Nikon stops most film camera production

[Alex F]

Nikon has announced that it will stop producing most of its film cameras and manual-focus lenses. They will continue to sell two film models, the F6 pro SLR and a consumer SLR which is made for them by Cosina.

For over 40 years, Nikon was the top choice of most pro and serious amateur photographers Canon was its last remaining film rival, save for the small number of rangefinder diehards who still purchase Leicas (me being one of them). Obviously the digital camera has become the major seller and film photography is being relegated to a small niche market. I admit that the quality differences between film and digital, for most purposes, are minimal, and that the photojournalism of today requires fast uploads and digital transmission. Nonetheless, Leicas, Nikons, and other cameras made in the forties and fifties are still taking great pictures today. I wonder how many digital cameras that are older than five years are still in use.

Just a wistful observation from a film loyalist. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Alex "thankful for snatching a Nikon FM3A and two lenses for a song last month" F.

[brianf]

For a number of years, I have used a Nikon F3 and FA. There is nothing like them with the Nikon lenses. Just bought a Nikon 5400 and, while it is a good camera, I still prefer the old F3. I do have to admit that it is easier going around with a single camera than a case full of lenses but I'll always use the F3 for fancy stuff.

[TMurphy]

Nonetheless, Leicas, Nikons, and other cameras made in the forties and fifties are still taking great pictures today. I wonder how many digital cameras that are older than five years are still in use

Sort of an unfair comparison, as digital cameras are still a fairly new technology. Comparing digital cameras of 5 years ago to professional cameras of 40 years ago is more like comparing today's top film camera to the first or secon generation of cameras ever made. The technology was in its infancy, and is only getting better.

Tim Murphy, who also notes that no matter how good digital cameras get, the nature of digital means it can never truly equal the quality of a top notch film camera.

[Chuck(G)]

As an owner of a Nikon F2 that I bought new many years ago, I think it's sad that this day has arrived. But I also own a Polaroid oscilloscope camera that's been long since obsoleted by DSOs.

The control and convenience available with digital photography, however, is phenomenal and it just keeps getting better and better. Pixel geometries are getting smaller and the number of pixels in a frame keeps increasing. It'll soon be to the point that any differences in quality between digital and chemical will be imperceptible.

However, how do you suppose that we'll be able to store our digital images so that our ancestors will be able to retrieve them 150 years hence? Will CD-Rs and DVD-RW's last that long?

[MartyNeilan]

the nature of digital means it can never truly equal the quality of a top notch film camera.

yes and no. film still has "pixels" - except then it is called grains. This is why so-called large format cameras are preferred by some pros. Even 35mm can get grainy if blown up or cropped too much.

When I was in middle and high school (80's) I dabbled in darkroom developing and came across many of the issues of graininess in 35 mm when using too fast a speed (however necessary) and cropping too much on an 8x10.
Yeah, ASA64 has a super fine grain, but try shooting with that indoors in a large dim auditorium without several massive strobes. I would have to use faster speeds (some specifically for tungsten lighting) and often push process them - the results sometimes were looked as if they were almost pixilated when blown up.

[Rick Denney]

My Canon 10D produces images that can be made into exellent prints of the same size as those made on my Canon F-1, which I boughtin 1973.

There, I said it.

And the 10D is neither the latest nor the greatest. It's nearly three years old and it still works just as well as it did when I bought it. I'm sure it will continue to do so for years to come. Will it last as long as the F-1? Maybe not, but by that time I'll be enjoying the still better image-making potential of something newer.

A digital camera is like buying a film camera with the film already installed. You are stuck with Velvia, or Provia, or Ektachrome, or whatever you think it resembles. Digital is not the same as film: It doesn't have the same look nor the same texture. But it is just as good in most ways, and in many ways better.

I still shoot lots of film in medium format, because the quality-to-price ratio is still much higher than with any digital camera that could compete with it. The area of the "sensing" frame (whether digital or film) still matters, and matters hugely.

My biggest concern is the loss of three-dimensional media. Maintaining all those pictures in digital form is a monumental task, and I see a whole generation of family histories lost in the next few years until file formats and storage media become more permanent, assuming that ever happens.

If you shoot digital, make prints of all your family pictures that you will want to your descendants to enjoy, or at least explore. By that time, the computer on which you are storing your images will have long become part of a landfill.

Rick "who works in both media" Denney

[Alex F]

Yes Rick, preservation is becoming quite the issue with those most concerned about documenting history. Of course, film media deteriorates over time, especially color negatives. I'm sure you are familiar with the Bettman Archives, a collection of something like 25 million photographic negatives and prints that are stored in a former mine near Pittsburg PA. The collection includes many of the negs and prints of the former UPI wire service.

I wonder whether someone will create a digital archive to include not only images but the software with which they were created. As new technologies emerge, the old becomes obsolete. Remember 5 1/2" floppy disks?

[Chuck(G)]

I wonder whether someone will create a digital archive to include not only images but the software with which they were created. As new technologies emerge, the old becomes obsolete. Remember 5 1/2" floppy disks?

Actially, no I don't--but I remember 5 1/4" floppies and still deal with them quite frequently--as well as the larger 8".

...and here's a 3 1/4" floppy:

[ThomasDodd]

Nonetheless, Leicas, Nikons, and other cameras made in the forties and fifties are still taking great pictures today. I wonder how many digital cameras that are older than five years are still in use.

That is exactly the reason to drop the film line. Cameras can really move into the moder disposable society thanks to digital formats.

While I can get a 30 yeor old Mamiya repaired, I cannot get a 5 year old digital repaired. Even a 2 year old camer is cheaper to replace tha repair, so why bother.

It will have a bad outcome for a while though. Most images get printed with inks that won't last. So in 10 years most of todays prints will be history and the image files will be long lost.

[Rick Denney]

It will have a bad outcome for a while though. Most images get printed with inks that won't last. So in 10 years most of todays prints will be history and the image files will be long lost.

At least if you go to places like Costco for printing digital images, they will use Fuji Chrystal Archive, which has excellent permanence. My Epson printer's performance is also very good--certainly better than chemical prints on the materials that came before Chrystal Archive.

Negative materials are far better now than they used to be. We have lost nearly a whole generation of color images from the 50's and early 60's as a result of those self-eating color materials. Only Kodachrome from those days was archival in any sense of the word.

I have Cibachrome prints I made in the 70's that are still as good as they were when I made them. Most good photo printers now are more archival than Cibachrome, so it is getting better.

Of course, lots of people pull the prints out of the envelope and throw the negatives away anyway. Those are the people not worried about the permanence of their images on computer. I saw the pain my parents suffered when nearly all the photographs they owned were destroyed when their house flooded during Hurricane Allison several years ago. And my wife frequently pulls one of our many photo albums off the shelf and looks through it to enjoy again some past pleasant memory. But there are many who have no interest in preserving their history. My only concern are those who lose them by accident, through unknowing neglect.

There has been lots of thinking about this and lots of progress that is closely followed by serious photographers. I think the file format issue is a more serious issue than print permanence. I store all my files in the Canon Raw format (CRW), which can be read by a range of products but not necessarily in perpetuum. Those RAW files are my negatives, and occasionally I go back to an image after making a raw conversion only to want to make the conversion a different way. I carefully consider every software and hardware upgrade to make sure I will be able to read those files in the future. It's not a trivial assignment! But I still make prints of nearly everything.

Rick "having this same discussion on a Canon digital photography forum" Denney

[ThomasDodd]

I've seen plenty of prints form the 50's and 60's. Some in very poor conditon that can be copied and touched up for an amazing restoration. My wife has done this on a few old B&W prints with creases and tears.

My concern is for the people that have printed them at home on inkjets. Those tend to deteriorate very fast. Sure If you have prints made at a photo shop they likey will survive as long as a print from film, but do many people do that? Or do they use a $50 inkjet?

FWIW I have access to an Alps printer, which uses a wax ribbon. Thiose prints are very good, and more fade resistant than even prints from film, especially in high UV conditions. There's still the paper issue, and I have some prints on cheap bulk paper, but on a good paper they should last as long as any film print.

As to the file format issue. I think the best solution to use an open, well documented, well suppoerted format. TIFF or Photoshop's PSD formats are supported by every bitmap editing app worth using. JPEG, if you don't mind the losses, is also well documented and well supported. All 3 will be readable for nearly eternity. PSD because of it widespread profession use, TIFF and JPEG due to the open specs of the formats.

The proprietary formants that are only supported by 1 or 2 vendors are the ones that concern me.

[Rick Denney]

My concern is for the people that have printed them at home on inkjets. Those tend to deteriorate very fast. Sure If you have prints made at a photo shop they likey will survive as long as a print from film, but do many people do that? Or do they use a $50 inkjet?

That will be less and less of an issue as time goes on. That $50 printer requires $50 worth of ink every 100 or so small prints, with the result that the per-print cost is very high. But I can take my CD or memory card to Costco and they will make snapshot-sized prints on Crystal Archive for 19 cents each. And they look a lot better than what you get out of a $50 printer. The price pressure is downward for the lab services, but not for ink, which printer owners can only get from one source easily.

Rick "who never makes proofs at home despite having two good photo-quality printers" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

... The price pressure is downward for the lab services, but not for ink, which printer owners can

I ran across a Japanese web site that offered an add-on for Canon (IIRC) inkjets that involved adding an external rack with ink bottles connected to the printhead ink reservoirs with plastic tubing. I've not seen one of these being offered here, however.

[ThomasDodd]

... The price pressure is downward for the lab services, but not for ink, which printer owners can

I ran across a Japanese web site that offered an add-on for Canon (IIRC) inkjets that involved adding an external rack with ink bottles connected to the printhead ink reservoirs with plastic tubing. I've not seen one of these being offered here, however.

Plenty of companies make continous feed systems for Epson printers.
Like this one.

Search for continous feed and the manufacturer/model. Might find one somewhere.

One issue to watch for is the ink used. Some bulk ink are crap, just like many cartridge refill kits. Then there are other inks that are better (in various ways) than the OEM ink. But youneed to be carefull what you use.

[Rick Denney]

... The price pressure is downward for the lab services, but not for ink, which printer owners can

I ran across a Japanese web site that offered an add-on for Canon (IIRC) inkjets that involved adding an external rack with ink bottles connected to the printhead ink reservoirs with plastic tubing. I've not seen one of these being offered here, however.

There are several of those available for Epson printers, from Lysonic (I think I got that right) and others. You have to maintain a high production to make them pay. For high producers, they are much cheaper than Epson cartridges, but for regular people (even non-commercial photographers like me), you end up using up the ink keeping the system exercised so that it doesn't dry and clog. Even with Epson cartridges, I need to print in batches to avoid using up all my ink cleaning the printheads.

It was the same when I had a darkroom. You have to use up the chemicals to make it efficient, and they can only be reasonably mixed in fairly large quantities.

Rick "who has explored the continuous ink supply options" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

Today on the BBC news, I heard that Konica-Minolta is getting out of the camera business altogether. Which will make my Minolta digital a real orphan. Sigh.

On a related story, it was mentioned that the US National Archives uses microfilm as the only sure and certain way to preserve information for posterity. They've got Lockheed Martin on contract to find an appropriately durable substitute.

[Rick Denney]

Today on the BBC news, I heard that Konica-Minolta is getting out of the camera business altogether. Which will make my Minolta digital a real orphan.

I wonder if that means they will be blowing out their Multi Pro film scanners. Hmmm.

Rick "whose Multi II works great but needs more pixels" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Today on the BBC news, I heard that Konica-Minolta is getting out of the camera business altogether.

It turns out it's not quite that bad.

KM will still make lenses and their lens mount will be apparently used by Sony, to whom they have sold their designs (including their camera-based anti-shake technology). That is scuttlebutt, but perhaps you saw that also in your source.

Rick "who still doesn't know about the scanners" Denney

[Chuck(G)]

That is scuttlebutt, but perhaps you saw that also in your source.

Here's the transcript of the BBC news story:

Konica Minolta quits photo market

Japanese photographic equipment maker Konica Minolta has announced plans to withdraw from the camera business.

Konica Minolta said the market had become too competitive, and added it would sell its digital camera business to Japanese electronics giant Sony.

Konica Minolta is planning to cut 3,700 jobs, or 11% of its workforce, by 2007 as part of a restructuring drive.

Earlier in January, fellow Japanese cameramaker Nikon said it would stop making most of its film camera line.

Instead, Nikon intends to focus most of its effort on digital cameras.

Digital era

Konica Minolta, which was formed from the merger of the two companies in 2003, warned in November that it was on course to post a full-year net loss of 47bn yen ($408m; £232.5m).

Its decision to ditch the camera business altogether includes the cessation of its colour film and photo paper business, in which it has trailed Eastman Kodak of the US and Japan's Fuji Photo Film.

Instead, it plans to focus on products such as colour office photocopiers and medical imaging equipment.

"In today's era of digital cameras...it became difficult to timely provide competitive products even with our top optical, mechanical and electronics technologies," Konica Minolta said.

"For colour film and colour paper, while considering our customer needs, we will step-by-step reduce product line-up and cease our film production and colour paper by the end of fiscal year ending 31 March, 2007."

The global photographic market has been undergoing a major upheaval recently, with many key players withdrawing from traditional areas of the industry.

As well as Nikon's decision, Eastman Kodak has said for some time that digital is to be its priority in the future.

Unfortunately, that doesn't answer your scanner question...