my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Nikon will stop making most film cameras (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Nikon will stop making most film cameras Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 01-19-2006 01:16 PM                        "Supposed" is the key word there. I just read a new study that indicates many of the cheap CD-R blanks being sold everywhere these days are lasting only two to five years due to dye fading issues. So backing up such discs is already a concern. I had all of my old Las Vegas showroom audio tapes mastered onto CD-R a few years ago. So far, they all still play but I am going to copy these "old" discs (seven years) to new ones soon. The original cassettes still play just fine even after 29 years, though one of them is beginning to show some dropouts due to oxide shedding.  |  IP: Logged Phil Blake Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 558 From: esperance western australia Registered: Nov 2003 posted 01-19-2006 10:24 PM                        Supposed is definately the key word ! My super 8 "Chaplin films have retained better quality than some VHS movies I bought some 20 years ago. Only yesterday I made a music CD , it played only once and would not play again , after inspecting I found the all the recorded data on the disc had gone! I guess all new tech stuff is superiour in some ways but , not as reliable or lasting , just look at todays cars, power tools, white goods, underwear, none of it built to last, so data storage is also on that list  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 01-20-2006 04:18 AM                        Slattery et al., 'Stability Comparison of Recordable Optical Discs: A Study of Error Rates in Harsh Conditions'  |  IP: Logged Stephen Brown Film Handler Posts: 91 From: Newcastle, NSW, Australia Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-20-2006 04:23 AM                     quote: Brad Miller Get with the program boys and get a Nikon D-100 like I have. It's quite an amazing camera and it's digital too! That of course means far superior photographs than is possible with conventional analog film which as we all know gets scratched and dirty. Seriously though, the images off of it are quite often BETTER than 35mm film. You should try the D200 then.....very nice camera.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-21-2006 11:51 PM                        I started using Nikon cameras in the late fifties with the last of their range finder cameras, the SP. When Nikon introduced their first SLR, the F model, I was one of the first to get one and used it until the next model, the F2 was introduced and kept up with every model up to the F4 and finally settled using the F100. When I started to use digital cameras for my professional work, I went with the Fuji S1 which had a cheap Nikon body with excellent Fuji electroinics. The camera served me very well until I replaced it a year ago with the Nikon D70. The Nikon like the Fuji is a 6 megapixel. camera but it has more features than the S1 and I am getting excellent results with it. I am planning to get the new D200 in about three months and use the D70 as a backup. I had a hard time getting accustomed shooting in digital in the beginning and preferred film but after I got accustomed to the new format, I wish digital photography was available very early in my photography career. The money I have saved not having to buy film and the cost of processing and printing turned out to be a very substantial amount. I have also saved a lot of money producing finished prints for my clients after I had retouched the images with Photoshop. I love digital! -Claude  |  IP: Logged Sean R. Custer Film Handler Posts: 35 From: San Francisco, CA, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 01-22-2006 01:32 AM                        Nikon shot itself in the foot with the Nikon F in the first place. I have 3 bodies from 1966-73, only one with a meter (very accurate for slides) and only one has needed mechanical shutter service in its lifetime. Using lenses from the late 70's and 80's with multi-coating, extremely consistent exposures and color rendering are easily acheivable. Therse are extrodinarily reliable and sturdy machines. The lens designs for the fixed focal lengths, even the modern autofocus lenses, date from the 1950's rangefinder 'S' line. You could happily use the 1959 105mm f/2.5 on a D100 set on manual and get a fine and fast photo. Their original line of mechanical cameras are in danger of outlasting their medium. The shame is, you could scan a 35mm frame and get a digital image, but then spend all day in photoshop trying to duplicate if not simulate the inherent qualities right there in the film itself. It's sad to see this brand abandoning it's reputation for such a transient technology. A digital image cannot posses the subtle nuances between camera makes and lens designs which are readily apparent in an image made with an old Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, etc. No matter how many pixels and color gamuts they pump in to it. But they make a picture, and they sell. And they do both very fast. My solution to the digital dillema: buy a 35mm scanner and an old 4x5" camera, and brush up on some chemistry. -SRC  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 01-22-2006 05:42 AM                        Which is effectively what I've done - I use a Nikon F75 SLR, which I got at an amazing discount when a chain of high street electronics stores decided to discontinue film cameras last summer. This is firstly, I guess, because I'm a bit of a geek: I enjoy the technical challenge of judging the aperture, exposure length, depth of field etc. etc., and choosing different films with different characteristics for different subjects. The second reason is long-term preservation. The digital camera wielding public haven't yet cottoned on to long-term data storage issues to the point of their being discussed in the non-specialist media: probably because digital cameras haven't been in mass circulation long enough for people to lose their wedding or christening photos when an HDD crashes or a CD-R decomposes. Wilhelm & Brower made the point in The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs that dye fading first came to public attention not because of Martin Scorsese or any other luminaries of the motion picture industry, but when thousands of families started taking their wedding photos back to the photographer's studio 10-15 years later and asking why they were going pink. I can see something similar happening in this case: in around 2010-15 the first wave of consumers will try to read 15 year-old CDs with photos on them and discover that oil-based ink has knackered them, or that the cyanine dye has faded, or some other reason why they can't read them, and that's when you'll start seeing feature articles about data longevity in the Sunday papers. With a film negative or reversal elements stored in strips in acid free paper sleeves in a reasonably cool and dry environment, I know that I've got about the best preservation option that is currently available. The scanner means that I only have to develop the film - something which can be done using a changing bag in the kitchen, with no need for a darkroom - and can then produce all sorts of digital versions, from small JPEGs for emailing to 10mb uncompressed TIFs for printing.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-22-2006 08:57 AM                     I still use my 4X5 quite a bit but there are many things around the areas I travel to justify its use. My scanner will do 4X5 and does an ok job but the best way to have them scanned is still on the drum scanner down at the Lab where I have them processed. The drawback is that a fully scanned 4X5 chrome is going to yield 100 mb plus of data and they charge by the mb for the scan!!  |  IP: Logged Sean R. Custer Film Handler Posts: 35 From: San Francisco, CA, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 01-22-2006 03:07 PM                        Mark, If you enjoy that set-up, you should look into using Printing-Out-Paper for contact printing. Its tonality and resolution really blow away silver gelatain enlargements or contact prints. But, yeah, if you want to go really large either drag around an 8x10" camera or drum scan. P.O.P is sensitive only to ultraviolet and develops in distilled water. For permanance, you use a two-bath toner. The developing stage can be done under fairly bright tungsten light, and it's all portable and non-toxic. If interested the breakdown on the history, instructions, chemistry and so on of P.O.P can be found here: Roger Vail's alternative process pages cheers, -Sean  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-22-2006 03:14 PM                     Thanks for that link Sean! Very interesting process. I've been out of B&W for many years now, mainly color out here due to the scenic stuff thats available and the sometimes incredible sunsets. I did in fact shoot some 4X5 B&W that day at Bryce Canyon. Always wanted to go the 8X10 route but I am leaning more towards a 6X17 format camera. Its alot more practical to take on a hike.....and the vistas available are incredible out here. Ya need two people on a hike just to do 4X5. Mark  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 01-22-2006 03:17 PM                     There's been a lot of renewed interest in the 'alternative processes' in recent years, including new developments to remove the need for some of the more toxic substances. I can think of two shops in London which sell materials. If you really want to go large format, try this for size: web page  |  IP: Logged Pete Naples Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1565 From: Dunfermline, Scotland Registered: Feb 2001 posted 01-22-2006 03:36 PM                     How well timed! I recently moved house, new place came with a cracking outbuilding, which with the help of some timber and a length of kitchen worktopm, is shaping up into a nice darkroom. It's been 10 or more years since I played with B&W, however I am so glad I re discovered it! Mark, glad to see I'm not the only 5x4 incher here! (That sounded dodgy!) On the subject of Nikon, I've had Nikon 35mm over the years, models F, F2 and FE. For manual focus I've settled back on a rather elderly but trusty Pentax SV and K1000 of all things, it just refuses to die. 120 I'm dusting off a YashicaMat 124G, and a Bronica. 5x4 is a battered old Sinar. A university pal of mine, now pro photographer, was using Nikon for years, has defected to Canon, apparently Nikon UK were slow and expensive for service on the digital SLR's, and there was the small matter of the viewfinder not showing full frame ( I thought we got away from that eons ago). Canon are supporting his kit, and some. He's not the only pro in the UK to make the jump, so I'm thinkign that Nikon have taken their eye off the ball somewhat.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.