not exist anymore, and the buying company Phase One is a 100% digital company from its start on, with no roots in classic film photography, it is extremely unlikely that the Mamiya 6 and 7 will come back.
More likely is that new ways can be found to keep the current cameras running much longer than expected. There already first developments in that direction, but that would lead too far here, and being off-topic.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

While that's true Henning, I believe that the wishful thinking for a camera to supercede the Nikon F6 et al...will not come to pass. So many working cameras, so little time.

mshchem said:

Nikon D6 & Nikon F7

Click to expand...

Yes, would be possible in a certain way:
The AF system of the D6 is outstanding, and a league of its own. The AF system of the F6 was king at its time, but the technological progress in the 14 years between the F6 introduction and the D6 introduction has been really huge.
Using the AF system of the D6 in a new F7 would make sense if the software for it would be optimized for precision instaed of max. speed, because:
The D6 AF is capable of working with 14fps. That is of course not needed in a potential F7, the 8fps of the F6 are more than enough. Makes sense to keep the 8fps. That would left room to prioritize the F7 AF for maximum precision.

The mechanical performance of the F6 is unique, and better than any SLR and DSLR I have ever used: The mirror and shutter dampening are outstanding, reducing vibrations to the minimum. Because of that I can use the F6 at lower shutter speeds than any other (D)SLR. Nikon must keep that in a potential F7, because it is a unique feature.

Beside the AF, there is really very, very little what can be improved in the F6:
- possibility to finetune the AF (front-/backfocus of certain AF lenses) via custom function
- transferring of the recorded EXIF data without the need for a data reader ((Nikon MV-1, Meta 35) for transfer to a computer
- possibility to change the internal clock battery by the photographer (like in current prof. Nikon DSLRs)
- display characteristics of the info display on the back in a more modern way (DSLR like).
That's it.

Best regards,
Henning

DREW WILEY said:

Sorry, Henning ... but I just don't have the patience to read through a 200-plus page manual trying to find out all the features and apps I need to turn off before I can make a basic picture.

Click to expand...

This comment shows that you don't know cameras like the F6. You don't have to read a "200+ pages manual" to find out all "features and apps" needed to be turned off before a picture can be made because there are no features or apps which must be turned off for making a basic picture.
When I use my F6 I take the camera and just start. Like with my very first SLR, the FM. No difference.
Well, one little difference:
With the F6 I am even faster, because the film loading is easier and takes less time.

DREW WILEY said:

And most "award-winning" photos look ballyhoo superficial to me, like gotcha Advertising fare.

Click to expand...

That is just your personal preference. Millions of photographers who have seen these photographs during the last decades appreciate and like them.
And millions of photographers - professionals and enthusiasts - who were enabled by improved technology to make photos they could only dream of in former times, see it of course also very different than you, because their personal experience is very different than yours.

DREW WILEY said:

Photography is inherently technological; but plenty of great work was done long before all of this current obsession with electronics.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course great work was done before (I have never denied that), but in significantly less photographic fields because the available technology limited the possibilities.

DREW WILEY said:

If it helps certain people or career niches like rapid sports and wildlife photography, fine.

Click to expand...

1. Sport and wildlife photography are much more than "niches". 2. Many more photographic genres than these two have benefitted from technological progress (see my list above).

DREW WILEY said:

But there's also an inevitable counter-current away from it and back to the basics.

There is also a degree of reliability in simpler mechanical equipment as opposed to consumer electronics style cameras.

Click to expand...

That mechanical cameras are principally more reliable than electronic ones is a prejudice. I've been educated in mechanics and engineering, and I have seen much more broken mechanics than electronics.
And the only repairs ever needed with my cameras have been mechanical ones, broken mechanical parts, never electronics.

DREW WILEY said:

I certainly wouldn't to risk hauling a Phase One out into the elements. Some people do; but it's their investment at stake, not mine.

Click to expand...

My F6 has performed much better in the cold and in extremes than my FM. The F6 was designed for extreme conditions. None of the old cameras will handle extreme conditions as good as an F6, F5 or EOS 1V.

Best regards,
Henning

DREW WILEY said:

Sorry, Henning ... but I just don't have the patience to read through a 200-plus page manual trying to find out all the features and apps I need to turn off before I can make a basic picture. I find all that stuff a distraction. And most "award-winning" photos look ballyhoo superficial to me, like gotcha Advertising fare. Photography is inherently technological; but plenty of great work was done long before all of this current obsession with electronics. If it helps certain people or career niches like rapid sports and wildlife photography, fine. But there's also an inevitable counter-current away from it and back to the basics.

There is also a degree of reliability in simpler mechanical equipment as opposed to consumer electronics style cameras. I've had numerous mountaineer friends who ended up pretty disappointed with the "latest and greatest", not to mention my own experiences.
But good mechanical cameras are actually harder to make. I certainly wouldn't to risk hauling a Phase One out into the elements. Some people do; but it's their investment at stake, not mine.

Click to expand...

In that case why not only read enough to load film, remove film, and only the other features you choose to use? I recently bought the Nikon Z7ii, I read just as I stated in the previous sentence, used the camera with only those features until I was comfortable with those, and then as time went on, I looked up other features as I had the need to. Later on I did read the complete manual when I had time.

Most cameras today come with a quick-start guide, a few pages or even just a single sheet that lets you get up and running right away. I find that a lot of what is in the camera's full manual is of no interest or use to me in most cases, but I am grateful for a well-organized and clearly-written manual that I can use to quickly find those special features and implement them when I come across a situation where I need them.

I sure as heck do know about that stuff. I was offered a corporate partnership with a very successful person who relied on that model of Nikon (background - chief photographer for the US Navy, combat photographer in Vietnam, once a White House photographer, and then PR photographer for Fortune 500 companies. Also won a top award for documentary filmmaking - did video too). Why did he want me aboard? - because I could do things with a view camera and in the darkroom at a level he couldn't. Complementary, not competitive. By I couldn't pull myself away from the West, or from family responsibilities here.

Regarding the F6 in the arctic, he didn't want to have to winterize his, so turned down the shooting role for a NG arctic expedition. My nephew made the most difficult technical climbs ever accomplished in either the high arctic or in the Andes, plus previously unexplored portions of the Karakoram, and numerous Himalayan trips. I equipped him with a simple petite mechanical Pentax MX. It worked flawlessly and the published shots paid for his expeditions.

But the camera of preference among Himalayan extreme climbers was the Nikon FM2n; fancier ones were known to fail. I heard their stories around my dinner table. The simpler, the better - less things to go wrong. Light weight was crucial too. That's just common sense. Keeping batteries warm would be problem enough. I often kept my light meter in the sleeping bag with me at night.

I do have a number of automated SLR's laying around in drawers. All were given to me for free. I don't use them. My Nikon DLSR is set up strictly for copy stand use in the lab, although I have field tested it too. It's adequate for cataloging my prints or web purposes, but certainly not for my own idea of printmaking.

GregY said:

While that's true Henning, I believe that the wishful thinking for a camera to supercede the Nikon F6 et al...will not come to pass. So many working cameras, so little time.

Click to expand...

Greg, we will see whether there will be a camera surpassing the EOS 1V or F6. I have explained some reasons and conditions under which that could happen in the future.

You are here on photrio since 2005. You certainly remember all the discussions here about all the things "which will never ever happen":

- no film revival, instead demand will decrease further, and film will be dead in the long run
- there will be no new film types
- there won't be any former discontinued films coming back
- there won't be new labs opened
- Ektachrome will never come back
- Acros will never come back
- there will never be new film manufacturers, or former ones coming back
- there will never be new film cameras on the market
........and so on. Just some examples, the list is much longer.

You maybe also remember that very early I had (based on my scientific work, market research, photo industry and economic history and parameter-change knowledge) explained here reasons and conditions why the future of film photography very likely will look much better. That there is a real chance for a film renaissance. And that it would be wise to be at least very cautious with such apodictic doom-and-gloom forecasts.
For all the numerous doom-and-gloom guys here I have then been their preferred attack-target. And they had lectured me often in a very arrogant way that I don't know anything, that I am stupid, and that is all dreams and wishful thinking.

Well, the reality and developemt in the last decade has proven me right, and all my critics wrong. But has any of them ever said "sorry, I have been wrong, you have been right"? No, no one of them has ever admitted that his assessment has been wrong. No one have had the balls for it.
Some of them even just continue in recent time their behaviour and continue making doom-and-gloom assessments. Looks like some people are not able to learn from their mistakes.

Best regards,
Henning

DREW WILEY said:

Regarding the F6 in the arctic, he didn't want to have to winterize his, so turned down the shooting role for a NG arctic expedition.

Click to expand...

And I know of photographers who have choosen the F6 for their work in the arctic region. And have been very satiesfied with that decision.
So am I with the performance of my F6 at extremely low temperatures. It worked perfectly, always, and the operation is possible with gloves (a point in which many other cameras fail).

Best regards,
Henning

I'm glad it has worked out for you. I only shoot 35mm once in awhile, and have kept in use only the Nikon FM2n, though I began photography with an early Pentax H1a. Frankly, I wouldn't want an F6 and big zoom lens hanging around my neck clinging to a rock with two fingers. I once had a wasp land on my nose at the same time - now that was nervous! I think my Fuji 6X9 is probably lighter than a typical F6 setup; not my P67. For three decades I exclusively shot either 4X5 or 8X10. I've had that gear some precarious places too. The strongest argument for it is that it slows one down, logistically and contemplatively. A sniper is apt to hit the target more often than a machine-gunner. And just how many shots can one print anyway?

Yeah, I run into wildlife pros rather frequently in this area. Video is their predominant mode now. Yeah, when there is action, they need to capture it fast. But it is still a very patient methodical lifestyle, spent mostly intently looking. I recently asked a pro couple how long it took for them to produce a one-hour PBS special - ten years? No, they replied, twenty.

A camera that will work in the arctic region is useless to me, I can't.

"The simpler, the better - less things to go wrong. Light weight was crucial too. That's just common sense." Drew Wiley
Agreed. Anyone who routinely uses MF or LF for the larger film size won't see some whiz-bang 2025 35mm as the future.
Why not start a thread, & let's get back to film availability here.

What would worry me about film in the future is that the highest quality/technology stuff will have gone away leaving only the half-baked crapola.

Milpool said:

What would worry me about film in the future is that the highest quality/technology stuff will have gone away leaving only the half-baked crapola.

Click to expand...

As long as Kodak & Ilford are in the game, we'll do fine.

GregY said:

As long as Kodak & Ilford are in the game, we'll do fine.

Click to expand...

I hope so, especially for Kodak films.

Milpool said:

I hope so, especially for Kodak films.

Click to expand...

Yes, My favourites are Kodak Tri-X, the TMX & TMY & Ilford FP4+. Those are the films i buy consistently.

Henning Serger said:

I can understand the general love for the Mamiya 6 and 7. Especially as the lenses for it are really excellent.
But as Mamiya does not exist anymore, and the buying company Phase One is a 100% digital company from its start on, with no roots in classic film photography, it is extremely unlikely that the Mamiya 6 and 7 will come back.
More likely is that new ways can be found to keep the current cameras running much longer than expected. There already first developments in that direction, but that would lead too far here, and being off-topic.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

I would very much like to learn about those developments. Can you start a thread on the subject some time?

200 page manuals....I do not think I have ever read a camera manual from cover to cover. It's usually self explanatory how to get going, and if not the more modern ones come with a "quick start" guide. Then when if I can't figure out or find a specific function I look it up. I doubt anyone has ever read the whole 200 page manual. Certainly no proof reader.