Nikon to cease most film camera production

so it makes sense for me to hold onto my F4s for a bit longer...??? huh?! I was considering it's sale for the D200...

 

so if the writing is on the wall for the cameras, how long before film production ceases? Any guesses, 7,10,14 years? or less? If there is no cameras why film. I think the writing is on the wall. We use to have a Kodak film processing lab here but that was closed and now centralised in eastern Canada. Two years from now I bet your down to stale dated film in the stores. Years ago we used to see mainly men lugging around cameras now you see women pull out their digitals from their purse and take the picture. Yes the print quality isn't there yet, but it won't be long. A computer screen no matter what can't duplicate a 8x10 print from ASA64 film. Probably not even an 8x10 from ASA400 film. Letters went the way of the dodo bird and succumbed to e-mail but the quality of hand writing went along with it. Times change but not necessarily for the better.

 

Ohhh...I actually got a stomach ache reading that...got the N80, N55 and FM2A and a bunch of lenses.

I'd guess there will be 35mm film available for awhile. Just like 120 and 220 is still available, though a bit pricy to develop.

 

I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Wow. Who would have ever thunk that Paul Simon was a budding Nostradamus.

I doubt print film is going away. Film photography will at least remain a hoby/art for a long long time, and it will still be profitable for at least one manufacturer to keep a small factory in production somewhere in the world.

 

This is actually quite sad. I have had a Nikon film camera for as long as I can remember. I still have stored away my FM2, FE, and F3hp that I have not used in years. I migrated over to digital some time ago and now have a Canon 20d and probably will never go back to film again.

Who knows... Maybe in 20-30 years from now all of us that have our film cameras will be able to sell them as antiques. Of course you would need film to make them usable!!

Thanks!!

Brian
BT Tech
305-652-3115

 

"My 6MP D70 will render 16x20s that only an expert eye can tell is a digital photo. I haven't had an opportunity to make any enlargements from my 10.2MP D200 yet, but I'll tell you that, even on a computer screen, the image quality is extraordinary. I see no reason I can't get near perfect 20x30 prints from this camera. It's abundantly clear that the rate limiting factors are no longer the cameras or technology, but rather the photographer and the lenses."

well the problem with most computer monitors is the render about 100 pixles per inch if memory servers me. And another nail in the coffin of film is that if the camera manufactures get the 10meg camera cost down to the level of the 4-7meg cameras all the more reason to stop film production altogether. I'll put my best guess on the table 4 years and availability is limited and 8 years all but a few speciality stores have it. It'll be the BetaMax of picture taking.

 

Generally, I have no problem parting with possessions. They are, after all, just "things". However, I seriously doubt I'll ever be able to part with my Nikon FM (they'll probably bury it with me). I put a few rolls of film through it occasionally and my daughter used it for a high school photo class last year. So, it's not as if it isn't getting any use.

As far as selling film cameras as antiques, I still have my father's Revere 8mm movie camera and projector, both of which are circa 50 years old. Judging by what's offered on ebay, they are worth next to nothing. Thus, I'm not holding out much hope that my old Nikon will be worth a whole heck of a lot as a collectible.

 

So sad, but it had to happen at some point. I'm glad (now) I sold my F4 and 6008 a few years ago.
I've read that my AF lenses will work the new digital Nikons. If this is true then I'll wait for the digital bodies to drop some more before I buy one.
After all, it's really all about the lenses.
And for digital, it's all about the printer (love my dye sublimation, but my new Epson is pretty good).

 

Actually, I'm as sad about the LENSES as the film bodies. I bought a Pentax digital because I have some old Pentax glass from my film days. The Pentax digital can use every lens ever made by Pentax, including the old screw-mount lenses. Some of the old manual focus lenses are spectacular.

 

I pretty much had stopped using my 35mm film cameras. 35 is just too small when its just as easy to shoot larger. The D70 has taken over the grab and grin duties.

 

This reminds me of an ad I saw on TV. It was showing scenes of kids playing while the voiceover was saying that today's children have never seen a record or B&W TV, so why use old-fashioned film on today's kids. You'd expect the ad would be for a digital camera, but it was for Fuji film.

 

I know what you mean about not wanting to part with them! I have 12 film cameras stashed away which will probably never be used again. Mostly they are ones I've bought myself but one is a 1925 bellows pocket folding camera my father bought which I'm told goes for about $100 on the collectors' market, but I still hate the idea of parting with it.
I've never been a keen photography hobbiest (just like taking pictures) but I found your comments and the replies here interesting.

 

Huh? "Shoot larger?" I'm confused. The image size of the 35mm camera is 24x36mm. It's about 1.5 times LARGER than the sensor size of your D70 (which is the same Sony sensor used in my Pentax *istDs). If you mean the physical size of the camera, the D70 is larger than many 35mm SLRs (such as my Pentax ZX-5n).

 

I made my living for 20+ years doing photography with 35mm and medium format and large format cameras for publication at Cal. I also ran our own photo lab. We prided ourselves for doing work no one else would or could do. I miss the control and consistancy that film offered.
Now, everything is done for the sake of speed, not quality. All I hear is," I need it ASAP". I have seen a general dumbing down of the industry and a dramatic drop in quality of photographs for publication.
I have to say that sitting in front of a computer is much easier and safer then darkroom work for hours on end but I was really good at darkroom work and it took years to master the artistry of film and processing. Now, a 12 year old can take a good digital photograph and print it out on a Epson R800 printer with good results. I said GOOD results not spectacular.
I had all my film cameras, lenses, flash meters, and gear stolen from the lab a year ago last November. It was like loosing my best friends. Many F bodies and manual lenses going back to 1968 and many specialty Macro lenses used for copy work that were built before through the lens metering that made copy work consistant because of bellows factor. I now have a host of 20D bodies and image stabilized lenses. My chief complaint with digital photograghy is consistantcy, or rather a lack of it. Color balance, color temperature, and exposure has absolutly no correlation to reality or metering. A stop is no longer the equivelant to one step of stutter speed or an equivelent change in ISO and the flash meter that worked perfectly every time with film at ISO100 now gives results 3-5 stops off. All the controls that film, lights, and exposure used to give you are gone and now it's trial and error to get it right. Forget consistant.
I have no complaints as to image quality, but for a pro, it's all about consistantcy and the ability to do it the same over and over. My new camera offers greatimage quality and they are certainly easy to use and, so far ,I have not needed my camera body serviced even after 15,000 shots. I could never see that kind of life from a mechanical film Nikon body. They always needed the transport system reworked after about 7000 shots So, it appears that the new systems are also more durable.
The digital world is easier not necessarily better. For serious amatures and Pros the digital world has brought challenges not forseen and difficult to overcome. Image quality is very good but contol of minutia is marginal at best.
-Paul R. Haller-

 

I would guess that 95% of all digital pictures are just viewed on a monitor, maybe even higher, most are burned to CD or DVD and sent to family members or filed away. Most don't care what the file size is as long as they have it. The most important thing about any and all cameras is the lens. Then shooter skill and most fail miserably at that. I used to have my own dark room and all but gave that up and moved to digital, and sure wasn't satisfied with it at the onset, but has gotten better and better with the years. Don't take enough pictures anymore to justify both systems so have move to digital. Current is 7 meg and a fairly decent lens, Sony, last was a 1.3meg Kodak with a stunning lens and used it despite it's megapixel limitation. To slow on startup and several other limits so went to the 7meg and at this time I'm satisfied. Still have some 2475 in the freezer but it's probably dead by now. Pushed it to ASA4000 a few times for effect but most of the time is was Kodachrome25. Tried a bit of colour developement but had a pause of about 8 years and just never found the time to get back into it full scale. Flying inturuptus. Then the digital revolution was upon us and I tried it and liked it.

 

Sorry - I mean medium format. Same amount of trouble to deal with as 35 and better results.