Canon has sold its last film camera • Hacker News Board

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#61

Post by mauvehaus » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #49

sureaboutthis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that "professionals" still use film, particularly in the high end art market with large format and 'view' cameras in particular. One might think that's "niche" but there are a lot of them out there.

Heck, The Impossible Project managed to bring back polaroids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals

The Impossible Project seems to be the happy coincidence of a number of people who qualify as miracle workers and the manufacturing equipment not being scrapped. I am awed by the work they're doing, even if I've never shot a Polaroid picture in my life.

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#62

Post by ghaff » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #58

ghaff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optical viewfinders are still better. And I say that as someone who has a Canon DSLR but shoots more with a Fujifilm X-E3 because it's a lot smaller and lighter. The day will certainly come when electronic viewfinders become dominant but there are still advantages to mirrors today.

Optical viewfinders are great, but the tiny ones in consumer DSLRs are no fun compared to full-frame ones. Moving from a full-frame optical viewfinder in my film camera to the much smaller viewfinder in an APS-C DSLR was painful.

It's not necessarily the sensor size. I never liked the Canon Rebel viewfinders but, as I recall, the higher end APS-C models were fine. (Personally, I didn't go to DSLRs before full-frame was relatively affordable and have a 5D MarkIII today.)

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#63

Post by ghostly_s » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

khazhoux wrote: post #42

mauvehaus wrote: post #24

This is a shame. For professionals, it has long made sense to make the transition to digital. For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed. Developing B&W prints is as close to magic as I've experienced. For those who don't know, B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light, so once you've exposed the paper, you can put it in the developer and actually watch the image…

You need a Fujifilm X100F, with the matching leather case for extra style points. Camera feels great, has a real optical viewfinder, and lots of physical controls.

Many of the XF lenses and cameras are nearly all-metal construction, also. Great quality gear.

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#64

Post by kakwa_ » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

fetus8 wrote: post #28

_ph_ wrote: post #26

This is not very surprising news - very recently I was wondering who still sells film cameras. Digital has surpassed film in almost every way. It is however quite scary to see technology completely go away which was so common not long ago, sometimes even completely lost as technology. You can’t buy proper Polaroid film any more, many other important film materials are completely gone as well.

Thankfully Fuji's Instax line is alive and kicking, with their instant film readily available.

RIP 35mm Fujifilm Neopan.

The 1600 was a great high ASA film.

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#65

Post by bronson » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

macintux wrote: post #37

ekianjo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like saying Ferrari doesn't matter market-wise because they sell only a few thousands cars a year. The same goes for large format film photography.

Ferrari doesn't matter market-wise.

If that's true then why does everybody know who they are?

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#66

Post by pdpi » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

mauvehaus wrote: post #24

This is a shame. For professionals, it has long made sense to make the transition to digital. For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed. Developing B&W prints is as close to magic as I've experienced. For those who don't know, B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light, so once you've exposed the paper, you can put it in the developer and actually watch the image…

As an established amateur I can see how film might work better for you, but digital is way more pleasant for a beginner.

I only recently got into the hobby, and digital is a godsend because I get to experiment on the cheap — I don't feel like I'm wasting film if I take the same photo ten times from different angles, with different apertures, at different focal distances... I also get to go to my computer, take all the photos out, see what worked and what didn't, and get a lot more usable feedback much sooner.

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#67

Post by CarVac » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #39

sjm-lbm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Most advances Canon has made in SLRs (say, the AF upgrades the comment you are replying to above mentions) could be easily 'backported' to a film camera: in a real SLR, the sensor isn't exposed to light until the picture is ready to be taken and focus/exposure settings have already been decided, so it's not like those features rely on the digital image sensor in any way. The reason why Canon doesn't make a fil…

The reason why AF for film is hard is because AF tends to move around the point of best focus and moving a lens is terribly slow compared to the inter-frame time. So you simply don't have the time to figure out what the ideal focus is while shooting film, especially not if camera and/or subject are moving, which is sort of the whole reason for shooting video to begin with.

Film still cameras, not film cinema cameras.

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#68

Post by toomanybeersies » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

hamitron wrote: post #35

mauvehaus wrote: post #24

This is a shame. For professionals, it has long made sense to make the transition to digital. For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed. Developing B&W prints is as close to magic as I've experienced. For those who don't know, B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light, so once you've exposed the paper, you can put it in the developer and actually watch the image…

The only reason it made sense to transition to digital is the workflow. Its more efficient to shoot weddings on digital so you can turn out a product faster.

Cost and flexibility when shooting (adjustable ISO, no need to pause to change rolls) are actually the bigger advantages.

You can turn out photos in film about as fast as digital. I can get a roll developed, scanned, and online in about 20 minutes.

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#69

Post by lb1lf » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

hamitron wrote: post #54

twblalock wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of reasons it made sense: getting to see your photos instantly instead of waiting for (and paying for) film development, the ability to change the white balance after photos are taken, not lugging a bunch of film around, not worrying about airport x-rays ruining your film, getting a digital copy of your photos without using a scanner, and many other very big advantages.

x-rays don't ruin film

That depends. A lot of older X-ray machines were designed on the more is MORE philosophy, definitely ruining most film.

The fine print on so-called ‘film safe’ machines typically state they won’t visibly affect film slower than ISO800, inclusive.

(Plus, the damage is accumulated, so if you lug a lot of film through a lot of airports, you will get the occasional nasty surprise.)

That being said, I’ve never had any problems having my film -when I travel with it- inspected manually.

Re: Canon has sold its last film camera

#70

Post by geerlingguy » Thu, May 31, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #48

My brother is a photographer and works in a camera store in his spare time - or the other way around, depending on when you ask him. He's spent a fortune over the years on film and cameras and switched to full digital a while ago. Recently he traded all his glass & bodies for new Sony gear, which he reckons outperforms both Canon and Nikon by a considerable margin. So if you're letting go of film and are in the marke…

> outperforms both Canon and Nikon by a considerable margin

Not sure the metric, but SLRs still own the focusing crown for most action-based photography (though the mirrorless cameras are getting closer to being good at it).

And exposure/metering is pretty much even, resolution is pretty even, ISO/noise gives an edge to Sony/Nikon over Canon, body/UX/comfort/grip gives an edge to Nikon/Canon over Sony (unless you have very small hands, maybe...), battery life gives a huge lead to Nikon/Canon over Sony.

There are only a few aspects where Sony's current flagships have a substantial difference, like high FPS shooting (20 vs ~10 for DSLRs), or 'seeing what you're shooting' in the digital viewfinder.

Also, both Canon and Nikon are reportedly working on some full frame mirrorless bodies to compete with Sony's flagships (they have both had various cameras in the market in the past, e.g. Nikon 1 series, but none were as well-rounded as what Sony's offering today).