Would you buy a new film camera?

[Phil_F_NM]

The problem is the staying power of the film hobby itself. I mean if someone wants to try out shooting film, they don't have an inexpensive new option like we did in decades past. It is really easy these days to try, and try, but repeatedly have bad results or a frustrating camera that is dodgy in operation, leading them to give up and go back to shooting on the cell phone. I think that is why there are so many Fujifilm Instax cameras available in thrift stores, ebay, and craigslist for 10% or less, of their original cost. Someone tries it out, thinks it's cool, doesn't invest in any more Instax film, puts the camera in a box or in the closet then goes back to shooting on the cell phone. It takes quite a bit of dedication to start then stick with film shooting these days. Initial cost of a camera may be nothing but it may not work; after repeating this a few times, frustration may set in and the would be film shooter may give up. Now that film is a niche which must be sought out in order to even try, there are many obstacles to entry for the manufacturers to break down in order to keep future shooters. They are probably banking on this fact that they have zero guarantee of dedication to the craft on the part of new shooters, and so won't introduce new products on such a dangerous gamble.
Phil Forrest

 

[Forest_rain]

Yeah it's true. It's not clear whether the film resurgence is a fad or a long term trend. I'm not sure either, but I do know that people like it as a way of escaping from modern technology.

I gave a friend a Contaflex awhile ago and I think she still uses it, and it should work pretty well. If you buy an SLR from the 90's or even '80s they should function well, and if you choose one with autofocus, autoexposure, I've never had one malfunction. The only iffy cameras I've had have been much older, like 50's-60s era.

The cameras themselves can be had for peanuts, I bought a Retina for $20, fully working, but the problem is film and development costs.

Truly I think many people might get tired of the novelty after awhile, only a fraction of people who try out film probably end up becoming enthusiasts.

On the other hands, the film labs where I live seem to be doing pretty good business, seemingly increasing in fact, but probably having good things to take pictures of in Hawaii helps.

The problem is the staying power of the film hobby itself. I mean if someone wants to try out shooting film, they don't have an inexpensive new option like we did in decades past. It is really easy these days to try, and try, but repeatedly have bad results or a frustrating camera that is dodgy in operation, leading them to give up and go back to shooting on the cell phone. I think that is why there are so many Fujifilm Instax cameras available in thrift stores, ebay, and craigslist for 10% or less, of their original cost. Someone tries it out, thinks it's cool, doesn't invest in any more Instax film, puts the camera in a box or in the closet then goes back to shooting on the cell phone. It takes quite a bit of dedication to start then stick with film shooting these days. Initial cost of a camera may be nothing but it may not work; after repeating this a few times, frustration may set in and the would be film shooter may give up. Now that film is a niche which must be sought out in order to even try, there are many obstacles to entry for the manufacturers to break down in order to keep future shooters. They are probably banking on this fact that they have zero guarantee of dedication to the craft on the part of new shooters, and so won't introduce new products on such a dangerous gamble.
Phil Forrest

 

[robert blu]

I could definitely get into the threshold of price which I'd pay for a new camera, but that new camera would have to come with a future of factory support via a warranty and after the warranty period, spare parts. Let's take the Nikon F2 previously mentioned. If it were to just use an eye-level prism, not the metered prisms, it wouldn't have need for the circuitry inside, aside from the contacts for a flash. Anyway, we've got our bare-bones, no battery at all Nikon F2 with DE-1 prism. Exact same camera, save for the meter stuff, just to cut a bit of cost. Now, we have a product that has a history of reliability in every imaginable shooting scenario and environment. We have a dedicated existing set of users (myself and others here and elsewhere), AND we have the cachet of a fully manual, professional quality camera that the younger digital generation can grab and learn with. The benefit of it being Nikon, is that it is from a large corporation which is not a fly-by-night company that may go teats up at any time, like so many starry-eyed kickstarter campaigns. We could just as easily substitute the Canon F1 or New F1 in for our F2, as they are contemporaries and also "bulletproof". I wouldn't hesitate to take either body on a deployment with Navy combat engineers to Iraq (if I were to travel back in time.)
I would pay maybe up to $2000 for such a camera (once I have a reliable job, purchased a house, and purchased a car to replace my current one), but it would have to be the exact same as my ugly and oh-so-reliable, black paint F2.
As I wrote earlier though, such a camera couldn't be made and sold for probably any less than $5000, and could easily run twice that much, depending upon interest, number made, prospective buyer deposits (guaranteed sales.)
Meanwhile, I can shop for the same old camera here and other places online, buy it for anywhere between $150 and $500, and have a reliable body for probably the rest of my life. That $2000 would be my investment into the future factory maintenance and parts availability for the F2.

Phil Forrest

The problem is the staying power of the film hobby itself. I mean if someone wants to try out shooting film, they don't have an inexpensive new option like we did in decades past. It is really easy these days to try, and try, but repeatedly have bad results or a frustrating camera that is dodgy in operation, leading them to give up and go back to shooting on the cell phone. I think that is why there are so many Fujifilm Instax cameras available in thrift stores, ebay, and craigslist for 10% or less, of their original cost. Someone tries it out, thinks it's cool, doesn't invest in any more Instax film, puts the camera in a box or in the closet then goes back to shooting on the cell phone. It takes quite a bit of dedication to start then stick with film shooting these days. Initial cost of a camera may be nothing but it may not work; after repeating this a few times, frustration may set in and the would be film shooter may give up. Now that film is a niche which must be sought out in order to even try, there are many obstacles to entry for the manufacturers to break down in order to keep future shooters. They are probably banking on this fact that they have zero guarantee of dedication to the craft on the part of new shooters, and so won't introduce new products on such a dangerous gamble.
Phil Forrest

Well said, thanks.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Zeiss Ikon gambled, and brought the ZM rangefinder to the market in 2005. The camera did not sell well and production ceased in 2012. I bought two bodies and lenses at a steep discount mid-2009. Today, the ZM sells at a hefty premium on eBay.



An interesting review here: https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/zeiss-.html

Cheers, OtL

 

[robert blu]

Zeiss Ikon gambled, and brought the ZM rangefinder to the market in 2005. The camera did not sell well and production ceased in 2012. I bought two bodies and lenses at a steep discount mid-2009. Today, the ZM sells at a hefty premium on eBay.

An interesting review here: https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/zeiss-.html

Cheers, OtL

...and it is still a beautiful camera !

 

[Out to Lunch]

Agreed, and they are still being serviced by Zeiss in Germany. This said, I believe I would be able to find a technician to do, at least some repairs and adjustments, in SE Asia as well. Cheers, OtL

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Such a shame that the Ikon was discontinued, but I think 2012 was probably "peak digital." It's interesting to speculate what sales of the Ikon would have been like if Zeiss had kept producing them until the film revival a few years later. Personally, seeing the price trends on used M6s and M7s, I think the Ikon would have sold well in the past five years (as would the FM3A). Not compared to digital, of course, but compared to sales of film cameras during the digital dark age of roughly 2005–2017 or thereabouts.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

It's too bad Kobayashi-san didn't keep making CV Bessa cameras.
Doubtless they'd sell better now than when production ceased.
That said lenses probably offer a considerably higher profit margin.

Chris

 

[css9450]

If you buy an SLR from the 90's or even '80s they should function well, and if you choose one with autofocus, autoexposure, I've never had one malfunction.

That's a good point. Cameras like the Nikon N8008 and N90 and their Canon equivalents are technological marvels and there are tons of lenses available for them and the camera bodies are dirt cheap these days. You can be picky and get them nearly brand new on Ebay for crazy low prices.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

The problem is the staying power of the film hobby itself. If someone wants to try out shooting film, they don't have an inexpensive new option like we did in decades past. It is really easy these days to try, and try (...) Now that film is a niche which must be sought out in order to even try, there are many obstacles to entry for the manufacturers to break down in order to keep future shooters. They are probably banking on this fact that they have zero guarantee of dedication to the craft on the part of new shooters, and so won't introduce new products on such a dangerous gamble.

Well said. For me, film is an entirely different mindset from my digital photography - I've never been a machine gunner, but with film (almost entirely B&W, now and then a roll of C41 bought super cheap from a camera shop) I study my subjects, take my time and treat the entire experience from a cerebral viewpoint. My results are often somewhat static, but I'm a retired architect, and architects think in grid lines, so it all suits me.

Old film cameras are so cheap, quite new (circa 2000) gear still working well is often sold for a small fraction of new cost. Like my two Nikon F65s (aka N65) with kit lenses, a very usable but underrated early-2000s budget amateur model. one I got new in 2006 with an AA battery winder for A$270, the other for $55 in 2012 on Ebay. Both go on shooting and thanks to that AA winder, other than the horrific cost of film in Australia I've been able to use these very cheaply.

Faced with this sort of economical photography, it's unlikely I will ever again cough up the great amounts of cash needed to buy a new film camera. I dream of Leicas and Zeiss Ikon bijous, but my budget keeps me firmly grounded in the real world.


The age of affordable film cameras has passed and they are now niche market products. As well we film photographers are ageing for the most part and in the next few years, many of us (I will be one) will be either putting our film gear on display shelves or giving it away.

Everything has its time and photography is no exception. My baby photos were taken with a Kodak 616 Brownie. My own early snaps were made with a Kodak 620. My pride and joy as a news reporter in the '60s was a Rolleiflex 3.5E2 TLR. All gone now, only the Rollei goes on shooting as good as it did in 1966.

 

[Pál_K]

... My pride and joy as a news reporter in the '60s was a Rolleiflex 3.5E2 TLR. All gone now, only the Rollei goes on shooting as good as it did in 1966.

When viewing documentaries showing large crowds of press photographers, I'd always see the TLR's being held high overhead, upside down, with the photographer looking up at the screen. That likely produced a good photo rivaled only by photographs made from the front row.

 

[Pál_K]

Zeiss Ikon gambled, and brought the ZM rangefinder to the market in 2005. The camera did not sell well and production ceased in 2012. I bought two bodies and lenses at a steep discount mid-2009. Today, the ZM sells at a hefty premium on eBay.




An interesting review here: https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/zeiss-.html

Cheers, OtL

Gaaah! I missed buying one because it was introduced at a time I was ignoring photography, when all I saw was digital this and digital that. I'd almost missed the FM3a.

But that ZM is something I'd definitely buy today.

 

[Archiver]

Inordinate because the actual results from a T3 were not that fabulous, it was the convenience and coolness that was fabulous. Good, not fantastic. Had one.

And before someone beclowns themselves by talking 3D printing, they should take a T3 apart and look at it for a while. Or any reasonably sophisticated camera. 3D printing can do pinhole cameras. Barely.

"Before someone beclowns themselves" - I love that phrase! Gonna steal it, hahaha.

I adore my T3 and think the results are fantastic. At least, they are to me. If a T3 level camera were to be made now, it would be crazy expensive due to economies of scale, probably in the same realm as 2020 T3 eBay prices. It boggles my mind that a camera that could be had for USD$500 or less about 13 years ago now sells for $1500 or more. In Australia, there's a black one listed for AUD $3600. That's what a Panasonic S5 sells for at retail.

The issue with a new film camera is the lack of cachet. A T3 has strong niche awareness and desirability, but a brand new film camera would not, unless made by a company well known for expensive film cameras like Leica. So a new film camera as good as the T3 would not have the same desirability, and therefore not the sales figures, unless there was some frenzied uptake due to celebrities using them.

 

[markjwyatt]

When viewing documentaries showing large crowds of press photographers, I'd always see the TLR's being held high overhead, upside down, with the photographer looking up at the screen. That likely produced a good photo rivaled only by photographs made from the front row.

Around corners works well also...

 

[mh2000]

I love old cameras! Even with full repair/CLA, many classics are cheaper than buying what would be new!

 

[Rayt]

No I wouldn’t get a new 135 format film camera when there are 50+ years worth of them somewhere to be enjoyed. I would get a new large format though.

 

[pyeh]

Would I buy a new film camera? I would and I did - an MP a la carte, when I heard that the alc program was going to be discontinued (thanks for the heads up, Stephen Gandy). I would have been happy with with 2nd hand if I could have found one with the variations I wanted, but it's great to have a brand new film camera for sure.
The cameras I wish they would resume production of are those like the Hasselblad-Fuji X-pan, and the Bronica RF645, both over-priced as 2nd hand goods and possibly too old to be reliable.

 

[loquax ludens]

I'd consider buying a new film camera if it was at least medium format and could accept both film and glass plate holders. Minus points for anything electronic.

 

[Spluff]

I'd buy a new camera as long as I had the lenses for it (very reluctant to start a new system). But I'd be much more interested in making sure I could maintain the ones I have. For the more "popular" brands like the Leicas, I can imagine parts will be available for quite a while. But I'm not confident about my Contax cameras, and I'll miss them if they stop working and can't be repaired.

 

[zenza]

I'd pay big bucks for a new P&S like a Klasse or 35Ti with warranty.