newst
Well-known
I came to photography late in the game. I picked up a mirrorless Sony after retirement, more to kill time than anything else. It was fun for a while, then started to be boring, mostly because I was using the setup as a point-and-shoot. I was advised to buy some old lenses and an adapter, put the camera on manual, and learn how to use it. I was quickly hooked.
After a while, I was curious to see how images made with the old film lenses would look on film. Now I rarely use the mirrorless camera other than to quickly test out a new acquisition. After some experimentation, I settled on manual rangefinders from the 1950s-1960s. The collection currently includes Canon, Leotax, Leica, FED, and Zorki bodies. Some work, others not so well. I am in the process of culling the herd, selling off those I no longer want to bother with on Ebay "for parts or repair". I will ultimately lose money on them but no big deal, they are back into circulation (or to become lamps, who knows).
It is a hobby that I enjoy. If film photography is destined to die out in the next few decades, oh well, so am I. I shan't worry about it.
After a while, I was curious to see how images made with the old film lenses would look on film. Now I rarely use the mirrorless camera other than to quickly test out a new acquisition. After some experimentation, I settled on manual rangefinders from the 1950s-1960s. The collection currently includes Canon, Leotax, Leica, FED, and Zorki bodies. Some work, others not so well. I am in the process of culling the herd, selling off those I no longer want to bother with on Ebay "for parts or repair". I will ultimately lose money on them but no big deal, they are back into circulation (or to become lamps, who knows).
It is a hobby that I enjoy. If film photography is destined to die out in the next few decades, oh well, so am I. I shan't worry about it.
I just used a roll of b&w 35mm film for the first time in 10 years. I used a Bessa R2 and 35mm color skopar. It was fun, but it is not something I am going to take serious. My workflow is completely in place with digital and i like my results better.
Oren Grad
Well-known
There are many brand-new large format cameras available, at prices ranging from under $400 upward. Some of these less expensive cameras are traditional wood-and-metal folding field cameras, others include a growing range of 3D-printed plastic models, still others include a changing mix of pancake- and bellows-type cameras sourced from metal-working shops in China. For examples, look at brands like Intrepid, Shen Hao, Chamonix, Chroma Cameras, Mercury Camera.
There is also a growing range of 3D-printed cameras, starting at very modest prices for the body, for use with 120 roll film. Many of these amount to frames that accept existing roll holders (sometimes Graflok, sometimes Mamiya Press) on the back and lenses (sometimes view camera lenses, sometimes Mamiya Press) on the front. But some - typically those in panorama formats but now starting to include shorter formats as well - include wind knobs and accept film directly.
Of course, lots of pinhole cameras too in a wide range of formats.
What these all have in common is a lack of modern conveniences - scale- or ground glass/plastic focusing only, crude frame viewfinders if any, no built-in meters. Construction of the less-expensive ones is sometimes a bit rough around the edges. So far the non-pinhole ones are dependent on the existing stock of lenses and shutters. For the cameras that use view camera lenses in helical mounts, one generally needs to be willing and able to go through the steps of mounting the lens in a focus helical and calibrating focus.
We're not back in the '80s and '90s, but at least if one wants to work in formats larger than 35mm and doesn't mind working manually and a little more deliberately there are many options available new.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Gosh, that does sound reasonable, though they seem to be perpetually out of stock. Anyone know how long it takes to actually get one delivered?
ranger9
Well-known
Assorted observations and speculations, most of which are likely to be unpopular here:
- The "resurgence" of film photography is mostly an illusion caused by the magnification effect of social media. The vast majority of people interested in making pictures don't care about it, and most of those who do care will stop caring as soon as something else is trending.
- - That doesn't mean film photography will go away. Where I live, there are a few farmers who still plow with teams of horses. There's no particular reason for it – although they and their promoters can spiel all sorts of tenuous rationalizations – but they can afford to do it as a sort of lifestyle hobby, so they do. It gets them featured in media documentaries occasionally, and lets them feel different from their neighbors, and they like that. Most people who do film photography now are basically "plowing with horses," and their numbers will gradually decline but they'll never completely vanish.
- - It would be perfectly feasible for a company to market new high-end film cameras right now using 3D printing for structural parts, microcontrollers and actuators instead of gear trains and springs, etc. Such a camera would have to be fairly expensive, but because all this is off-the-shelf technology, it could sell in small volumes and still be a viable business. However, none of us (the kinds of people on this forum) would buy it, because it would be different from what we remembered, and there will be a constant chorus of detractors to say "Why should I buy that when I can get a used [whatever] for less money?" (If you don't believe me, just check the Pixii forum...)
- - As the trend continues of more and more of the world's wealth passing into the hands of fewer and fewer people, all "discretionary" activities, including taking pictures with anything other than a phone, will become more expensive and more exclusive. It's easier to sell one really fancy widget to a rich guy for $10,000 than to sell a hundred plain widgets to regular people for $100 apiece. The entire photography marketplace will become "Leica-ized," with everyone competing to sell a few very expensive gizmos to ultra-rich dilettantes and celebrities, so any committed but non-rich practitioners who want to play in their playpen will have to be prepared to sacrifice to pay rich-guy prices or else learn to get along with the crumbs that fall off their table. Film photographers will be hit first, but every other kind of photography will follow.
das
Well-known
Here is what I am saying. For the casual photographer who wants to shoot film and does not have much time to do so and consequently does not produce much volume, a digital mirrorless camera is not necessarily economical as compared to using a cell phone or a film camera.
A good fullframe digital mirrorless camera with some kind of kit zoom lens costs about $2000. One year later, on the person-to-person market that camera is worth maybe $1400. Two years later, maybe $1000. Eventually they all go to zero or near zero. So over two years, about $1000 in depreciation alone. If film + processing (dev only) maybe averages to $10, that is 100 rolls of film. So, for the depreciation costs alone, that's 3600 photos, on film, over two years, @ 5 rolls of film per month. And film cameras, the more popular ones for sure, hold their value. So I pay $250 for a Nikon F3 that is worth $250 two years later. Being careful and deliberate and taking fewer photos with digital is actually losing money in a way, as the depreciation demands that you use it as much as possible to get as much value out of it as possible. However, all of this would assume that the market for film cameras does not collapse again, and it could.
At the end of the day, people are going to choose what is best for them. But the whole assumption that "digital is always cheaper" is not correct in the short term (as the upfront investment is large) and not necessarily true in the medium-to-long term. Maybe it is for high volume pros, people who just snap everything they see all day, or for those who use them extensively for video. Then throw in storage costs (hard drives, cloud storage), replacement rechargeable batteries, lenses that only work on a proprietary mirrorless system, the high cost of mirrorless quality glass in general, proprietary TTL flash systems, etc. But I could be convinced otherwise.
A good fullframe digital mirrorless camera with some kind of kit zoom lens costs about $2000. One year later, on the person-to-person market that camera is worth maybe $1400. Two years later, maybe $1000. Eventually they all go to zero or near zero. So over two years, about $1000 in depreciation alone. If film + processing (dev only) maybe averages to $10, that is 100 rolls of film. So, for the depreciation costs alone, that's 3600 photos, on film, over two years, @ 5 rolls of film per month. And film cameras, the more popular ones for sure, hold their value. So I pay $250 for a Nikon F3 that is worth $250 two years later. Being careful and deliberate and taking fewer photos with digital is actually losing money in a way, as the depreciation demands that you use it as much as possible to get as much value out of it as possible. However, all of this would assume that the market for film cameras does not collapse again, and it could.
At the end of the day, people are going to choose what is best for them. But the whole assumption that "digital is always cheaper" is not correct in the short term (as the upfront investment is large) and not necessarily true in the medium-to-long term. Maybe it is for high volume pros, people who just snap everything they see all day, or for those who use them extensively for video. Then throw in storage costs (hard drives, cloud storage), replacement rechargeable batteries, lenses that only work on a proprietary mirrorless system, the high cost of mirrorless quality glass in general, proprietary TTL flash systems, etc. But I could be convinced otherwise.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
It is quite strange that this discussion focuses on cameras, while the digital and film cameras do not differ much in use, see the digital and analog Leica M cameras. However, producing gelatin/silver prints and printing digital files are vastly different. I think the emphasis in this discussion should be on that, because that's the big difference between digital and analog photography. Or is everyone who shoots digitally satisfied with viewing their images on a monitor?
Erik.
Erik.
Franko
Established
I suspect that a great deal of those who are driving prices of used film cameras up are like my nephew. He bought an ME Super six months ago and has yet to put a roll through it. Many others, like me, are over 70 geezers who use film because we've always used film and aren't participating in the "got to have it right now" lifestyle. If I used cameras for income I would no doubt feel the need for digital. The "end" will come for me when my film scanner dies and there are no replacements available.
From a business standpoint, I'd be surprised if most legacy name camera makers have retained the machines to make analog anything. Judging from Olympus and rumors about Nikon, they're barely surviving making digital. There's no store where I live (population 300,000) that even stocks digital pocket cameras anymore. The masses have moved on.
From a business standpoint, I'd be surprised if most legacy name camera makers have retained the machines to make analog anything. Judging from Olympus and rumors about Nikon, they're barely surviving making digital. There's no store where I live (population 300,000) that even stocks digital pocket cameras anymore. The masses have moved on.
Are you really forgetting that we can make inkjet prints? And books?
the_jim
human
As long as well-funded productions shoot film (which I can only see continuing as younger DP’s come up), Kodak will continue to make color negative film. Certainly, the bulk of movies/tv/commercials will be digital and that’s fine.
As far as camera goes…yeah…they are cars in Cuba. As long as parts exist or can be fabricated, they’ll be serviceable…as long as there are people that can service them.
I’d love to see Cosina dip their toes back into camera manufacturing. They clearly have the stomach to churn out niche (and wonderful) lenses that probably don’t sell in huge volumes. Hopefully they haven’t scrapped all their tooling. The Bessa cameras were awesome and I kick myself for not buying them when they were new. If you talk to people under 30, there is a market there for new cameras. How big that market is…I don’t know, but for a company that just introduced a new LTM lens and a soft focus, intentionally ‘flawed’-when-wide-open 50, vast market appeal isn’t always the driving factor. Credit to them.
Sure things will get more expensive, but what does a new Sony mirrorless cost? A new digital Leica? These are all objects with a limited lifespan. Depreciation is real, not to mention the decay of batteries and sensors, etc. Think of all the beat-to-hell Nikon F’s from the 60’s that are still cruising along. Even if film costs more in the day-to-day, you still have a recoding media that is tangible and a camera that wasn’t designed with the landfill in mind. Those factors appeal to lots of people and make an expensive hobby very worthwhile.
As far as camera goes…yeah…they are cars in Cuba. As long as parts exist or can be fabricated, they’ll be serviceable…as long as there are people that can service them.
I’d love to see Cosina dip their toes back into camera manufacturing. They clearly have the stomach to churn out niche (and wonderful) lenses that probably don’t sell in huge volumes. Hopefully they haven’t scrapped all their tooling. The Bessa cameras were awesome and I kick myself for not buying them when they were new. If you talk to people under 30, there is a market there for new cameras. How big that market is…I don’t know, but for a company that just introduced a new LTM lens and a soft focus, intentionally ‘flawed’-when-wide-open 50, vast market appeal isn’t always the driving factor. Credit to them.
Sure things will get more expensive, but what does a new Sony mirrorless cost? A new digital Leica? These are all objects with a limited lifespan. Depreciation is real, not to mention the decay of batteries and sensors, etc. Think of all the beat-to-hell Nikon F’s from the 60’s that are still cruising along. Even if film costs more in the day-to-day, you still have a recoding media that is tangible and a camera that wasn’t designed with the landfill in mind. Those factors appeal to lots of people and make an expensive hobby very worthwhile.
Dogman
Veteran
At times I think about pulling out one of my old film cameras, loading it up with some of the HP5 that's been in the freezer for 20+ years and see if I can recapture my youthful photo spirits. After all, I've still got nice stainless tanks and reels, gear to digitize negatives and even a couple of enlargers up in the attic should I decide to open another darkroom. Then I think about if a little bit more and think, "Nah...not today."
For me, photography is about the process of discovering. Things like light and shadow...
...or seedy places off the beaten path...
...or just the commonplace moments that interest me at the time...
....
Whatever I use to discover makes no difference. It's the discovery that's the prize.
Without the wonder of discovery, life is just...
For me, photography is about the process of discovering. Things like light and shadow...
...or seedy places off the beaten path...
...or just the commonplace moments that interest me at the time...
....
Whatever I use to discover makes no difference. It's the discovery that's the prize.
Without the wonder of discovery, life is just...
Dogman
Veteran
Take that post above as sentimental drivel.
I'm no longer a film shooter, admittedly. But I'm happy to see film still being used by some photographers. I'm happy old film cameras are still clicking along and I'm happy the world can accommodate different ways of practicing the art of photography.
I'm no longer a film shooter, admittedly. But I'm happy to see film still being used by some photographers. I'm happy old film cameras are still clicking along and I'm happy the world can accommodate different ways of practicing the art of photography.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
When I shoot my occasional roll of film I have it processed at a lab and have the images scanned as TIF files to a disk. So, for me at least, the end result is the same. If I decide to make a print (which I often do) it's still on my Epson ink-jet photo printer. Depending on the paper used, you'd be hard-pressed to differentiate these prints from darkroom prints.
Cascadilla
Well-known
The problem with old cameras will increasingly be getting them repaired--parts no longer available and more importantly, the lack of new people going in to the business. Since film isn't the professional medium that it was 30 years ago, it is probably harder to charge enough to make a living at camera repair. When I shot film for a living I knew that I would occasionally have to pay for repairs and that I would need something back quickly, and pay a premium for that reason. I still shoot film now but not for clients so my urgency for getting something back quickly isn't there any more but my price sensitivity is much greater. There is still a big overhang of old film cameras out there so I don't see a major shortage any time soon. Ironically, the cameras that will die and not be repairable will be the more recent electronic ones since those replacement parts won't exist and won't be at all economical to duplicate. Ancient all- mechanical cameras are more likely to be possible to repair, although that won't be cheap if it comes to going to a machine shop and asking for copies of a gear or lever.
On the film front, I think that many people are unaware of how different things are today in terms of production volume for Kodak and Fuji. When film was the only projection medium, each release print was roughly a mile of 35 mm film. When something like Jurassic Park come out in wide release (1000 screens simultaneously) that meant 1000 miles of film that had to be made and processed by somebody. While some movie makers are still working with film as a recording medium they aren't distributing films widely as release prints. The implication for film users is that prices will go up due to higher production costs through loss of efficiency.
On the film front, I think that many people are unaware of how different things are today in terms of production volume for Kodak and Fuji. When film was the only projection medium, each release print was roughly a mile of 35 mm film. When something like Jurassic Park come out in wide release (1000 screens simultaneously) that meant 1000 miles of film that had to be made and processed by somebody. While some movie makers are still working with film as a recording medium they aren't distributing films widely as release prints. The implication for film users is that prices will go up due to higher production costs through loss of efficiency.
the_jim
human
This is definitely the case. That being said, I’m excited that there are still more than a handful of theaters across the US that can feature showings of films on 35mm prints (seeing “In the Mood for Love” projected on the big screen tonight, for example). Obviously, this is the exception and not the rule, but it’s something…and these showings sell out…quickly.
the_jim
human
Sentimental drivel is one of the best things
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Can you make silver gelatin prints that way?
Printing film-negatives can be done in a digital way, of course - you can scan them - but how will you make silver gelatin prints from digital files? Are there enlargers that can do that? The best lasting prints are silver-gelatin prints.
Erik.
the_jim
human
I don’t know how it is for you, Erik, but I imagine the reason that many people make prints is the same reason that I enjoy shooting film - the process of it is pleasing and frustrating and rewarding. It takes skill and time and at the end of it, you have a thing you can touch.
It may be faster to heat food in the microwave, but the act of cooking is enjoyable for many people. And even if microwaving food produced superior results, many would still choose to stir a risotto, on the stove, for 30 minutes. I think it’s kind of like that.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Can you throw these prints in water and dry them without any damage to the image?
Erik.
olakiril
Well-known
There are digital negatives that you print with an inkjet printer and then use to expose the photographic paper.
Also the longevity of modern pigment based inks is far beyond our lifetimes, so I would say these are long lasting.