Reuters are reporting that Canon have today announced that they have stopped development of new compact and SLR film cameras. The company will continue to promote and sell existing film models, although it also said it will "make a final judgment on the business in the future while monitoring market demand." Canon’s announcement follows a similar one by Nikon earlier this year.

UPDATE: Well, it seems that Reuters were a little quick off the mark, in that Canon are now considering halting film camera production, rather than actually doing it. Which isn’t half as interesting as the original news!

Not surprizing at all. My professional photographer friend says he now does film only if requested as he can match, with digital, anything that film can do. Look at the digital cameras, every year they are better and have more features without going higher in price. So many features that you really have to be good with menus to get full use of the camera...BTW my Sony H-1 is an excellent example of the great value available today.

digital cameras are the new technology. its like the move from large format to 35mm as the widley accepted medium for popular photography. im sure production wont stop of existing models for a while, but "new" 35mm cameras would just be obsolete befor they hit the shelves.

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
Not surprizing at all. My professional photographer friend says he now does film only if requested as he can match, with digital, anything that film can do. Look at the digital cameras, every year they are better and have more features without going higher in price. So many features that you really have to be good with menus to get full use of the camera...BTW my Sony H-1 is an excellent example of the great value available today.

Canon has had the upper hand on digital cameras, at least with their sensors. For example, some of the top of the line Canon digital SLR cameras are already using 16 MP sensors, and also sensors in sizes that equal a 35mm image. These are very expensive cameras, of course, and cost somewhere around $7,000 for the body only.

While most digital cameras us a CCD sensor the better ones [such as Sony's R-1 ] are using CMOS sensors .The Sony CMOS is 12 times larger than typical CCDs !!! I can't keep up with the changes !

Digital has come a long, long way. And for the everyday snapshots, they are super. But when it comes down to rendering the very best depth and detail, digital still can't touch film, especially when one considers images of 16x20 and larger.

I haven't switched and don't plan to any time soon. But I am aware of a number of studios that made the switch early on and have since gone back to film.

Digital is convenient and obviously the way of the future. But it still leaves much to be desired.

My wife's a film purist for serious pictures (I don't know what you call the stuff that isn't snapshots). She agonizes about film going away. I'd like to reassure her, but if 99% or more of the market is using digital, the last people to make film cameras (or film) are going to make a good business decision that will break a few hearts one of these days.

H. C.

Serious digital [professional] camera work requires a system . Camera, computer, and printer . ALL must have capabilities to handle the resolution and full color spectrum to get the best results !! Many of the things we used to do in the dark room are now done on the camera !

I agree with mete, and I am persuaded that color reproduction in chemical color film photography has limitations that digital color photography does not. We have enough pictures of our little green daughter in pink dresses.

H. C.

Film still has several advantages for certain kinds of photography and still allows the photographer aspects of image contral that digital does not. For instance, the size of the captors, and therefore the "wide angle" lenses required to use them effectively, means you don't always have the option of reducing the depth of field to a narrow plane. This is infuriating in portrait photography, still life photography, certain kinds of architectural photography, etc. Take a 120 film 2 and quarter inch negative, perfectly exposed with a good camera/lens, print a 16 X 20 and then tell me you can get the same results with digital. I don't think you can.

Wink wrote:

quote:

Take a 120 film 2 and quarter inch negative, perfectly exposed with a good camera/lens, print a 16 X 20 and then tell me you can get the same results with digital. I don't think you can.

Well said...

Also, the digital craze and the auto-everything cameras/lenses significantly reduced the overall level of talent in the photographic field. To me, a photograph represents a moment in time. But if you remove the trees, color the sky, change the shoes and turn a smile into a frown, you no longer have a photographic image -- an image that is historically correct. What you have is something totally different.

Minimal retouching, to me, is acceptable. A bride may not want a blemish to show. Or a subject may want a stray hair removed. But totally changing everything takes it out of the realm of photography.

I recently met a fellow who had opened his own business. He had never shot film before and didn't have a clue about "real" photography, the timing required and the feel for the moment. He told me he shoots as many images as time (and digital capture) will allow (over 2500 per wedding!), and if something is wrong with them, he just "fixes" them in the computer. Heck, a robot could do that...

It's been more than 10 years since I shot sporting events on a daily basis. But maybe once a year or so, I will still drag out the manual focus Nikon 400mm f/3.5 and shoot a game, though I generally get a few odd looks from those sporting the ultra-sonic, autofocus digital setups. And at a state championship night football game a couple of years ago, I was asked: "Can you even get any action pictures without an autofocus lens?" I wanted to ask him the very same question, but then again, I already knew THAT answer.

I have nothing against the every-day Joe using and benefiting from the new technology. (Some aspects of it are truly wonderful.) But when someone decides to pass themselves off as a professional photographer and has never taken a true film photo or something that wasn't done in automatic exposure and automatic focus mode, I do get a little ticked off.

And when the media goes the ways of blogs and "reporters" who have no grasp of grammar or the proper use of the English language, my blood pressure rises as well. In some circles, you don't need talent or knowledge. A computer with spell-check is all that is required.

But let me step off my soapbox...

I am a professional wedding photographer and am a former newspaper photographer. My first job was in a darkroom at a newspaper developing black and white prints, so I know what I am doing. Yes, I have used, and still used manual cameras. Actually I collect old cameras. I have several Hasselblad medium format cameras, Bronica medium formats, a Canon TX, a Zeiss Ikon 6X7 and many others from Kodak Brownies all the way up to a Canon A2, EOS3 and EOS 5.
But for me it's all about economics. A couple of years ago I would shoot the formals in medium format and the candid shots in 35mm. The film, printing and proofing costs from each wedding ran into several hundred dollars. Actually they were my biggest business cost for the year.
Now that I have gone digital I bought several 2gb memory cards that were pretty expensive. But, I can use them over and over again. That has taken the film and processing cost out of each wedding. Now I just post the digital images to a website and that has taken the proofing cost out as well.
The quality is great, and I haven't had any complaints. I don't miss medium format. It was always a big pain to use since you had to load all the backs and only got a small amount of exposures per roll. The images were great, but I get great images out of digital as well.
I still use all of my film cameras, but just for personal pictures when I'm on vacation etc.
Yes, there are some challenges with digital, but there are advantages as well. One of the biggest is the ability to change ISO from frame to frame. Also, with digital you can shoot at a higher ISO and have less noticable grain than you can with film. There are limits to this of course, but it is a big plus. This is especially true with outdoor weddings or ceremonies where flash is not allowed.

Jriley-Your entry into the field sounds much like mine. I just won't say how many years ago that has been!

This is a very informative training article on sensor sizes by brand:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

I have both a new digital camera but still use my Nikon 8008s. Are there any digital cameras, within reasonable cost, that are as "fast" as the 8008s? Can a digital do as good with fast action shots? Shutter speed on the Nikon are 1/8000 sec.

quote:

Are there any digital cameras, within reasonable cost, that are as "fast" as the 8008s? Can a digital do as good with fast action shots? Shutter speed on the Nikon are 1/8000 sec.

Nikon D200 is the way to go. $1699.

Click here for full review of Nikon D200

Look on the sidelines of today's pro and college football games and you'll have the answer to that one. There is no comparison to the speed of the top of the line digital bodies from Canon and Nikon. Of course, all of the cheap digitals have major shutter lag, which makes action shooting difficult. Of course, to use shutter speeds of 1/8000 like you are talking about there has to be a tremendous amount of available light and a lens with a very low constant aperature. You can stop action with shutter speeds way lower than that, unless you are shooting hummingbirds. That translates to extreme cost and bulk. Which the pro sports photographers are willing to deal with due to the quality of images they get.
When I used to shoot a lot of high school sports with film my deadline was midnight. Of course, no labs were open at that time. I would have to race back to the office, develop film, evaluate the negatives and print photos, get editorial approval while the clock was ticking.
Today all the guys do is just upload them to their laptop in the parking lot. Ever since I went digital my darkroom is right here in front of me. If I never step foot in another I'll be happy. I still love photography, but not the chemicals.

WPN,

The D200 looks very nice and quite capable. The price is not bad either. Thanks for the info.

Woody

I was playing with my Canon Rebel XT this morning useing the Canon 75-300 IS/USM ( ISO 800 ) & took this shot of our guest at breakfast. The image size that you see here has been reduced 50% from full size. After more than 30 years I will probably never use film again. Next camera will be a Canon 30D!

quote:

Originally posted by D Humbarger:
I was playing with my Canon Rebel XT this morning useing the Canon 75-300 IS/USM ( ISO 800 ) & took this shot of our guest at breakfast. The image size that you see here has been reduced 50% from full size. After more than 30 years I will probably never use film again. Next camera will be a Canon 30D!

Take a look at this forums where most Canon cameras are used:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

The Canon sensors are way ahead of the competition, and that's a well known fact with professional photographers, but with the high demand for Canon digital SLR cameras comes a high price for the top of the line such as the 16+MP sensors.

I use a Rebel XT for the time being, but as with any camera out there, the lenses you use is what makes a big difference. For the time being I have been using the kit lens to take pictures such as this one:

Or this (used a Sigma 70-300mm lens with both the lens and camera set to macro):


I still have to crop a little off the top of this photo, but it's not too bad this way. The flower is just a couple of willow pods, one in full bloom. The background color is the blurred willow and birch trees in the distance.

Take a look at my website, www.jimrileyphotography.com. Three of the pictures on the opening page are digital photos. Two were taken with the EOS 20D with the 24-70 f2.8L. I took the one on the bottom with an EOS 5 and a 17-40 f4L this afternoon.
The one on the top is a crooked scan that needs to be fixed. But, it is a good shot of a pretty lady. The picture was taken with an A2E and an older 28-70L f2.8 using Provia 100 slide film and available light on a tripod. I'm a lot better photographer than I am a website builder.

I like the willow shot! I've had a lot more luck with Sigma than the other third party lenses. I dropped and broke mine in Russia back in 2001. I came home and bought the 100-400 IS L and have been very happy with it since.

quote:

Originally posted by Jriley:
I like the willow shot! I've had a lot more luck with Sigma than the other third party lenses. I dropped and broke mine in Russia back in 2001. I came home and bought the 100-400 IS L and have been very happy with it since.

I hear that Tamron has lenses similar in quality to Sigma's. However, Canon's "L" lenses are way up there on top, both in sharpness and price.

Those are very nice photos in your web site.

Thanks, I've only had one Tamron and wasn't happy with it. It was one of their cheaper lenses though.

I think those that argue that "you can take good pictures with digital" are missing the point. Of course you can take excellent pictures with digital. My point is that you can't always take the photograph you want, and that for some types of photography the film camera is a better choice. As for the "economics" of digital, there is no comparison; digital is faster for post shooting image selection and faster for post shooting image modification (with easier to master control options you can do anywhere with a portable computer). But for a couple of hundred bucks you can get a film SLR that will take a picture when you press the shutter release. A digital camera that can do this just as quickly costs into the thousands of dollars. If you happen to travel in the bush for any extended stays, there is nothing quite like a Nikon FM2 or FM3. It actually works without batteries! Imagine that! You can select 400 ASA black & white film which can be developed with the C41 process and have your pictures in 30 minutes from almost any developing store, or, shoot color slides to keep the costs down, printing only the "good" ones. So it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.

I think we also have to discuss the traveling hunter/photographer, because most of us fit that description. The last time I traveled with film was in 2003. It was a big pain because I carried a large lead bag inside of my camera case. This set red flags off in Paris and in Russia. I was given a careful search in both places, and they tested my camera bag in Paris for explosive residue. The size of the lead bag limits the amount of film that is available, so this is a problem to someone who likes to take as many photos as I do.
I think it's much easier to take a wallet full of memory cards than it is a lead bag full of film. Getting searched in a foreign country is not a lot of fun. I'm not even sure if they allow hand inspection of film anymore?
Yes, digital photography is expensive. But, in the grand scheme of international travel it's not that bad. I could take my Hasselblad or Bronica with four or five film backs squeezed into that lead bag and have a few dozen wonderful pictures of my trip that I could blow up to monstrous size. I do have the equipment and knowledge to do that.
Or, I could take my digital SLRs and have hundreds of pictures that will make great enlargements up to 16X20. I think I'll pick the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
WPN,

The D200 looks very nice and quite capable. The price is not bad either. Thanks for the info.

Woody

Check out this lens, too. A real do it all lens.

Nikon DX VR 18-200 mm F3.5-5.6G Zoom

Lens review

Well, film cameras are pretty much a thing of the past. I still have a Nikon F3 with lenses, motor drive, and flash. But the last time I used it was about a year ago. I started using a Canon Rebel XT, and haven't touched the F3 since. This is the first picture I took with my XT; not a masterpiece, mind you, but not bad for a beginner. The camera was set on full auto because I didn't know how to take pictures with it:



Professional photographers are switching to digital. Macro photography is pretty much done with digital cameras nowadays, and so sports photography. Digital in sports is so handy, because the new digital cameras not only allow you to scan a moving toward you/away from you subject such as a horse, car, etc., but also maintains the subject in focus. On top of that, it allows you to take a burst of photos, all within focus.

Hello the campfire:
I hope that you will foregive a newcomer the photography forum. I have posted several times on the other forums.

I just about gave up on photography several years ago. My beutiful daughter in law has a great eye for childrens photography, but has never used "good" equipment untill recently. She has asked me to critique her prints and it became apperant that she does not understand the basics shutter speed vs. appeture, focal length, dodging and burning, or grain. She uses a Minolta digital and a Minolta 35mm that use the same lenes, and are auto focus ect. I have gotten her into B/W and print tinting. We are setting up a film lab to print and develop. She even wants to learn to use my 3x5 amnd 5x7 view camers. It is a lot of fum, and I am glad to be back into it.
I may be an old foggey, but I can not do much with a digital except point and shoot, which is great, but sometimes stepping back to a simpler time gives a greater sense of satisfaction.

Judge Sharpe

As someone who makes his living from his photography I would like to add a few things.
The main advantage to digital is it permits a person to take more photos and it allows more experimenting. When using film a person is always thinking of the costs involved for the film and the processing. With digital, that expense is gone and allows more "freedom" to play. Nothing can take the place of good photography techniques however allowing the freedom to explore can capture more of those "once in a life time" exposures.
I do not think digital is significantly less expensive than film in the long run however. Add the cost of the bodies (my D30 cost $1,250), extra batteries and lots of memory cards, portable hard drives and or lap top to down load images to, software, etc, well, you get the "picture".
A good digital body running about 8 megapixel is certaintly the equal or better than 35mm film. The only battle left to solve is to get a good digital to operate under very low light for night time shots and further noise reduction. I think in the future the megapixel wars will stop at about 16. This is based upon my printing service telling me they are seeing deminishing returns at anything above 16. They couldnt explain it, just said the images failed to look any better.
As far as lenses go stay with either Canon L series if you are a Canon user (look at all those white lense during sport events) or Nikon top of the line optics if you are a Nikon user. I tried many different Tamron and Sigma's over the years and could always tell the loss of quality compared to the Canon L series.
Happy shooting!