I came across this on another forum: Nikon to discontinue film based cameras


So the F6 stays, but apparently, nothing else film based.

Reading between the lines, I would also take the statement that they are going to discontinue production of all lenses for "large format cameras" to mean Nikon has no intentions of going full frame digital.

 

Not so sure. I take "large format cameras" to be the traditional meaning of cameras with film sizes larger than medium format. Nikon does make lenses for large format cameras (4x5 and bigger), though that's little-known and must be a very small part of their business. See for instance http://www.europe-nikon.com/category...d=22&catId=149

It would be a shame, though, if they dropped the F100 and FM3A bodies. The FM3A's only been around for a few years, I think, and is a very nice camera.

Mark

 

i've asked just about every photographer that i've worked with for the past 5 years... why would anyone stick with film? i'm saying film is bad, but in the commercial world, digital makes much more sense. however, is there other purposes (ie artistic) that will make film hang on?

i'm just an art director not a photographer so, please, don't take my comment as negative towards film... i'm just trying to understand.

 

For me, it's a matter of choice.

I still get a thrill from going to pick up my processed film and seeing how the prints turn out. That excitement over passing around a sheet of photo paper with a recorded moment still sparks a flame for me.

I enjoy film's nuances, from using a high color saturation product like Fuji Velvia to the gray tones of Kodak's Plus-X. True, all those can be digitally replicated with image editing software, but it doesn't quite have the same affect for me as that first moment when you open that envelope of photographic delights (or blunders).

That said . . . I want a D2X!

 

Some of the doc work I do I shoot on film in my M6. There's a certain pacing to it that's different from digital. I enjoy it.

Also, I used to think it was hype, but there really is something magic about Leica glass. The negatives. . . they glow on the light table.

But for just about everything else, digital gives you a turnaround and convenience that film can't rival. I now hate the drudgery of scanning my negs. In variably there's more clean up than you want to do.

For example, I will happily never travel oversees with film again. No sighing security guards arguing with you about sending your film through the xray, etc.

OT: Curious to see how this works out for Nikon, but I'm glad I'm a Canon guy.

 

i totally agree that the tactile experience of photography is 100% gone when you shoot digital. i don't miss waiting 90 seconds for a polaroid to process while on location or in a studio but, from a consumer standpoint, i do miss passing around and reminicing over the volumes of photo books that my parents have.

 

I usually have my negatives scanned at time of processing (a bit more expensive) so it's the best of both worlds, prints and digital images one can edit.

 

Embrace your inner Luddite!

I can take my dad's almost 50 year old Leica out and take great looking pictures with it. I doubt there will be many 50 year old digital camera that will still work, have memory cards available for them, etc, etc.

Without digital, I never would have gotten into photography. But, I'd rather shoot film... mostly just to be different.

I'm betting that that Nikon press release is being mis-interpereted somehow. But I could be wrong. Notice it's from Nikon UK. Not Nikon NA (North America), or more importantly Nikon Japan.

 

You can read Nikon's press release yourself - go to www.nikonusa.com and hit the press room...

 

My other half is a Professional Photographer. He shoots all Digital for work, but loves to still use film for his own personal use at times. Looks like we might just hang on to ALL THOSE Nikon film cameras - they might just be Antiques and worth something some day...

Donna

 

I guess Film was OK while there were no other photographic technologies available and digital cameras were still in their infancy.

I don't bother with film 35mm film cameras anymore. Last time I used 35mm film was over 3 years ago.

Digital camera technology has evolutioned to the point that film is as obsolete as audio cassette tapes and 8 tracks.

Right now I can go to my neighboorhood CVS pharmacy, pop in my Sony memorystick into their processing computer and get glossy, high quality prints in a matter of minutes. All much cheaper than having actual film developed.

I am not a professional photographer by any stretch of the imagination but I do enjoy taking nice pics whenever we travel and digital camera technology has proven to be ultra reliable, cheap and convenient way to take quality photos without the hassles of Film developing.

 

Still using film here (usually 35 mm, some 645 medium format),
but no longer use my darkroom. Now I get 5x7 prints
(cost 30 - 40 cents per print with excellent results where I go)
and scan and photoshop and reprint them larger when desired,
and If I'm serious about a picture, I'll scan the negative instead.
Emulsion still holds a ton of data, and the information on the
negatives I have from the last few decades would fill many large
hard drives. I also feel the small sensor size on digital cameras
limits resolution (the optics can get only so many lines/mm resolution
and it goes onto a smaller area) compared to full frame 35mm or med format.
Of course, I do agree there are other advantages to digital cameras.